Anthony Haycroft of Serjeants’ Inn Chambers has represented a £4m turnover construction company at Cambridge Crown Court for sentence on a case brought by the Health & Safety Executive.

An employee had driven a 1 tonne dumper truck with no training nor instruction and turned it over fracturing his leg. The company pleaded guilty to two health and safety offences in the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates refused to sentence the company because they considered their sentencing powers of up to a maximum of £40,000 were inadequate. Accordingly the Magistrates sent the matter to the Crown Court for sentence where an unlimited fine may be imposed.

The HSE argued this was a case of high culpability with a risk of death. This gave a starting point for a fine of £250,000 under the February 2016 Sentencing Council Guidelines on Health and Safety Offences. Anthony Haycroft persuaded HHJ Hawksworth that this was in fact a medium category case with a starting point of £54,000 for a single offence. The Court was then further persuaded to reduce the fine due to various mitigating factors and also to impose a single fine and not two separate fines.

The Court imposed a fine of £40,000 in total for both offences plus costs.

Anthony Haycroft was instructed by Laura Page of LHS Solicitors LLP.

Nabarro has hired the managing partner of Gadens’ Singapore office, Marc Rathbone, in a bid to strengthen its projects practice in Asia.

His exit comes just months after Gadens revealed it would merge with Dentons following a partner vote late last year. Gadens is understood to have closed its Singapore office in the wake of the tie-up.

Rathbone founded Gadens’ Singapore office in 2013, joining the firm from Clifford Chance. The hire reunites him with Adrian Wong, also a partner in Nabarro’s projects team, who joined from Clifford Chance in 2014.

Rathbone’s appointment is the second lateral partner hire for Nabarro in Singapore this year following the firm taking funds and corporate partner Matthew Nortcliff from Hogan Lovells in February.

Nabarro has made 10 lateral hires so far this year, including Penningtons Manches head of IT and outsourcing Sam De Silva in London, who joined as a technology partner in April, and Fasken Martineau disputes partners Chris Gooding and Sukhi Kaler, who have also joined Nabarro’s London office.

Toronto-headquartered Fasken Martineau revealed it would drastically reduce its London headcount last autumn.

Rathbone’s own practice includes advising clients on power, gas, transport and waste management projects, as well as on transactions in oil and gas, mining, minerals and petrochemicals. At Nabarro he will advise clients across the Asia-Pacific region.

Singapore managing partner Steven Lim said: “Infrastructure, construction and energy are important components of our practice in Singapore. Marc’s arrival strengthens our transactional team and his experience and profile will be invaluable, particularly in the energy and oil and gas space.

“When I arrived as managing partner last year I set out to grow a practice for Nabarro in Singapore that complements the firm’s strengths in London and adds to its international reach through the hubs of London, Dubai and Singapore.

“We now have a strong, balanced offering in Singapore covering disputes, international arbitration, projects, infrastructure, construction and energy, inbound real estate into London, and funds. This gives us a good platform for further growth,” he added.

Lim joined Nabarro from Clyde & Co in May 2015.

Career development and diversity were at the top of the agenda on day two of The Lawyer‘s General Counsel Strategy Summit in Portugal today.

In a panel session looking at how to motivate your team and build career paths, general counsel spoke about their own experiences and how they structured their teams to encourage talent retention.

“Sometimes you have to train up and train out,” said one panellist, pointing out that in smaller teams there is not always the chance to develop career paths for in-housers.

For larger teams, delegates agreed that having formal structures and tiers of job titles in place was a good way to encourage their teams and recognise performance through promotion.

But there was an acknowledgement that pay was a challenge for in-house teams. Delegates related tales of losing key employees to other career opportunities because they could not pay in-house lawyers competitive salaries.

“When I lose a person from my team, it’s always about money,” said one panellist.

But being flexible with work patterns and giving team members opportunities helped retain talented staff, said delegates.

“If people know you’re fighting for them and doing what you can that goes a long way towards motivating your team,” added one.

The summit also heard from Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) chief executive Paul Philip, who spoke about the way the profession has developed and the growth of the in-house community.

The event concluded with a lively debate about diversity and how general counsel can encourage diversity of all types within their teams. One delegate revealed he had asked a female member of his team to mentor him to change his own behaviour, to a round of enthusiastic applause from the audience.

However, despite widespread adoption of flexible working practices among delegates, there was an acknowledgement that at the senior level in-house women and minority groups were still under-represented.

Last year Taylor Wessing fought off stiff competition to win the award for Real Estate Team of the Year at The Lawyer Awards, in association with Travelers. This year our external panel of judges, currently in the process of reviewing the submissions, has narrowed the potential winners for this category down to a shortlist of seven firms.

The final shortlist comprises Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP), Burges Salmon, Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), Hogan Lovells, King & Wood Mallesons (KWM), Mayer Brown and Nabarro. Here, we take a first look at the seven shortlisted firms’ submissions.

Berwin Leighton Paisner

BLP has been nominated for its work advising The Croydon Partnership on the £1bn redevelopment of the Whitgift shopping centre and the surrounding area. The partnership is a joint ­venture between Westfield and property developer Hammerson.

The scheme involves the redevelopment of the Whitgift centre into a mixed-use scheme. The development will include 136,500sq m of retail space, 16,400sq m of leisure facilities and between 400 and 600 new homes.

BLP has advised the partnership on all planning and compulsory purchase order (CPO) matters since 2012.

The real estate team had its hands full defending the development plans, which led to a judicial review of the planning permission being successfully dismissed in the High Court in 2014. A legal challenge against the CPO was also successfully defended.

Following a six-week inquiry the CPO was agreed in September 2015.

Head of planning Tim Hellier led the team involved on The Croydon Partnership, while the day-to-day management was handled by associate director Paul Grace.

Burges Salmon

The team at Burges Salmon made it onto the shortlist for its work on the £271m disposal of a portfolio of UK student accommodation properties for Ahli United Bank’s (AUB) student accommodation fund.

Although the deal was not the largest in terms of pure value to take place last year, the team was forced to overcome a number of major technical hurdles in order to secure it. One such issue was ensuring the anonymity of its Middle Eastern investor during the sale of the Guernsey-based property fund. For real estate partner Richard Read and his team this posed a number of problems regarding the seller’s warranties, which could not be valued due to its anonymity.

“Here you had a seller that was absolutely insistent on its anonymity and so it simply could not give warranties as it risked having its identification exposed,” says Read.

“So at the very outset the idea was floated and agreed upon that a warranties and insurance (W&I) policy would be negotiated and provided by an insurer in lieu of warranties by a seller.”

Although W&I policies are now more commonplace this was one of the first real estate deals to have incorporated one and has set a precedent for them to be used more widely.

The technicalities were also increased due to the deal requiring Sharia-compliant financing. This meant that the financing structure had to be firstly created and then collapsed during the sale structure; this needed careful project management to avoid the deal falling through.

Herbert Smith Freehills

The highlight of the year for Herbert Smith Freehills’ real estate team was advising London & Continental Railways (LCR) on the £371m sale of its interest in the King’s Cross Central Partnership.

The partnership is responsible for the development of King’s Cross Central, the 67-acre site between King’s Cross and St Pancras stations. LCR is a Government-owned subsidiary that sold its interest in the partnership to Australia’s largest pension fund AustralianSuper.

