Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Seasonal parties and employer liability for acts of misconduct by employees

Posted on: December 6th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

‘What happens on a staff night out, stays on a staff night out’

The holiday season is well underway with Christmas parties planned and booked. However, with seasonal joy and merriment comes a warning: inappropriate acts carried out by staff at company events can lead to liability on the part of employers.  

While it is well known and accepted that employers may be liable for inappropriate conduct by staff members in ‘the workplace’ and during office hours, employers are often less well versed in how to deal with inappropriate conduct at work-related events. So where is the line between work and non-work-related events, and how can employers best protect themselves?

Events outside the workplace and outside of working time

The law states that employers are liable for acts of harassment and sexual harassment carried out by their employees ‘in the course of employment’.

Despite this, there is a common and somewhat dangerous misconception that “what happens on a staff night out, stays on a staff night out.” This was the exact sentiment declared by a manager to Ms Pealing, a junior employee, before he attempted to place a banknote in her cleavage[1]. The respondents’ representative submitted that the manager’s conduct “wasn’t in works time, nor was it on works premises; it happened outside of work,” suggesting the employer would not be liable for the manager’s sexual harassment.

In Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v. Stubbs[2], the Employment Appeal Tribunal acknowledged that the dividing line between employment and off-duty conduct can become especially blurred where social events involving colleagues are concerned. Further, in Lister & Ors v. Hesley Hall Ltd[3], the House of Lords held that the question to be asked is whether the employee’s wrongful acts were “so closely connected with his or her employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable”.

In the present case, the night out was attended almost exclusively by the first respondent’s employees. The premises at which the event took place was closed for the evening, and the two directors of the respondent company made a financial contribution to the night out. For these reasons, the Tribunal arrived at the unanimous view that there was a sufficiently ‘close connection’ between the employer and the incident to render it just that the employer should be vicariously liable for the manager’s sexual harassment.

The claimant in this case said she was left feeling “objectified” and “humiliated” and was awarded more than £5,000 in compensation.


Christmas parties in the employment tribunal

Each year the employment tribunal publishes a report on cases heard. This year to date, ten employment tribunal claims have cited Christmas parties and one third of the reported cases related to sexual harassment and/or discrimination related to sex.  

Employers must be aware that work-related events carry risk, in particular, where alcohol is involved. Sexual or sex-based harassment and discrimination is the largest area of risk, with the heady combination of alcohol and seasonal jollity sometimes becoming a toxic combination clouding employees’ judgement.

In addition to Ms Pealing’s case described above, there are a number of other cases which highlight the risks arising from such events, including:

  • In P v Chrest Nicholson Operations Limited[4], P’s complaints of harassment were upheld and her employer was liable, following a colleague of P attempting to kiss them whilst travelling in a taxi to a hotel following the company Christmas party, and P subsequently being raped by her colleague.
  • In Phillips v Pontcanne Pub Company Limited[5], Ms Phillips brought a successful constructive dismissal claim after she was put in a ‘playful’ headlock by a colleague during the company Christmas party which left her unconscious.


What steps can employers take to mitigate risk arising from workplace events?

While it is unlikely that employers will be able to eliminate all risks arising from workplace events, there are steps that can and should be taken both preventatively and following any complaint, to avoid escalation to an employment tribunal claim.

Preventative steps are even more important since the introduction in October of the new requirement for employers to take a positive action to prevent sexual harassment. Under the Worker Protection Act 2023 employers must take ‘reasonable steps’ to actively prevent the sexual harassment of their employees. If they don’t and the worst happens, they may be liable for compensation plus an additional uplift of 25% on the total compensation in relation to such failures. Examples of preventative steps include:

  • Carrying out risk assessments of the workplace and any particular events;
  • Implementing (or updating) policies relating to discrimination, harassment and disciplinary and grievance procedures; and
  • Training the workforce on what constitutes discrimination and harassment, the employer’s behavioural expectations and what to do if they are a victim.

