A woman has received more than £76,000 compensation after she suffered psychiatric injuries due to stress at work.

The woman started working as an administrator for her employer in 2002. Within four years her role had increased and she had a number of responsibilities that were vital to the day to day running of the business.

She had a pre-existing condition which made her vulnerable to depressive episodes that could be brought on by stress. In 2008, her employers put her in charge of their redundancy programme but didn’t give her sufficient support and resources.

She became overwhelmed by the role. The sensitive nature of the work put a huge strain on her emotionally and she would regularly break down in tears at work. An independent management consultant advised the employers that the woman was carrying out seven roles for the company and needed help.

The company later failed a quality assessment and the assessor also told the employers that the woman needed support to fulfil her roles efficiently, and for the company to comply with the required standards. 

Eventually the stress became too much and the woman developed a major depressive disorder. She was signed off work with stress related illness and depression. She felt worthless and had very little energy.

Her mood became permanently low and she no longer took any substantial interest in activities that she had previously enjoyed.

She had to train for a new career as she couldn’t face working as an administrator again.

The woman sought compensation, saying that her employers had ignored her requests for support, even though it was obvious that she was struggling and that a psychiatric injury was possible.

She said that her major depressive disorder was a direct result of a breach of duty of care by her employers.

The company admitted liability and agreed to an out of court settlement of £76,843.

Please contact either Sue Ball or John Taylor if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of employment law.

Landlords need to ensure they comply with tougher new tenancy deposit rules which came into effect on 6th April

If they fail to do so, they could face fines and find it harder to evict tenants.

The new rules are part of the Localism Act, which redefines the way landlords should protect the deposits given to them by their tenants.

Tenancy deposit schemes were originally introduced in 2007. Under that system, landlords had to protect a tenant’s deposit with a registered scheme within 14 days of the tenancy start date.

If they failed to do so, they could be fined up to three times the amount of the deposit.

However, subsequent court cases watered down the effect of the regulations. It meant that if a tenant discovered that his deposit had not been placed with a scheme, the landlord could sometimes avoid penalties by rectifying the mistake before the court hearing took place.

The new rules take away that safety net. The landlord can no longer expect to escape punishment by complying retrospectively.

The tenant can bring a claim from day 31 onwards if the conditions have not been met so there is no time to waste.

Landlords should also realise that they can’t rely on Section 21 notices to evict tenants if they fail to comply with the tenancy deposit scheme requirements.

The one good piece of news for landlords is that they now have 30 days to protect a deposit for a tenancy begun after 6th April this year instead of just 14 days as required under the original system.

The deadline for compliance for tenancies begun before 6th April is 6th May. Landlords who fail to comply by that date run the risk of penalties and should act as quickly as possible to protect themselves.

Please contact our commercial property team if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of commercial property law.

Changes to employment tribunals designed to save businesses £50m a year and make it easier for them to take on staff have now come into effect.

The Government says it has streamlined the system to reduce some of the burden on employers and reduce the number of vexatious claims.

The main changes are:

• The qualifying period for claiming unfair dismissal rises from one to two years
• Judges will be able to sit alone in unfair dismissal cases
• Witness statements can be provided in writing as opposed to the current rules where a witness reads their own statement out aloud
• The maximum level for costs awarded to businesses winning a vexatious tribunal claim will rise from £10,000 to £20,000. Deposit orders required by claimants when a judge determines that part of a claim is unmerited will increase from £500 to £1,000.

The Government says it will also publish the average value of awards and the time taken to reach a hearing. This will give both parties a greater understanding of what to expect from the tribunal process.

Ministers say the changes will provide direct net savings to businesses of £10m a year as well as wider benefits to employers of more than £40m a year.

Business secretary Vince Cable said: “For too long now the system in place for employment tribunals has been a bloated and bureaucratic obstacle for employers and the taxpayer. For employers they were finding that weak and vexatious cases were too much of the norm, too easy to bring forward, while for the taxpayer they were proving ever more expensive to run.