“King’s Cross is a great example of a world-class regeneration project in the centre of London and we’re very proud to have worked on it since the mid-1990s”

Real estate partner Julian Pollock and corporate real estate associate Paul Chases led the team. For HSF the deal was particularly important as it marked the culmination of two decades of advising LCR. This included acquiring the site for the Department of Transport and advising on the construction of a rail link from the Channel Tunnel exit to St Pancras station.

“King’s Cross is a great example of a world-class regeneration project in the centre of London and we’re very proud to have worked on it since the mid-1990s,” says Pollock. “We’ve seen it grow from one of the worst parts of London to a vibrant neighbourhood.”

The deal was technically innovative as the team had to find a way of mitigating the Government’s legacy liabilities.

Hogan Lovells

Hogan Lovells advised the BBC on the sale and subletting of BBC Media Village in West London. The team described the work as “the most complex single-site property deal ever undertaken by the firm”.

The sale of the property was part of cost-cutting measures introduced by the BBC after the broadcaster found it had a high level of unused office space.

The sale of Media Village reduced vacant office space from 9.3 per cent to 2.6 per cent. The deal was valued at £87m and allowed the broadcaster to make £33m in annual savings.

Real estate partner Oliver Chamberlain led Hogan Lovells’ team. He was assisted by partner Dion Panambalana and senior associates Gerard Tomnay and Paul Edwards.

Media Village, or White City Place as it is now known, is vital to the UK’s critical broadcasting infrastructure, meaning that the underlease agreement was fundamental to the deal.

“A lot of the terrestrial TV programmes for the UK pass through a building or buildings at Media Village,” says Chamberlain. “It was very important for the BBC that they not only had guaranteed occupation for the next 20 years but also that they had broadcast continuity for 20 years.

“This, coupled with the fact that it is going to be a development site, because Stanhope and Mitsui Fudosan are going to be developing about 800,000sq ft of office accommodation, meant that we had to make sure that neither the broadcast continuity nor the power supply would be threatened in any way.”

King & Wood Mallesons

KWM has been shortlisted for its work as principle legal adviser to British Land on the redevelopment of 5 Broadgate. The 700,000sq ft office is the largest single office letting in the City and will become the London headquarters of UBS upon its completion.

During the development period private equity house Blackstone decided to sell its 50 per cent interest in Broadgate. This led to KWM creating a parallel joint venture between British Land and Blackstone to protect the interest of Singaporean sovereign fund GIC from the risks of the development. This meant that two joint ventures had to run together while the redevelopment was taking place.

In order to make sure that the different teams working on the deal operated effectively, a separate website was developed to allow each party to access information and update developments in real time.

Real estate partner Darren Rogers and corporate partner Michael Goldberg led KWM’s legal team. They were assisted by real estate partner Patrick Williams, tax partner Heather Corben, and corporate partner Delphine Currie.

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown’s real estate team has been shortlisted for a number of deals that it has carried out across the year.

These include advising The Silvertown Partnership on the £3.5bn redevelopment of Silvertown Quays in London’s Docklands, advising Crosstree Real Estate on its 50/50 joint venture with The O2 arena owner AEG, and acting for Lipton Rogers Developments on the funding for the development of 22 Bishopsgate.

The firm also advised Canadian property group Brookfield on the acquisition of Center Parcs’ five holiday villages from Blackstone Group. The deal was the first instance of Brookfield investing in a UK leisure industry.

“This is much more about business planning over the next two to three years and making sure the asset works for that”

Jeremy Clay acted as the lead partner during the deal and was assisted by corporate partners Jeremy Kenly and Kate Ball-Dodd, construction partner Tim Nosworthy, planning and environment partner Michael Hutchinson, and tax partner Sandy Bhogal.

After Blackstone considered floating the business it was eventually sold for £2bn to Brookfield following a competitive auction process. For Clay’s team much of the work involved understanding how the assets and the business would work with Brookfield’s business strategy.

“What you’re really looking for is an alignment between what you’re buying and the client’s business plan,” says Clay. “So you have to understand the plan and then you have to make sure that the real estate works with that plan.

“This is much more about business planning over the next two to three years and making sure the asset works for that.”

Nabarro

Nabarro’s real estate team was involved in the two of the market’s largest pre-let agreements, which both took place at The International Quarter (TIQ) in Stratford.

With projects valued at £2bn and planning consent for 4 million square feet of offices, TIQ is one of the largest Olympic legacy development projects underway.

Nabarro acted for Lendlease during the deals that saw the Financial Conduct Authority and Transport for London (TfL) agree to take 425,000sq ft and 265,000sq ft of office space in the quarter respectively.

“The FCA moving from its headquarters to a new area of London is a huge leap of faith in Stratford”

Head of real estate and newly appointed firm-wide senior partner Ciaran Carvalho led the team on the deals.

His team included real estate partners Nicholas Vergette and Chris Oakley, construction partner Alistair McGrigor, tax partner Kirsten Prichard Jones, corporate partner Darren Stolzenberg and infrastructure partner James Snape.

For Carvalho, the deals provided a chance to be part of the creation of a major new London district. “These are really important occupiers and anchor tenants that establish the development,” says Carvalho.

“Once people see things coming out of the ground, the scale of these buildings and lots of people onsite, it will really make a difference to the future of Stratford.

“The FCA has been in Canary Wharf for 20 years – the regulator being able to move from its headquarters to a new area of London represents a huge leap of faith in Stratford.”

There is an increasing amount of discussion about agile working in the legal market recently with signs that there has also been some tangible change.

While most firms are only starting on the journey to agile working – just letting your staff work from home one day a week does not make a firm agile – others (notably CMS) are creating a truly mobile working environment inside the office as well as outside. The past few weeks alone have seen a number of firms including Olswang, Mayer Brown and Dentons confirm they are launching agile working initiatives while Clifford Chance, Linklaters and Herbert Smith Freehills all revealed that they had made agile working available to partners last year.

Now a new trend is emerging that could be seen as the next logical step for firms looking for an agile, mobile and 21st-century workforce. Co-working, where disparate businesses and organisations share the same collaborative and open working space, is already big news in sectors outside legal.

The idea was originally led by start-ups, entrepreneurs and freelance workers who were attracted by the opportunity to rent a single desk or group of desks in a shared space. It is the ultimate in a non-corporate, collaborative work space.

Now, according to real estate consultancy JLL, which has just produced a report into co-working, a new ecosystem is emerging that encourages innovation, accesses disruptive energy and offers larger corporates – and major law firms – a direct link to the “sharing economy”.

Pushing the boundaries

In particular this type of shared space is potentially appealing to the younger generation, the millennials. For lawyers active in the knowledge-based industries in particular, co-working offers them the opportunity to mingle with potential future clients. In short this is a new phenomenon for the legal market, which is not just an issue firms are facing but also one that has the potential to offer tangible and practical benefits.

Indeed, another benefit of co-working is that if it takes hold and firms needs to scale up quickly, it is likely that firms will go into such a space.

According to Harvard Business Review, by 2025 around 40 per cent of US work space will be contracted with staff working in a project-based environment. This context, which is pushing the boundaries of all businesses’ future real estate needs, also potentially signals the way forward for major law firms.