As well as the positive duty to prevent sexual harassment, the law on harassment may afford an employer a defence to a claim of vicarious liability by showing that they took ‘all reasonable steps’ to avoid harassment (which is a higher bar than the ‘reasonable steps’ required under the preventative duty). An example of such a defence succeeding (albeit in the context of a personal injury claim) can be seen in the case of Shelbourne v Cancer Research UK[6] where the employer had risk assessed the event and sought to minimise any risks identified by hiring additional security guards and so they were not liable for the injuries suffered by one employee who was assaulted by another employee.

Employers should also be aware of the culture they are creating. The effect on the victim of any harassment is viewed subjectively, meaning that the effect is viewed through the eyes of the victim. As such, any claims that the behaviours were ‘banter’ or ‘a compliment’ are not an adequate defence. Employers should aim to cultivate a culture of respect and inclusivity and make it clear that discrimination and harassment will not be tolerated and will lead to disciplinary action.

If complaints of discrimination or harassment are made, these should be properly investigated, and disciplinary action meted out where necessary. In addition, complainants should never be treated less favourably for raising issues of discrimination and harassment.

How we can help

If you have any questions about employers’ duties to prevent discrimination and harassment or if you need assistance regarding employee complaints, please contact a member of our Employment team.

 

Sources:

[1] 8000363.2024_-_Miss_Freya_Pealing_v_1__The_Croft_Aberdeen_Ltd_2__Andrew_Robert_Eagar_-_Judgment.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

[2] [1999] ICR 547

[3] [2001] ICR 665

[4] P v Crest Nicholson plc and Crest Nicholson Operations Limited: 3311744/2020 and 3313454/2020

[5] Phillips v Pontcanne Pub Company Ltd: 1600719/2018

[6] [2019] EWHC 842 (QB)

A firm to watch: Lawrence Stephens features in The Lawyer podcast

Posted on: December 6th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

The Lawyer 200 celebrates its 20th anniversary this year and Editors Catrin Griffiths, Christian Smith and Richard Simmons have been sharing their views on their annual survey in their regular podcast which presents their take on the top stories, trends and views in the legal market.

In October they reviewed five firms from the Top 100 survey that they are watching in the coming years, for good and ill. In their latest episode they revealed the five firms outside of the Top 100 that they are also watching. These firms were selected for their “momentum, innovation, promise, growth…or not!” and we are delighted to report that Lawrence Stephens is featured in a very positive light. We were praised for our ‘twin engine’ focus for growth, working with challenger banks and similar institutions alongside owner managed businesses and the individuals who own and manage these.

The podcast is available via Spotify or Apple, please click on the relevant link to listen further.         

Lawrence Stephens advises LHV Bank on £7.4m refinancing of prominent retail parade

Posted on: December 4th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

The Lawrence Stephens Real Estate Finance team is pleased to have advised regular client LHV Bank on the £7.4m refinancing of a parade of shops located in a prominent Essex town, secured across multiple titles with more than 20 tenants and leases. The facility also refinanced a bridging loan, ensuring the client’s financial goals were met within a tight timeframe.

The team worked closely with LHV Bank to review multiple cash flow scenarios across more than 20 leases while ensuring clarity on security positions across multiple titles. Collaboration across internal departments including credit, operations, and finance was vital to work to the tight deadline. Our team ensured that the entire process was completed ahead of schedule. Originally targeted for completion on 29 November, the deal was finalised two days early thanks to seamless collaboration between our team and the bank.

Conor McDermott, Director of SME Lending at LHV, commented: “The team worked tirelessly with Fine Mortgages to complete this on challenging timescales, with the transaction completed within eight working days of approval. Special thanks to the legal team at Lawrence Stephens led by Anna Christou, who worked on this over the weekend to ensure a successful refinance.”

Greg Palos, Head of Real Estate Finance at Lawrence Stephens responded: “Despite the complexity and speed of this transaction, our sector expertise and the strength and depth of our team contributed to an excellent outcome for our client.

Matt Green to present expert evidence to House of Lords on Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill

Posted on: December 2nd, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Matt Green, Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets will be giving evidence to the House of Lords in the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill this Thursday.

The bill is designed to ensure new asset classes aren’t prevented from being the subject of property rights if they do not fall neatly into the relevant two categories under common law.