“We have seen claims drop in the last year and we want to see this continue as we introduce alternative measures in the coming months helping both parties resolve workplace disputes.”

Please contact our employment team if you would like more information about the changes to the tribunal service, or any aspect of employment law. 

Verisona Commercial and Marine Teams are pleased to announce completion of a substantial acquisition for clients Mustang Marine (Wales) Ltd (“Mustang”), Commercial Shipbuilders based in Pembroke Dock, Pembrokeshire.

As a consequence, Mustang, an established boat builder and repairer of workboats, pilot boats, passenger and similar commercial vessels up to 40m in length, have merged their shipbuilding business  with the ship and repair division of Milford Haven Port Authority. The new business, Mustang Marine (Wales) Limited, has entered into a joint venture agreement with the Port Authority intended to provide a ‘One Stop Shop’ for commercial ship building and repair in South Wales, as well as giving the merged business access to larger shore based premises and slipways thus enabling them to continue to develop their products and services.  Verisona worked in conjunction with Mustang’s accountants Mazars.  The Port Authority’s team included Morgan Cole Solicitors Cardiff and Price Waterhouse Cooper accountants.

Kevin Lewis, one of the founders and MD of the company comments, “This is an exciting step forward.  In 2011 we announced the expansion of the current site, enabling us to seek new opportunities within the windfarm market whilst not disrupting the core business”.

In paying tribute to Verisona’s role Kevin commented “after a frantic few months with the team working in overdrive we have with your guiding hand and advice finally completed the deal”. 

Commercial team director Mike Dyer and Lawrence Furlong, corporate lawyer, headed up the lengthy negotiations.  Head of Marine, Tim Reynolds, who has acted for Mustang for some years, provided the specialist marine input, and Head of Employment,Sue Ball provided specialist employment advice.  The transaction involved a number of complex issues of law and the practical challenges of combining two working Shipyards were significant, but the clients much appreciated the team approach adopted by Verisona, which meant that at every stage of the transaction appropriate and specialised advice was on hand to bring this commercially sensitive and time critical transaction to a swift and mutually satisfactory conclusion.

All here at Verisona wish Mustang and its directors every success in this new venture. 

Meanwhile, international small craft commercial work is now an ever increasing part of Verisona’s case load, the Company having just completed the sale of a specialist inshore survey vessel to the Danish Shipping Line, Rohde-Nielsen in record time to enable the craft to be exported to South America.

Our work in this case is evidence that specialist provincial firms can provide equivalent expertise and quality of service to “golden circle” rivals at a fraction of the cost to the client.

If you would like more information please contact Mike Dyer, Verisona  on 023 9231 2054 or email mjd@verisona.com.  Mike  and Tim are available for interview.

As of 6th April 2012, last year’s budget announcement to introduce a reduced rate of Inheritance Tax for estates that support charitable giving has come into effect.

For deaths occurring after 6th April 2012, an estate which leaves at least 10% to charity will now benefit from a reduced rate of IHT of 36%. If an estate qualifies, the reduced rate is a reduction of 10% on the usual IHT rate of 40%. The reduced rate will apply where 10% or more of a deceased person’s taxable estate (after deducting exemptions reliefs and the nil rate band) is left to charity. The nil rate band is currently £325,000.

The implementation of the new reduced rate coincides with the Legacy10 campaign and is welcomed by the campaign’s supporters. The campaign has the aim of encouraging charitable giving in the UK. Surveys by Legacy10 found that currently only 7% of people leave a gift to charity in their Will. It is hoped that the new rules will increase this figure and boost help for charities.

The president of the Law Society, John Wooton is a supporter of the campaign. He has recently said that he hopes the changes will highlight to the public the benefits of having a Will and having one drawn up properly through a solicitor.

The changes emphasise the need for individuals to seek professional advice to ensure that their Wills achieve their intended purpose. Those who wish to take advantage of the new rate need to be properly advised to ensure that their Wills are drafted correctly and also so that they understand the impact on their other non-charity beneficiaries.

Please contact our probate team if you would like more information about Wills and Estate Planning.