In short, the trend that was pioneered by start-ups is now increasingly being embraced by a growing number of businesses, large and small.

Collaborative environments

Dentons is one of the firms at the front end of this trend. In New York the firm’s lawyers are already co-working with specialist provider WeWork, putting them potentially in at the front of the queue in terms of acting for the next unicorn (a $1bn-plus privately owned business, generally a former tech start-up).

Last year WeWork opened the UK’s largest shared space in London with the capacity to house 3,000 members. Similar solutions are already being opened in other cities around the globe.

In Amsterdam, for example, companies such as Philips and IBM are utilising co-working space to encourage innovation alongside start-ups. Co-working business NUMA, which opened France’s first co-working space in 2008 and an entrepreneurial hub in 2011, is now working with 30 large companies and helping to accelerate a number of start-ups.

As JLL says in its report, titled ‘A new era of co-working’, the trend is centred on creating space “which supports collaboration, openness, knowledge sharing, innovation, and the user experience”.

Demand for co-working space has been driven by the growth of creative and tech industries as well as the changing nature of work, adds JLL. Mobile technologies and personal devices have made working remotely from a variety of locations much easier.

While this has fuelled the growth in home working, companies and their employees increasingly see the value of being part of a collaborative environment, something which is at the core of co-working.

The results of the latest Global Co-working Survey reveal that 61 per cent of co-working space providers are planning to expand their operations and almost 80 per cent expect the number of members to increase in 2016.

“With a growing number of companies looking to tap into these benefits, it is only a matter of time before co-working becomes an integral part of the corporate real estate toolkit,” says JLL.

The four co-working models

Four core models of co-working that are now emerging can be applied to organisations looking to exploit its benefits.

An internal innovation hub is typically created exclusively for employees within a company’s own office, providing flexible, creative space to suit a variety of work settings.

Internal co-working spaces are set up by organisations seeking to improve collaboration and knowledge sharing, encourage innovative thinking and inspire a cultural shift.

This model also enables companies to signal to the new generation of employees that they are open to more flexible forms of working.

Another option for companies seeking flexibility and ease of implementation is to purchase memberships in external co-working spaces. This allows companies to offer a variety of locations to their employees and accommodate any temporary increases in workforce.

External memberships also provide a range of work settings and help companies to tap into new networks and keep a pulse on market developments without any costly modifications to their existing real estate and potential disruption to the wider company culture.

Another option for organisations that wish to experiment with collaborative space is to work alongside a specialist provider to create a dedicated or ring-fenced external co-working area.

This model results in minimal disruption to the existing space and allows companies to test co-working with specific areas of the business before introducing more widespread change. It provides all the benefits of internal and external innovation and is associated with a lower risk of disruption.

In the fourth model companies create internal co-working space open to entrepreneurs and start-ups, often for free. Start-ups are usually selected via an application or interview process, but in return are provided with mentoring services. Building relationships in this way can help mature companies secure access to break-through technology or ideas at an early stage, while maintaining control over the space.

Barriers to co-working

Perhaps the greatest barrier to co-working is related to security.

For companies dealing with high volumes of confidential data, sharing space with external organisations or easing the rules for using personal devices can be potentially challenging.

Cyber security is a growing strategic challenge for organisations; effective co-working solutions need to help mitigate cyber security concerns.

Premises security can be another potential challenge. While co-working spaces are perhaps safer environments to leave equipment unattended than your typical coffee shop, companies still risk a loss of equipment.

Effective policy frameworks and procedures can help mitigate risks, while solutions such as internal collaboration space or innovation hubs substantially reduce external risks.

Privacy is another frequently cited barrier to co-working. Many companies fear a loss of intellectual property, ideas or other sensitive information. This concern can be amplified further by  the prospect of potentially sharing space with competitors.

Some element of private space or procedures around sensitive information sharing can help with risk mitigation. However, inevitably organisations will need to adapt existing processes to manage potential privacy risks associated with opening up their organisation to external co-working environments.

“Privacy is a frequently cited barrier to co-working”

Some organisations introduce co-working but selectively – just for certain individuals, groups of individuals or departments. But allowing selected groups to work in a more flexible setting, which is different to the rest of the organisation, may breed division or resentment among staff.

Organisations can also miss out on the opportunity to translate the benefits of co-working across wider areas of the business. While it may not be practical to extend co-working across the whole company, this needs to be carefully managed to avoid any risk of cultural clash.

Motivation can be a further barrier to the successful implementation of co-working. Companies need to be clear about their objectives and about what creates the most value for them. Co-working that is imposed from the top down without due consideration of the user or employee experience is unlikely to yield the benefits most companies are seeking.

By tailoring workplace solutions companies can limit their exposure to some of these barriers and achieve seamless integration of co-working into the established real estate strategy.

Creating value from co-working

Organisations that aspire to innovate cannot ignore co-working. Competition for talent is intensifying and the workplace is a critical tool to support recruitment and retention. Organisations need to embrace the new reality of employees’ expectations and technology-enabled ways of working and adapt their workplace strategies accordingly.

An innovative design, focused on flexibility and interaction in a well-connected location can boost employee engagement and attract talent. In this context, co-working can help companies appeal to different generations by providing a choice of different work settings.

This is not simply about creating another place to work. The experience itself is paramount to making co-working a success and should ultimately aim to satisfy an organisation’s wider business objectives.

Now that most of us have access to the same standard of technology, connectivity and IT security at home as we do in the office, that place you battle public transport to get to daily isn’t really necessary any more. Rather, there are many compelling reasons for renting an office and having your team visit it ­regularly.

Working in an office is more than a just quaint habit. It helps with fostering relationships, creating team spirit, learning from each other quickly, developing a sense of mission, and facilitates useful but incidental conversations that would not happen without others in earshot. The shared space helps to ensure that nuances and messages are not misconstrued, it’s a place for holding group meetings and ensuring your teams feel supported.

Furthermore, it makes sense for your office to be near where important and relevant things happen. Accordingly, the offices tend to be quite expensive – damn that law of supply and demand.

Also the office can be difficult to get to unless all who work there are either extremely wealthy, not fussy about how big their homes are or, preferably, both.

Where technology leads…

But just because technology permits something, it doesn’t make it a good idea; nuclear war being a case in point. Further, against a phalanx of ­reasons to operate in an office, there are just two to work remotely: first, efficiency – for which read ‘the ability to give a better and cheaper ­service to clients’, and second, quality of life for lawyers.

We could just chalk up a supplemental rule for our lawyers: work from the office unless for reasons of efficiency or your quality of life it benefits you or your clients for you to work remotely.  Great news: the application of the supplemental rule makes one of the problems with offices less acute – you need a smaller office. Everyone’s a winner, right?

Wrong. In other industries this might be the end of the matter but, like the General Synod, senior lawyers seem to take masochistic delight in taking dilemmas that others have settled and opportunities that others have exploited, and agonising over them.

Trust issues

Speaking to other GCs and partners, I find that remote working is still outright frowned upon in some cases, and in others, there are rigid rules being handed out to dictate how often staff can do it. Very few have done as we have done at Telefónica UK and trusted lawyers to come into the office to get the benefits from it, but then to work remotely entirely at their discretion in order to capture the efficiencies and the benefits of that.  We trust them to use technology to do a better job, and lead a more bearable life.