As the Chair of techUK’s Digital Asset Working Group, Matt will be giving expert evidence on the impact of this legislation.

You can view the livestream of Matt’s appearance from 11.30am on Thursday 5 December by clicking here.

 

Lawrence Stephens advises Blue Shield Capital on £16.7m loan

Posted on: November 21st, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

We are pleased to report that Lawrence Stephens has advised regular client Blue Shield Capital on a £16.7 million loan for a UK landlord and BTR operator specialising in city centre rental living.

This 12-month facility, across two assets in Manchester and Leeds, will support their borrower in redeeming their existing debt and restructuring their portfolio. Blue Shield Capital is a fast-growing property lending firm who provides flexible financing solutions for property owners and investors. This deal is one of the largest they have completed to date and is the latest in a number of fast-moving deals they have undertaken supported by our team.

The team was led by Director and Head of Banking Ajoy Bose-Mallick, with support from Directors Ann Ebberson and Alex Edwards.

Ajoy commented: “We are delighted to have supported Blue Shield on one of their largest deals to date. Credit to the dynamic Lawrence Stephens’ team for delivering a fantastic outcome for our client”.

Matt Green comments on the Digital Assets Bill in eprivateclient

Posted on: November 18th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Director and Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets Matt Green comments on the introduction of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, and argues that this legislation will provide greater clarity to the treatment of cryptocurrencies and digital assets under UK law.

Matt’s comments were published in eprivateclient, 15 November 2024, and can be found here.

“Property rights allow individuals to identify and demarcate ownership. In turn, being deprived of property creates a right in either damages or for that exact property to be owed. This ensures there’s greater market confidence when dealing with property, as there are clearer legal rights to ownership, control and general treatment of that property.”

“Historically property fell into two main categories – things that are tangible and exist physically or a contractual right enforced by a legal system (such as a debt claim or contractual right to goods). Digital assets (including cryptocurrencies, digital files and records, email accounts and certain in-game digital assets, domain names, even verified carbon credits) do not fall neatly into either category.”

“Use of a negative definition as proposed in the Digital Assets Bill, future proofs how property is treated, preventing the need to return to the issue for decades to come. To give an exhaustive list of what property is limits what may or may not exist going forward, so the wording is designed to ensure policymakers and the public at large are given that freedom to treat “things” as property when required, as well as the ability to sensibly divert from the rigid definition of property when required.”

“Although a welcome change for a legal system previously often unequipped to deal with such matters, enabling a “thing” to be property even where it is not tangible or creates a legal right may create inconsistencies at common law given the broad strokes definition. However the benefit of future proofing far outweighs the potential for inconsistencies and the Law Commission included guidelines as to what may constitute property under this Bill to assist decision makers.”

“As more “things” become property at a legal level, we may see the implementation of further laws, or even Judge’s decisions, which sweep up any unanswered issues. Overall, this Bill is a huge win for those dealing in digital assets, providing much needed clarity in an economy already utilising this technology at large.”

Lawrence Stephens advises the Compliance Group on the acquisition of Electrical Test Midlands

Posted on: November 18th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens is delighted to have advised The Compliance Group on the acquisition of Electrical Test Midlands (ETM), a leading specialist in electrical testing and compliance with over two decades of expertise.

Established in 2019, the Compliance Group is a leading integrated provider of safety and regulatory compliance services across electrical, fire and water. They help their clients to reduce risk, improve safety and assure regulatory compliance in a wide range of sectors.

The Group, one of the Ansor portfolio of companies, has become one of the UK’s leading compliance businesses through a combination of organic growth and acquisition. This is the Group’s fourth acquisition in 2024, following the earlier acquisitions of CT Fire Protection, Fire Safe Services and Intersafe. Lawrence Stephens is proud to have advised on all these transactions.

The team was led by Managing Director Steven Bernstein, with assistance from solicitors Isobel Moran and Carla Bernstein.

Phil Campion, Managing Director of Compliance Group Electrical, said of the deal: “ETM brings an exceptional level of technical skill, a commitment to customer service, as well as shared values of responsibility and sustainability. We are excited to welcome them into Compliance Group’s Electrical Division and further strengthen our position in the electrical safety and testing space and offer more comprehensive services to our clients across multiple sectors.