Verisona is delighted to be continuing to support The Pompey Supporters’ Trust as they announce today details of their community share scheme.  Directors, Ian Peach and Michael Dyer have been providing assistance to the Trust since January as they fight to save the Club.

You can read the full announcement in The News here.

Any questions relating to the Scheme should be sent to info@pompeytrust.com.

After almost five years of pursuing the States of Jersey it has finally been announced today that 100 former care home residents will be able to make claims for compensation of up to £60,000 each.

The claims will range between £10,000 and £60,000 dependant on the severity of the abuse suffered by the victim.  Verisona’s Child Abuse team has been involved in representing 43 of the victims and, at long last, those who have suffered are  at least to receive some form of compensation from the States of Jersey as recognition of their failings.  This will by no means truly compensate the victims but Jersey’s Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst has stated “we as ministers feel this financial recompense is appropriate at this time”.

Charles Derham, Solicitor-Advocate of Verisona explained damages have been sought for the pain and suffering arising from the physical and sexual abuse sustained whilst the clients resided at Haut de la Garenne. Verisona has argued that the States of Jersey, as the employers, were legally responsible for the abuse committed by their staff, and today’s announcement will be seen as their acknowledgement of this.

For further information on the above press release please contact Jenni Bowden-Smith on 023 9244 6915.

The government has promised to double funding for research into dementia. The Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that spending on research will increase from £26.6 million in 2010 to £66 million by 2015 in the hope that the UK will in the future be at the forefront in dealing with dementia research, care, and treatment.

The announcement is ahead of Dementia Awareness Week which starts on 26th May 2012 and comes as the Alzheimer’s Society launches their report ‘Dementia 2012: a national challenge’. The report finds that ¾ of people in the UK feel that our society is not sufficiently equipped to tackle dementia.

At the launch of Dementia 2012 the Prime Minister pledged to change this statistic by increasing research, looking at the quality of care given to sufferers and also by boosting awareness.

There are currently approximately 800,000 people in the UK suffering with dementia. This figure is expected to increase to 1,000,000 in the next decade. An estimated 670,000 family members and friends are devoting their time to caring for those affected. The report states that 48% of sufferers sadly feel that they are a burden on family members.

This serves to highlight the need for those recently diagnosed with dementia to ensure that they have their affairs in order for the event that they may become unable or lack the mental capacity to deal with their affairs for themselves.

Dementia sufferers should give some serious thought to creating a Lasting Power of Attorney authorising those that they trust to make decisions on their behalf and to act in their best interests.  

There are two different types of Lasting Powers of Attorney. A Property and Financial Affairs LPA allows your attorneys to deal with matters such as operating your bank accounts, paying your bills, collecting your entitlement to income and/or benefits and even selling your house. A Health and Personal Welfare LPA allows your attorneys to make decisions regarding where you live, medical treatment and can even give your attorneys the authority to consent or refuse to life sustaining treatment if you so wish.

A Lasting Power of Attorney can only be created whilst the Donor (the person giving the Lasting Power of Attorney) is deemed to have the mental capacity to create a LPA. It is therefore vital to seek advice as soon as possible.

If you do not have an LPA in place and you lose capacity, then it may be necessary for a family member or other appropriate person to apply to the Court of Protection to be appointed as deputy to make decisions on your behalf. Applying to be a deputy can be very time consuming and expensive and so should be avoided by creating an LPA whilst the donor has capacity if possible.

Please contact us if you would like more information about Lasting Powers of Attorney or deputyships.

Late payment of invoices has become so serious that the Government has set up a working group to help tackle the problem.

Ministers also want businesses to sign up to its Prompt Payment Code, which already represents about 60% of the supply chain value in the UK.

The Code is designed to encourage best practice and the Government is trying to set an example by pledging to pay 80% of invoices within five days.

These are welcome developments but whatever improvements can be made by central Government, firms will still have to police late payments themselves and take action when necessary.

Thankfully, there are lots of ways to deal with late payment problems if firms are prepared to exercise their legal rights.