The main cause for concern I come across appears to be one of trust. Some legal leaders refuse to believe that their lawyers will work as hard/at all if they are out of sight and earshot.  After all, if lawyers are in the office, they can be seen and heard working hard can’t they? The corollary is that working at home is shirking at home.

“We should be trying to increase the benefits we get from our lawyers, not ensuring the continuation of detriments suffered”

This is nonsense. I don’t say this as a dewy-eyed type who only sees the good in other humans. Far from it, I readily see the bad. I say it first, because modern workplaces are full of opportunities for lawyers to avoid work.

Sadly there is no way to measure the beneficial impact of your lawyers at work other than by talking to them, their clients, and their colleagues, and this is the case whether they work remotely or sit a few feet from you.

If you have hired lawyers whose motives and sense of autonomy is so lacking that you need the security of seeing and hearing them in order to be sure you have your pound of flesh at the end of the working week, you have hired the wrong ­lawyers.

Pros and cons

Your lawyers’ contracts of employment should lead to benefits to you and to your clients in the form of a problem solved, or an hour billed, but they will also lead to the detriments suffered in the form of money or time spent commuting, and hours spent working that could otherwise have been spent elsewhere.

As leaders, we should be trying to increase the benefits we get from our lawyers, not ensuring the continuation of the detriments suffered. We should not require the pound of flesh for the hell of it.

Poland is at the heart of Central and Eastern Europe’s (CEE) legal market with an offering that has largely been built upon the country’s strong real estate sector, which is heavily focused on commercial properties such as warehouses, offices and shopping centres.

Poland has attracted international businesses wanting to set up shop in a country with low costs and low interest rates. International investment companies have also seen the value in Poland’s market, which has led to some of the CEE’s biggest real estate deals happening in the region over the last 12 months.

The popularity of Poland as an investment opportunity has not gone unnoticed by international law firms with the likes of Dentons, Greenberg Traurig, Hogan Lovells and Linklaters frequently cited as the biggest legal players in the Polish real estate market.

The domestic market is dominated by the ‘four eagles’: Kochański Zieba & Partners, Domanski Zakrzewski Palinka, Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak, and Wardynski & Partners. But with international firms continuing to strategically increase their presence in the domestic market can they continue to hold their place in the market?

The political landscape

In October Poland held its general elections and voted in the conservative Law and Justice party. The party made history by gaining a majority vote, meaning that for the first time since 1989 there is no left-wing party in Poland’s Parliament.

Due to the Law and Justice party’s Eurosceptic perception many people believed that the change in government would deter foreign investors from entering the country. At the same time many people expected a renewed focus on domestic businesses to come about. According to Greenberg Traurig real estate partner Radomił Charzyński these changes never manifested.

“The business community can be very sensitive. There were concerns that the rate of investments would slow down, but fortunately this didn’t happen,” says Charzyński.

“The real estate market has remained very stable over recent years”

“The business community does not perceive the political situation as critical and in terms of business activity nothing has changed significantly. We’re still worried about what will happen in the future but I am quite confident that Poland will continue to be a strong real estate market.”

The reason for this is that although the government has made a number of significant changes during its initial seven months in power, the real estate market has remained relatively untouched.

“The government has changed some policy concerning other industries,” says Kochański Zięba & Partners head of international and strategy Adam Piwakowski.

“For example in the energy sector, the government is looking at the renewable sector in terms of wind energy and now they are looking at coal. But the real estate market has remained very stable over recent years.”

Although many people believed that the Eurosceptic Government would help to promote the growth of domestic businesses, international investors were not deterred by the elections. Part of the reason for this is because many foreign businesses look at Poland not only as a jurisdiction in its own right but also as a gateway into the rest of the CEE.

International interest

Traditionally investment in Poland has hailed from Western countries such as Germany, the UK and the US but the scope of jurisdictions interested in Poland and CEE has increased.

“We’re seeing a lot of movement from new economies, such as South Africa,” says Piwakowski. “I’ve just been to Hong Kong to talk to potential Chinese investors and we’ve heard that Dubai and the Middle East are looking at the Polish market as well.”

This interest from foreign investors culminated in Poland’s biggest-ever real estate transaction, which saw South African-based Redefine Properties acquire Dutch property vehicle Echo Properties BV for €1.2bn (£944.6m) in 2016.

The vehicle contained a significant portfolio of prime Polish real estate assets, including the Galeria Echo shopping centre in Kielce. The deal was also the single biggest transaction of income generating real estate assets in CEE. As the parties involved hailed from a variety of different jurisdictions the deal obviously attracted the attention of a number of international firms.

“International Polish companies will go to international law firms: this is already the case”

Pinsent Masons advised Redefine on the deal with a team led by client partner William Oliver and head of corporate real estate Robert Moir. In South Africa Redefine was advised by Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr while Casper Haket provided advice in the Netherlands. Weil Gotshal & Manges advised Echo Investment.

Despite the many international elements of the deal Redefine still turned to local firm Kochański Zięba & Partners for advice on the Polish elements of the deal. The team included senior managing partner Rafal Zieba, head of real estate Kamil Osinski and head of international and strategy Adam Piwakowski.

The involvement of Kochański in the deal highlights the important role that domestic Polish firms still play in the market due to their close links with local businesses.

A changing legal market?

According to Piwakowski these relationships with local businesses will continue to develop as Polish companies themselves expand. Piwakowski expects this will allow domestic firms the chance to grow and increase their share of the market while international law firms will reduce their presence in Poland.

“Because we’re a relatively new legal market I don’t think it has completely settled down yet,” says Piwakowski. “Other jurisdictions have a magic circle and the big four and they’ve developed over the years. We haven’t reached that level yet but it’s coming to that point.

“When it does, you will see some of the international players moving away or reducing in size.”

Piwakowski’s prediction that international firms will become less active in the Polish market is based on the way he believes Polish clients will behave.

“Up until now it’s been a market that’s been very much based on international players but now Polish domestic companies and funds are getting stronger and much more westernised. They’re going outside of Poland and naturally their first choice will be Polish law firms. I think this balance will change in the near feature.”

From Piwakowski’s viewpoint the change in the market is already beginning to happen. Historically, between 70 and 80 per cent of Kochański’s clients were international companies but last year this changed with Polish businesses now making up 50 per cent of the firm’s client base as a result of these clients growing and the firm becoming more international.

Foreign firms

Despite claiming that the four eagles will become more prominent players in the real estate market, when asked to name the biggest players in the real estate sector Piwakowski still cites Dentons, Greenberg Traurig, Linklaters and Weil Gotshal. He does of course mention Kochański but describes it as the biggest of the Polish law firms.

This view is echoed by Charzyński who cites Dentons, Hogan Lovells and Linklaters as Greenberg’s main competitors.

“I wouldn’t mention domestic Polish firms: without being arrogant, we’re in a different league,” says Charzyński. “International players seldom go to Polish law firms but it may change.

“Right now I’m selling an office building, a transaction worth almost €200m, and on the other side is a Polish law firm but I wouldn’t say that they are our competition. Of course they advise on smaller deals and smaller transactions but they’re not our competition.”