Lawrence Stephens appoints litigation and commercial fraud specialist Dominic Holden

Posted on: November 12th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Leading full-service law firm Lawrence Stephens is pleased to announce the appointment of dispute resolution specialist Dominic Holden, who joins as a Director in its Dispute Resolution department.

News of Dominic’s appointment was published in Commercial Dispute Resolution here and The Legal Diary here

Dominic specialises in substantial civil fraud claims, as well as complex data and hacking claims and multi-national, investigatory, enforcement and asset tracing work.

Prior to joining Lawrence Stephens, Dominic was Head of Litigation at Burlingtons in Mayfair.

Dominic advises on a broad range of commercial disputes and has particular expertise in matters involving complex and cross-border elements. Notable highlights include acting for aviation magnate Farhad Azima in his long-running and high-profile litigation against Ras-Al Khaimah’s sovereign wealth fund and its advisers, international law firm Dechert LLP and former partner Neil Gerrard.

Dominic also advises on breach of trust, professional negligence, contentious insolvency and director, shareholder and/or partnership disputes.

With a wealth of experience in litigation and disputes, Dominic’s appointment reflects the continued and exciting growth of Lawrence Stephens in recent years, while bolstering both the firm’s existing Dispute Resolution offering and cross-practice expertise.

Commenting on his appointment, Dominic said: “I am excited to begin the next chapter of my career with Lawrence Stephens. It is a pleasure to be working alongside a dynamic team of leading practitioners across a range of sectors, helping clients to navigate a range of high-profile and complex international disputes.”

Lawrence Kelly, Director in the Dispute Resolution department at Lawrence Stephens, commented: “We are delighted to welcome Dominic to the Lawrence Stephens team. His experience and tenacity complement our Dispute Resolution offering and broaden our cross-departmental expertise – allowing us to continue to offer our clients bespoke and integrated legal advice.”

Matt Green, Director and Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets and Technology Disputes at Lawrence Stephens, commented: “Dominic is a truly first-class litigator with a wealth of experience in technology disputes including litigation relating to hacking and data issues, I look forward to working with Dominic closely on a range of technology related matters at Lawrence Stephens.”

In Early Podcast S2E3: Marcin Zarakowski and Roman Bieda, Token Recovery

Posted on: November 7th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Welcome to the In Early podcast, where host Matt Green dives into the world of digital assets and technology. In this episode, Matt speaks to both Marcin Zarakowski and Roman Bieda, of Token Recovery, a Swiss outfit specialising in “combining technical expertise, legal proficiency and a swift, discreet, end-to-end process devised to get your property back”.

Matt also asks them about their backgrounds at BSV and Coinfirm respectively, and more about the operation, how Token Recovery take on victims of fraud where crypto assets are lost following a hack or scam, and how they work with lawyers, like me, law enforcement, and blockchain analytic services like Global Ledger to navigate the recovery process.

Key takeaways from Marcin Zarakowski and Roman Bieda

– Their backgrounds, including at Coinfirm, and EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum how Token Recovery was formed and its mission, with Roman referring work involving ChipMixer;

– How Token Recovery take on victims of fraud where crypto assets are lost following a hack or scam, and how they work with lawyers, law enforcement, and blockchain analytic services like Global Ledger to navigate the recovery process;

– Their roles in the world of academia and industry bodies including at SGH Warsaw School of Economics and INATBA – International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications

– Each of their processes “Consult and Review”, “Trace and Evaluate”, “Plan and Authenticate” and “Enforce and Reclaim”;

– Issues with the recovery process and how they are overcome;

– The role of transaction monitoring at crypto-exchanges and whether that’s a good tool for preventing crime.

Matt asks them about their backgrounds at BSV and Coinfirm respectively, and more about the operation, how Token Recovery take on victims of fraud where crypto assets are lost following a hack or scam, and how they work with lawyers, like me, law enforcement, and blockchain analytic services like Global Ledger to navigate the recovery process.