It’s even possible to turn credit control into a profit making exercise because under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, firms are allowed to charge interest on overdue invoices.

The extra money recovered in this way is often more than enough to cover the cost of pursuing the debt.

The first step may be to simply ask your solicitor to draft a letter requesting payment and outlining what action may be taken if the debt is not settled.

Most people will pay up immediately when they see you are serious about exercising your rights, but for more hardened cases, it may be necessary to issue a ‘court order for questioning’ against the company secretary.

This is usually enough to prompt most late payers into action but for those who still refuse to budge, there are various legal options available.

Firms should also be aware that they are protected from unilateral changes to contract terms such as when a customer decides that they are going to pay less than the amount agreed.

The supplier is entitled to insist on sticking to the original terms.

If one of your business customers does decide to pay less than agreed then you will almost certainly be able to claim interest on the outstanding amount and impose a late penalty charge under the Paymentof Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.

Late payers put suppliers in a difficult situation and the dilemma is often one of balancing the need to be paid on time with the need to maintain a good relationship with an important customer, but for those who feel the time has come to act, the law offers a considerable level of protection.

Please contact us if you would like more information about debt collection and credit control.

Timing can be crucial when taking legal action, as one company recently found to its cost.

The company had hired a firm of builders to carry out some roofing and cladding works at a new factory.

A contract was agreed which stated that in the event of a dispute, no action could be taken after the expiry of a one-year period from when the builders last performed any services.

The work was completed by February 2009.

In July 2009, the factory owners complained of poor workmanship.  In February 2010, the builders agreed to visit the site to assess what needed to be done and then carry out any work that was required.

The site inspection took place in March 2010.

However, the offer to carry out remedial work was not accepted and the builders were barred from the site. In December 2010, the factory owners began proceedings for damages for breach of contract.

The builders denied their work was below standard but added that in any case, it was more than a year since the contract had been completed and so the factory owners had left it too late to begin proceedings.

The owners argued that the site visit in March 2010 amounted to a performance of service and so they were entitled to take action.

The court, however, ruled in favour of the builders. It held that the site inspection was not a performance of service but merely part of negotiations designed to reach a settlement and avoid litigation.

The factory owners had therefore left it too late to bring their case.

Please contact our Commercial Team for more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of contract law. 

The Wills and Probate Team at Verisona have supported the Leprosy Mission for many years. 

In 2012 we will be further endorsing our support by offering a 10% discount to all supporters of the Leprosy Mission.

A voucher will be circulated to all supporters in the May update.  If you are in receipt of a voucher and would like to talk to us about making your will our Probate Team would be only too pleased to assist.

You can learn more about the Mission and their great work by clicking here

A 38-year-old cyclist has been awarded £90,000 compensation after suffering multiple injuries when he was hit by a lorry.

He had been riding to work along a cycle lane when he approached a traffic intersection. There was a lorry in front of him. The traffic lights were red as he approached the junction so he slowed down, but as he got closer they turned to green.

The cyclist said the lorry driver didn’t indicate that he was going to turn so the cyclist assumed that he was going to continue straight on. The cyclist went along the inside of the lorry. When the lights turned green the lorry turned and they collided.

The cyclist was knocked off his bike. The lorry continued to turn and ran over the cyclist’s stomach. The cyclist suffered a crushed lung and several broken bones. He also had post traumatic stress disorder and morbid depression. 

He brought an action against the lorry driver and the lorry driver’s employers. He claimed that the driver had been negligent in failing to indicate, failing to see him, failing to use his mirrors, colliding with him and failing to take reasonable care of other road users.

The driver did not accept liability. He said that he had indicated and claimed that the cyclist should share the blame because he should have remained behind the lorry rather than cycled alongside it.

Both sides had witnesses to support their version of events. One road user said the driver had indicated while another said he had not.

The case was settled out of court and the cyclist received £90,000 to cover pain, suffering and loss of amenity, as well as loss of past and future earnings.

Please contact our Personal Injury Team if you would like more information about making a claim.