Charzyński argues that the idea that the Polish legal market will undergo a rebalance with traditionally domestic firms carrying out more international work is mistaken. Instead he believes that as Polish businesses expand and engage in more cross-border work they will move to international law firms.

“International Polish companies will go to international law firms: this is already the case,” he adds. “We have Polish international players as our clients.

“We are of course a Polish law firm, we are Polish lawyers and we have Polish clients, even in the real estate sector. I don’t think that it will change tremendously in the next few years.”

Reducing costs

Although the real estate market is still dominated by international firms, Kochański is attempting to increase its offering to clients through the opening of a low-cost centre in Krakow. The office will carry out due diligence work across the firm’s real estate, infrastructure, construction and new technologies practices. Following the office move the aim is to grow the office to be home to around 100 lawyers.

“The intention will be to have partners and senior associates in Warsaw,” says Piwakowski, “and the junior associates in Krakow doing the daily tasks and the labour-intensive tasks so that we can pass on the savings to the client.”

The low-cost centre is admittedly based on the UK model, which has been carried out by firms such as Addleshaw Goddard, Berwin Leighton Paisner and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Manchester.

A similar strategy has also been carried out by Dentons in Warsaw. In November the firm announced that it was opening a back office centre in Warsaw as part of a wider plan to enable 24/7 support across its business. The office launched through a pilot scheme which saw Dentons transfer some of its administrative finance, HR, marketing and IT processed from Germany to the Warsaw office.

Kochański’s attempt to reduce costs in a similar fashion implemented by a growing number of UK firms could make it a more attractive offer for international businesses looking for Polish law firms with enhanced capabilities.

Law firm networks

As might be expected from a national law firm in Poland, Kochański relies on a network of best-friend firms for much of its international work. The firm recently adopted a strategy that saw it focus on nine key sectors and this in turn helped it decide which firms to align itself with.

As a result the firm now works with Nabarro for real estate work, Pinsent Masons for technology and construction work, and Slaughter and May for financial services work. Kochański also partners with Paul Hastings, Ropes & Gray and Mayer Brown for dealings with US clients.

The need for best-friend relationships is also a concern for international firms such as Greenberg that wish to increase the amount of work they do in CEE as a whole. Although Greenberg is happy to take advantage of Poland’s strong real estate market through its own office in Warsaw it does not want to set up shop in any other CEE country. Instead, the firm is attempting to establish a strategic alliance to enable it to tap into the local market in a way international firms cannot afford to do. One potential target is Kinstellar.

“Getting Polish firms to a place where they can dominate Poland’s all-important real estate market seems a long way off”

When Linklaters changed its CEE strategy the magic circle firm decided to pull out of the CEE market everywhere except Poland. The partners  affected by the new strategy formed Kinstellar.

“Kinstellar is present in the entire CEE market except for Poland, so actually it would fit together very well,” says Charzyński. “But they also have an alliance with Linklaters so this is quite difficult for us. We need to start with some sort of presence in these markets but we will not go there ourselves as Greenberg.”

In this regard it does not look like international firms are expecting to decrease their presence at all. Instead Warsaw is increasingly becoming a hub for firms wishing to cash in on opportunities both within Poland and elsewhere in the CEE.

Striking the balance

Getting Polish firms to a place where they can truly dominate Poland’s all-important real estate market seems a long way off. Piwakowski’s belief that as Polish companies become international they will turn to their domestic law firms may be true but it is difficult to understand why moving to one of the many international law firms would not be the better option.

On the other hand international firms such as Greenberg have no intention of reducing their operations in Warsaw. The thriving real estate market and the close links to other CEE countries is too tempting to leave. If anything, rumours that Osborne Clarke is looking to open its doors in Poland means that the four eagles will have a fight to retain their existing big ticket clients in a heavily lawyered market.

No-fault divorce, fraudulent non-disclosure and maintenance rulings are among the hot topics discussed by our experts

Q: What has been the most important case in the world of divorce law in the past 12 months and why?

Ros Bever, head of family law, Manchester, Irwin Mitchell: The cases of Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil were heard together by the Supreme Court last summer. In their judgment handed down last autumn the justices overturned previous rulings which found that the wives had to settle for less even though their husbands had deliberately concealed their true wealth.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, to secure an order to set aside a final order the applicant would have to discharge two tests. First, they would have to show that there had been non-disclosure, and second, that the non-disclosure was material so that had the court been in possession of the full facts when it made the order, it would have made a substantially different order.

“Cases confirmed the difference between innocent non-disclosure and fraudulent non-disclosure”

In Sharland and Gohil the Supreme Court made clear the correct approach and confirmed there was a difference between innocent non-disclosure and fraudulent non-disclosure. Broadly speaking, the test remains the same for the former. However, in respect of the latter, where fraud is demonstrated materiality will now be assumed and the burden switches to the respondent who must demonstrate that the court would have made the same order regardless of their deceit.

This judgment sends out the message that dishonesty will not be tolerated, and the duty to provide full and frank disclosure should not be ignored. Both Mrs Sharland and Mrs Gohil found themselves in an unfair situation where they were duped into accepting a smaller settlement than they may have been entitled to, and, quite rightly, that has now been held to be wrong.

At the heart of these cases is a simple message: if you want finality in your divorce settlement (whether you agree it or it is imposed by the court), don’t lie. There have been numerous applications made since the judgments in October 2015, although it remains the case that those seeking to set aside orders must take professional advice and give careful consideration to the merits of their potential case. While the judgments do not impose a time limit on seeking a set-aside order, it is likely that the case law will evolve to provide some guidance on this issue.

Suzanne Todd, partner, Withers: The Supreme Court judgments in Sharland and Gohil were undoubtedly the most significant. The justices’ examination of disclosure and fraud clarified the principles set out in this area. Failure to disclose significant assets in the divorce process has always been an abuse of the process and is now even more likely to lead to financial orders and settlements being overturned.

The thrust of the judgments also puts the burden of proof on the defendant to show that any historic settlement is fair and that knowledge of the undisclosed assets would have made no difference to the final outcome.

We have yet to see a flood of claimants asking to have their cases retried in the light of the decisions (as some commentators foresaw). Prediction of outcome in these cases is still some way off because there is no clear and consistent judicial guidance about how applications in cases such as these should be conducted to ensure success for litigants who feel that justice has not been done.

Barbara Reeves, partner, Mishcon de Reya: Although they generated a lot of press coverage, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sharland and Gohil came as rather less of a surprise to practitioners than had the decisions of the Court of Appeal (CoA) that the Supreme Court later reversed. Indeed, most lawyers would assume that fraudulent non-disclosure by one spouse would unravel a settlement agreed with the other.

“Lifetime maintenance orders for divorced mothers are becoming rarer than hen’s teeth”

So, in terms of its wider impact, Wright v Wright is arguably the more important case – albeit one with a barely perceptible ratio (it was, after all only a refusal of an application for permission to appeal).

However, the CoA’s pronouncement “that there is a general expectation in these courts that once a child is in year two most mothers can consider part-time work consistent with their obligation to their children” has been a complete game-changer. Lifetime maintenance orders for divorced mothers are becoming rarer than hen’s teeth.

Q: What changes to legislation, or proposed changes, have or will affect how you advise clients?