Effects of the budget changes on owner managed businesses

Posted on: November 5th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Rachel Reeves finally delivered the first budget of the new Labour Government on 30 October 2024. Following intense speculation beforehand (including our own!), industry commentators in the aftermath of the announcements were suggesting that the budget was not as dramatic as they had expected. Perhaps this was more down to the carefully thought-through campaign leading up to the announcements and an excellent presentation of the changes on the day.

Most commentators have, however, pointed out that these changes will mean that businesses and entrepreneurs will be paying more tax, in some cases as soon as today. Now that the dust has settled and further analysis has taken place, we can take a look at the key changes introduced and their implications for owner-managed businesses.

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)

Business owners considering selling their company will be very interested in any changes to CGT. These were keenly anticipated, and it was confirmed that these and the tax on carried interest will rise from April 2025.

With immediate effect, the rates of CGT increased from the current 10% (for basic rate taxpayers) and 20% (for higher and additional rate taxpayers) to 18% and 24% respectively. There are special provisions for contracts entered into before 30 October 2024 but completed after that date. Anti-forestalling rules were also introduced with immediate effect which can, in certain circumstances, apply to unconditional contracts entered into before 30 October 2024 which were not completed by then. The rates for selling second properties remain at 18% and 24% respectively.

The CGT rate for Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR), which can apply to lifetime gains of £1m on certain disposals by employees and directors in their unlisted businesses, will continue. However, the tax rate will increase from the current 10% to 14% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2025, and from 14% to 18% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2026. It has been calculated that this will mean an increased bill of up to £80,000 for those planning to sell their businesses after April 2026.

Investors’ Relief (IR) provides for a lower rate of CGT to be paid on the disposal of ordinary shares in an unlisted trading company where certain criteria are met, previously subject to a lifetime limit of £10m of qualifying gains for an individual.

It is aimed at encouraging entrepreneurial investors to inject new capital investment into unquoted trading companies.

The CGT rate for IR, which applies in similar circumstances to BADR but where the investor is unconnected with the business, will increase in parallel with the BADR rates. Furthermore, the lifetime limit for this relief will also reduce from £10m to £1m for disposals made on or after 30 October 2024, significantly limiting its financial benefit going forward.

Carried interest changes

Carried interest refers to the performance-related rewards received by fund managers, primarily in the private equity industry. Previously, carried interest was taxed at lower capital gains tax rates, compared with income tax rates. The Budget changes included an increase in the CGT rate for all carried interest gains to a new flat rate of 32%, applying to carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025. This is a temporary measure ahead of wider reforms that will apply from the following tax year. From 6 April 2026 a specific tax regime for carried interest will be introduced, moving it from the CGT framework to income tax. All carried interest will then be treated as trading profits and subject to Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions (NICs). However, the amount of ‘qualifying’ carried interest subject to tax will be adjusted by applying a multiplier resulting in an effective tax rate at 34.1% including NICs. Some might see this change as somewhat cosmetic, but it seeks to deal with some of the negative perceptions about carried interest representing remuneration rather than true capital gains.

These are all significant changes but, according to an analysis by Grant Thornton, this “still presents an attractive environment for management incentives and investors and is unlikely to discourage ongoing deal activity”. They “therefore expect the impact on M&A to be less severe than anticipated with the announcements ensuring the UK remains an attractive and internationally competitive environment for investors”.

Changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT)

While the CGT announcements were not as drastic as some had been speculating, the IHT reforms present a substantial shift in the tax landscape, especially for entrepreneurs and business owners. The changes introduced in the budget have particularly alarmed farmers and small business owners as from 6 April 2026, a 20% tax rate – half the headline inheritance tax rate of 40% – will be applied to the value of farms and businesses worth more than £1m when they are passed on.

The existing 100% business property relief and agricultural property relief will continue only for the first £1m of combined agricultural and business property after 6 April 2026. The rate of relief will be 50% thereafter, effectively making this a 20% IHT charge.

This presents a risk for family business owners as well as their companies, which will no doubt have to play a major part in funding any IHT that is due.