Todd: The most significant would be the introduction in England and Wales of ‘no-fault divorce’. Currently, couples have to be separated for two years before seeking a no-fault divorce, otherwise they have to rely on allegations of unreasonable behaviour or adultery.

Removing the requirement to apportion blame between couples would bring huge psychological benefits to the process of divorce and to the wider family. In many European countries couples can jointly petition the court for divorce and this removes much of the contention and ill-will which exists in divorce proceedings in England and Wales.

“No-fault divorce would bring huge psychological benefits to the process”

Such ill-will can be the cause of harmful consequences for the family in general and can adversely affect financial negotiations at a time when clients are being encouraged to agree matters rather than seeking redress from the court.

Reeves: The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 continues to have wide-ranging consequences. In over 40 per cent of cases in the family courts neither party has legal representation, which means that an already massively overburdened Court Service is grinding to a halt. The take-up of ‘compulsory’ mediation, which was introduced to reduce the amount of family litigation, is derisory.

Meanwhile, the MoJ [Ministry of Justice] is finding it harder and harder to recruit judges at all levels. This is leading to a two-tier family justice system: a slow and creaky public one for the less well-off and a privatised and completely confidential one for clients who can afford representation and the additional expense of innovative ADR [alternative dispute resolution] solutions. The advice to clients who fortunate enough to be able to afford it is pretty obvious.

In terms of family law reform that would be welcomed, there are now 3.2 million cohabiting couple families in the UK, an increase of almost 30 per cent in the past decade, accounting for 17 per cent of all family units in the UK. About 40 per cent of these couples still believe in the fallacy of common law marriage.

The failure of successive governments to introduce legislation providing even the most basic economic protection for these families is absolutely disgraceful.

Bever: Nuptial agreements are becoming more commonplace, but the courts will not always follow them. This provides a real problem for lawyers who, as a result, are not able to give clear, certain advice about their effect (and ensure their insurance premiums are up to date).

Thankfully, however, we are likely to see the evolution of nuptial agreements in the near future with the introduction of legislation bringing more certainty to the matter. Unfortunately, however, neither the coalition government nor the present one have allocated parliamentary time to consider the matter.

Qualifying nuptial agreements would give couples more autonomy and control, and make the financial outcome of separation more predictable, but only in cases where the needs of the parties and children are not in issue. Accordingly, the introduction of qualifying nuptial agreements will be of greater relevance to the wealthy where financial assets significantly exceed needs. For those cases, the Law Commission’s recommendations represent a welcome step towards greater autonomy and certainty for couples.

Those contemplating a nuptial agreement ought to consider the value of a more certain outcome: the costs of litigation versus the costs of entering into a properly drawn nuptial agreement. While the modest asset case might seem inappropriate for a pre-nuptial agreement, those are often the cases where litigation post separation has a significant impact on available resources.

Q: How could the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce legislation change the divorce law market?

Bever: Our divorce process continues to reflect a time in which divorce was a statistical anomaly and the exception to the marital rule, rather than the reality that is divorce is increasingly common.

Latest figures from the Office of National Statistics reveal that 42 per cent of marriages now end in divorce, and recent polling by Resolution found that a quarter of divorcing couples falsify blame on their divorce petition to complete the separation.

It cannot be right that at the end of a relationship, usually an emotionally draining time, couples can only move on with their lives if one of them blames the other. Doing so certainly does not promote amicable relations between the parties, which can have a negative impact on resolving the marital finances and, sometimes, children matters.

The introduction of no-fault divorce proceedings would allow couples whose marriage has come to end to move on with their lives and deal with the important issues relating to the finances and the children, without first having to engage in an unnecessary blame game which can often cause untold acrimony.

Reeves: I doubt Richard Bacon MP’s No-Fault Divorce Bill will herald – as he suggested – the end of “mud-slinging” following marital breakdown.

The reality is that in nearly all cases the divorce itself is a purely administrative process. To the extent that there is mud-slinging between a divorcing couple, often it takes place in the context of disputes about their money or their children ancillary to the divorce.

And since the introduction of no-fault won’t make it any easier for a couple to get divorced, I suspect the whole issue is of far more interest to politicians and family lawyers than it is to the general public.

Todd: The market would not change significantly for lawyers. In the real world it is the issues relating to finances and children that require specialist expertise and that lawyers pay the most attention to. These are the complex areas, and will remain so even if no-fault divorce is introduced.

However, we could expect to see more clients conducting DIY divorces because the introduction of no-fault divorce would make the process more simple and straightforward. It would also remove one of the hurdles which litigants in person have to overcome.

This, in turn, could lead to more clients opting for family arbitration and other forms of non-court dispute resolution to resolve financial and children issues.

Q: How have recent rulings on spousal maintenance changed public perception of the divorce courts?

Reeves: After many years of pretty one-sided media coverage it’s not surprising that the public generally perceives that the Family Courts favour wives over husbands.

“Whatever the headlines, the reality is that it is more often wives who become economically disadvantaged as a result of decisions taken jointly during marriage”

Although this perception may have been tempered somewhat by the press coverage of the Wright case I doubt the tired headlines proclaiming London “the world’s divorce capital” will disappear any time soon.

Whatever the headlines, the reality is that it is more often wives, rather than husbands, who become economically disadvantaged as a result of decisions taken jointly during marriages. In most cases, the role of the court following a divorce is to fairly redistribute a family’s income and capital to ameliorate that disadvantage. That doesn’t mean that we’re “the world’s divorce capital”, just that we are fortunate enough to have one of the world’s most flexible and fair matrimonial finance regimes.

Bever: There’s been a steady move away from lifetime maintenance orders, where typically the weaker financial party (which is not always the wife, despite what some of the press might have you believe) could rely on a set income from the stronger financial party for the rest of their life.

There has been a clear move towards fixed term orders, whereby, for example, maintenance might be paid to the parent with primary care until the children were older/teenagers or reached 18 years of age.

In Wright the CoA appeared to go further still when the court dismissed the wife’s application for permission to appeal against a phased reduction and ultimate termination of her joint lives periodical payments order.

In his judgment Lord Justice Pitchford said divorcees with children aged over seven should be working for a living.

Wright further demonstrates that there has been a significant shift in recent years in the way courts view parents with primary care who have given up a career to raise children. Where once they were compensated for the loss of their career and earnings, they are now being told to retrain or take on part-time work and contribute financially. This has naturally changed the public’s perception.

However, there is no hard and fast rule that applies to all cases for calculating appropriate financial provision on divorce. Instead, the court has a duty to consider all the circumstances of the case and take into account a range of specific statutory factors. The starting point is usually an even sharing of the marital acquest.

Where the needs of the parties and any children cannot be met by an equal division, an unequal division of resources may be appropriate instead. In these cases needs are likely to dictate how capital and income are divided, and there may be a requirement for a maintenance term. If one party had a disability, for example, that prevents them from working then maintenance on a joint lives basis might be appropriate.

So, while there has been a move towards shorter maintenance terms and clean break orders in appropriate cases, spousal maintenance still has a place and is an important award of the court for ensuring a party’s needs are fairly met.

Todd: For the majority of divorcing couples the current procedure is supposed to be based on the needs of the litigants rather than a simple sharing of assets. The public perception appears to be that the maintenance ‘meal ticket for life’ is a thing of the past and some recent cases have encouraged this view.

In Wright the initial court award was for the ex-husband to pay maintenance to his ex-wife on a joint lives basis. This maintenance was scaled down by the court after four years for various reasons, including the ex-husband’s imminent retirement, with a direction that the ex-wife should become financially independent in a further five years’ time. Her appeal against this reduction was dismissed by the CoA.

“The reality is that public perception is often out of step with the law”

In another 2014 case, reported as SS v NS, the presiding judge, Mostyn J, used the opportunity to express his view that, save in the exceptional case, spousal maintenance should be confined to needs. He also emphasised that in every case the court must consider a termination of spousal maintenance with a transition to independence as soon as is just and reasonable.

Nonetheless, the reality is that public perception is often out of step with the law. This is no better demonstrated, for example, than by the number of cohabiting couples who still believe that there is such a thing as a common law wife or husband. There is not and the legal rights of cohabiting couples on relationship breakdown are severely limited.

More broadly, have recent rulings changed the view that England is more generous in its awards than other jurisdictions? We think not. The English courts continue to be a popular choice for international litigants. This is not only evident from high-value cases such as the dispute between a Malaysian couple who conducted their battle over their estimated £440m fortune and Gray v Work which involved a Texan couple whose prenuptial agreement was not upheld by the English court, which split the assets equally.

Its popularity is also demonstrated by the number of international clients who seek to pursue additional financial claims in England following their divorce overseas and those who enter into pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements.

Finally, given the wide discretion available to the English family court to deal with the parties’ financial assets on divorce, more and more couples are seeking to secure their future income entitlement or protect certain assets (inheritance, for example) by entering pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreements.

Fifteen organisations from the legal profession have joined forces to create a new taskforce promoting mental wellbeing in the legal community.

The Legal Professions Wellbeing Taskforce will identify areas where collaboration on mental health issues will be beneficial. It will also identify mechanisms for establishing and sharing best practice, identify how to improve the perception of mental health and address stigma as a barrier to accessing support.

The Law Society and LawCare are the two organisations driving the scheme, with the Bar Council, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, CILEx, CILEx Regulation, the Law Society’s Equality Diversity and Inclusion Committee, the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, the University of Law, BPP, Newcastle University, Linklaters, the City Mental Health Alliance, the Junior Lawyers’ Division and the Bar Standards Board all on board.

President of the Law Society Jonathan Smithers said: “Law can be a demanding career. Many of us are drawn to the intellectual challenge and thrive on the high pressure our work entails, but with this high pressure can come stress.”

“It is vital for legal professionals that there is greater awareness of the importance of mental health and greater openness to enable conversations about this issue.”

“The taskforce provides a welcome opportunity to work collaboratively with experts from across the legal sector to enhance mental health and wellbeing provision throughout our diverse community.”

LawCare chief executive Elizabeth Rimmer added: “LawCare has identified that there is very low awareness of the support and services available to those in the legal community, and that there is stigma attached to acknowledging mental health issues.

“There is also a lack of knowledge in the community itself about good practice and what that looks like, and to date there is no evaluative research on the effectiveness of existing wellbeing programmes.”

Lawyer 2B’s stress survey revealed that just 17 per cent of lawyers are aware of initiatives within their firm to help employees manage stress.

A further 28 per cent weren’t sure whether their firm had policies in place or not, while more than half – 55 per cent – said their firm had no stress-busting initiatives.

Pinsent Masons client Motorpoint has appointed its first in-house legal chief ahead of its flotation on the London Stock Exchange (LSE).

The Derby-based retailer has hired Freeths senior associate Manjit Heaphy as its first head of legal and company secretary. Motorpoint’s upcoming IPO is currently valued at £200m.

Motorpoint received advice on the IPO from Pinsent Masons London partners Rob Hutchings and Hannah Brader in a client win for the firm.

Leeds-based DLA Piper partner John Gallon led advice for Numis Securities, which served as co-ordinator, sponsor and bookrunner.

The listing of vehicle retailer Motorpoint comes amid a slowdown in LSE listings as companies await the results of the EU referendum.

Proceeds of £100m are due to be raised for the selling shareholder MP Group Holdings, while the company saw its revenue increase over 30 per cent last year from £563m to £729m.

The UK’s first publicly-quoted law firm, Gateley Plc, is celebrating success following an award win for its chief executive officer (CEO), Michael Ward.

CEO and Corporate partner, Michael Ward, won the ‘Inspiring Leader’ award at the Birmingham Young Professional of the Year Awards 2016. The awards celebrate the rising stars of business and professional services in Greater Birmingham.

Michael Ward said: “At Gateley, we take huge pride in nurturing talent – creating an environment where people can develop their skills and careers, and form strong relationships with their colleagues and clients. It’s an honour to have won the Inspiring Leader award at an event which celebrates the work of exceptional young professionals in the region.”

Described as a “true pioneer”, Michael has been at the forefront of Gateley’s transition from traditional partnership to a publicly quoted commercial law firm. In June 2015, Gateley Plc became the first UK commercial law firm to be admitted to the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange.

Since being a plc, Gateley Plc has opened a Reading office, and has been joined by a number of senior appointments, boosting its service offering. In addition to this, Michael has been commended for his work as an advocate for Birmingham and the region.

Michael is the current holder of the Law Society Gazette ‘Personality of the Year’ award, and has been named in Insider’s Power 100 and the Birmingham Post’s Power 250.

He has been at the forefront of Gateley’s success over the past 15 years, including the firm’s historic IPO. Michael became partner in 1988, senior partner in 2001 and is now CEO of Gateley Plc.

Gateley Plc works through a network of seven English offices based in Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester, London, Manchester, Nottingham and Reading. In April Gateley announced its acquisition of tax-specialist Capitus, now Gateley Capitus. This is the first acquisition since the firm became the first UK-based law firm to float on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange.

Ogier has assisted Shearman & Sterling LLP with advising Goldman Sachs, Barclays and Mizuho Securities on Travelodge’s inaugural £390 million high yield bond offering.

The offering comprised £290 million 8.50% senior secured fixed rate notes due 2023 and £100 million senior secured floating rate notes due 2023 issued by TVL Finance plc (a Jersey incorporated company), an affiliate of Travelodge Hotels Limited. The proceeds of the offering will be used to refinance existing indebtedness of the Travelodge group and make a distribution to its shareholders.

Ogier also assisted with advising Goldman Sachs and Barclays, as arrangers and lenders, in connection with Travelodge’s new senior facilities.

The Ogier Jersey team was led by finance partner Bruce MacNeil with assistance from senior associate Chula O’Donoghue and associate Tara O’Driscoll.

LK Shields Solicitors has acted for Top Oil in their acquisition of the Sirio fuel retail business.

As a result of this transaction, Top Oil has gained 110 new employees, potential additional sales of 25 million litres of fuel annually and added 10 new service stations to its company network.

Top Oil is one of Ireland’s leading fuel importers and distributors.

The transaction was led by Philip Daly, Partner in the Corporate and Commercial Department, with assistance from Lisa McEllin and Ruairí Mulrean of the Corporate and Commercial Department, Clair Cassidy of the Commercial Property team, Andrew Power of the Banking team, Marco Hickey and Conor Talbot of our EU, Competition and Regulated Markets team and Jennifer O’Neill of the Employment, Pensions and Employee Benefits team.

Carey Olsen has shown its support to the Jost Van Dyke School as part of the Ministry of Education and Culture’s Adopt-A-School programme with a donation of $10,000.

In a short ceremony, managing partner of Carey Olsen’s British Virgin Islands (BVI) office, Clinton Hempel, presented a cheque for $10,000  to the school.

Formally launched by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2007, the Adopt-A-School programme serves to provide a necessary link between the schools and their donor organisations to ensure that each school’s environment is conducive to a dynamic learning experience by the accountable and transparent use of donor funds.

Mr Hempel said: “It is one of our priorities at Carey Olsen to give back to the communities in which we are based and this scheme is the perfect opportunity to work with one our local schools, one that my own family has a personal affiliation with.

“This money will be vital for the Jost Van Dyke School and we will continue to work with them on other projects. I commend the Minister for Education and Culture, Honourable Myron V. Walwyn, for revitalising the Adopt-A-School programme and allowing us to be an adopter.

The Minister for Education and Culture praised the Hempel family and Carey Olsen for their contribution to the territory’s education system through the funding

The cheque was presented to the Honourable Walwyn, the chair of the Adopt-A-School Programme, Mrs. Brenda Lettsome-Tye, and Jost Van Dyke principal, Ms. Laverne Blyden.

Ms. Blyden thanked Carey Olsen and the Hempel family for their thoughtfulness and support over the years.

Through the Adopt-A-School Programme, Carey Olsen will continue to work directly with the Jost Van Dyke School on many school projects to support the shared priorities of the school and other partners.

JMW Solicitors has reported yet another double-digit revenue rise, with turnover increasing by 16 per cent to £22.5m.

The results mean the Manchester firm has broken the £20m revenue barrier, growing 16 per cent from £19.4m over 2015/16.

Profits also increased by 13.3 per cent from £3.8m to £4.3m, with average profit per equity partner jumping nearly 4 per cent from £410,000 to £430,000.

The commercial litigation team saw the biggest growth of 55 per cent, closely followed by the private client team’s 47 per cent increase. Revenue generated via website instructions was boosted by 17 per cent to £1.5m, while fees from solicitors’ referral network Lawshare doubled to £1m.

JMW senior partner Joy Kingsley added that “70 per cent of our instructions last year came from new clients”, with the firm winning mandates from Natwest, Compass Minerals, Lowry Capital and the British Parking Association.

The firm also welcomed a number of new partners in a year that saw staff numbers at the firm grow from 280 to 320.

Lateral hires included Brabners partner Mike Blood who joined as JMW’s corporate head, as well as Slater & Gordon commercial litigator Michael Kennedy and SAS Daniels joint head of real estate Tom Cressey.

Revenue at the firm has more than doubled over the last five years from £10.3m to £22.5. The firm has enjoyed several years of double-digit growth, seeing a 13 per cent rise in turnover at the end of 2014/15. Revenues rose by 14.6 per cent in the previous financial year.

Two lawyers have founded an organisation designed to help lawyers sustain their mental health.

Chetna Bhatt and Lauren Giblin started ‘Being Lawyers’ after being forced to take significant time off from work, Bhatt suffered from ME and Giblin from depression.

More…

Davis Polk & Wardwell and Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz have won the top roles on Pfizer’s $5.2bn (£3.61bn) purchase of Anacor, just over a month after Pfizer abandoned its deal with Allergan.

Wachtell corporate partners Edward Herlihy, David Lam and Alison Zieske advised Pfizer on its most recent M&A transaction, having worked with the pharmaceutical giant on its attempted takeover of Allergan.

The team also consisted of Wachtell antitrust partner Joseph Larson, executive compensation and benefits Jeannemarie O’Brien, finance partner Gregory Pessin and tax partner Jodi Schwartz.

The target Anacor sought legal counsel from Davis Polk New York partners Michael Davis and Oliver Smith, with the firm understood to have played no role in Pfizer and Allergan’s proposed merger.

Pfizer expects to complete the acquisition in the third quarter of 2016 once it has gained US antitrust clearance.

The transaction will give Pfizer access to Anacor’s portfolio of drugs, which are aimed specifically at people with dermatis and eczema.

White & Case is continuing its hiring spree in the City, recruiting Hogan Lovells corporate partner Guy Potel.

Potel will be working with White & Case’s private equity team on portfolio company exits, as well as the equity capital markets group on issuer IPOs.

At Hogan Lovells, Potel has been involved in multiple billion-dollar transactions, representing Goldman Sachs in connection with BHP Billiton’s $147bn offer for Rio Tinto in 2008. He has also advised Telecity Group on acquisitions across Europe.

Potel joined legacy Lovells in 2008 as a senior associate in the corporate finance group. He was made of counsel a year later and was elevated to the partnership once Lovells merged with Hogan & Hartson in 2010.

Prior to Lovells, Potel trained and worked at Clifford Chance before moving to Slaughter and May in 2005.

White & Case has been on a hiring spree in the City recently, recruiting two Ashurst partners in quick succession. Disputes partner Mark Clarke is due to start at the US firm, as well as capital markets partner Jonathan Parry.

The hires are in line with White & Case’s five year strategy, in which it wants to focus on its M&A practice in industries such as financial institutions, technoloy and private equity.

A spokesperson at Hogan Lovells confirmed the move and wished Potel well.

Ogier has advised the Guiton Group on the Jersey corporate, competition, property, employment and regulatory aspects of its joint venture with Kodak.

The collaboration has resulted in the establishment of KP Services (Jersey) Limited which will print the Jersey Evening Post and the majority of UK national newspapers for distribution in the Channel Islands. Previously the national newspapers have been printed in the UK and flown to both islands on a daily basis. It is estimated that KP Services will print approximately 35,000 newspapers in total each day, made up from the circulation required for each edition.

The facility opened in Jersey on 13 May.

The deal sees innovation and investment being brought to Jersey as a worldwide showcase for the digital printing of newspapers.

Corporate partner Sara Johns led the Ogier team, supported by property partner Jonathan Hughes and employment law specialist Michael Little. Commenting on the transaction, Sara Johns said “This exciting initiative by Kodak and Guiton is a great example of technology being used to drive innovation for the benefit of islanders. We are delighted to have been involved in such an important development in the history of the JEP and we wish the KP Services team every success for the roll out.”

Anthony Haycroft represented a £4m turnover construction company at Cambridge Crown Court for sentence on a case brought by the Health & Safety Executive.

An employee had driven a 1 tonne dumper truck with no training nor instruction and turned it over fracturing his leg. The company pleaded guilty to two offences in the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates refused to sentence the company because they considered their sentencing powers of up to a maximum of £40,000 were inadequate. Accordingly the Magistrates sent the matter to the Crown Court for sentence where an unlimited fine may be imposed.

The HSE argued this was a case of high culpability with a risk of death. This gave a starting point for a fine of £250,000 under the February 2016 Sentencing Council Guidelines on Health and Safety Offences. Anthony Haycroft persuaded HHJ Hawksworth that this was in fact a medium category case with a starting point of £54,000 for a single offence. The Court was then further persuaded to reduce the fine due to various mitigating factors and also to impose a single fine and not two separate fines.