Changes to National Insurance contributions

From April 2025, employers’ NICs will increase from 13.8% to 15%. The threshold at which employer NICs become payable will fall from £9,100 to £5,000. To help mitigate these additional NICs costs for smaller employers, the employment allowance (which allows businesses whose annual NICs bill is less than £100,000 to reduce their NICs costs) will increase from £5,000 to £10,500 per year, and will apply to all businesses as the £100,000 threshold will be removed.

These changes present a challenging scene for our retailer and hospitality clients. The changes in NICs will be accompanied by increases to the National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage rates. This rising cost base will be particularly felt by people heavy businesses, perhaps making life on the high street even harder.

Autumn Budget: Potential changes of concern to owner managed businesses.

Posted on: October 24th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

As the Autumn Budget approaches on 30 October 2024, speculation is rife about potential changes. Labour has pledged to make the tax system fairer, delivering economic stability with tougher spending rules, and growing the UK economy at the same time.

There has been much commentary regarding how to address the ‘£22bn black hole’ in the government’s finances identified by the incoming government. But having ruled out changes to the rates of the UK’s major taxes, the government has been left with fewer options to raise revenue. The implications of these for owner managed businesses could be significant, particularly changes to Capital Gains Tax (“CGT”), Business Asset Disposal Relief (“BADR”), increases to National Insurance Contributions (“NIC”) from Employers, and changes to Inheritance Tax (“IHT”) Business Relief (“BR”).

Here’s a look at what might be on the horizon:

Increase in CGT rates

Presently, the CGT rate for basic rate taxpayers is charged at 18% on disposal of residential property and 10% for all other assets. The CGT rate rises to 24% on residential property and 20% on other assets for higher or additional rate taxpayers.

In addition, if you qualify for BADR, CGT is charged at a reduced rate of 10% for the disposal of qualifying business assets.

Compared to income tax, where higher and additional rate taxpayers are charged 40% and 45% respectively, CGT is significantly lower.

As such, it is widely speculated that the Government may increase the rates of CGT. There are two potential methods being considered. The first approach involves aligning the lower CGT rate on all other assets with the higher rate applied to residential property, thereby creating a uniform CGT rate for all asset disposals. Alternatively, the Government might adopt a more aggressive strategy by aligning CGT rates with income tax rates.

Reducing or removing the CGT annual exemption

Individuals currently benefit from an annual exemption of £3,000 for CGT. In recent years, the annual exemption has gradually decreased, with the latest reduction to the CGT annual exempt amount taking effect in April 2024, lowering it from £6,000 to £3,000.

In line with recent trends, where the annual exemption has gradually diminished, it would not be surprising to see the annual exemption being reduced further or even being removed altogether.

Reduction or removal of the lifetime limit for BADR

As set out above, BADR entitles certain individuals (if they qualify) to benefit from a reduced rate of CGT. Currently, there is a lifetime limit of £1 million, thereby allowing entrepreneurs to benefit from a lower rate of CGT on the first £1 million of lifetime chargeable gains.

It is speculated that the Government may either lower the £1 million lifetime limit, reducing the tax savings available for investors or entrepreneurs.

Alternatively, the Government may opt to abolish BADR entirely. Business owners would have to pay the standard 20% (if not more if the government decide to increase the CGT rate) on all gains.

Increases to National Insurance Contributions from Employers

The Labour party committed in its manifesto not to increase national insurance contributions for working people. However, it did not rule out increasing the contribution from Employers which has led to speculation from informed commentators that they may increase this by 1%, making the new rate 14.8%.

While on the face of it, the predicted increase affects only employers, however there are concerns that raising employer NICs in an already stretched economy would negatively affect growth, ultimately leading to businesses having less money to invest in their staff, so that the burden would nevertheless ultimately fall largely on working people.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has commented that any rise in employer NICs would be passed onto workers and ultimately to consumers. Businesses may respond to the rise by limiting pay rises, reducing staff numbers, freezing recruitment and scaling down employee benefits. There are also arguments that the increase may complicate and distort the tax system and the jobs market, stymying the economy.

Changes to Inheritance IHT Business Relief

When children are an integral part of the running of a business, many business owners choose to gift or transfer shares in their business to them. Gifts such as this may not only be subject to CGT, but may also be subject to IHT. In these instances, BR may be available to reduce any unexpected IHT arising.

Where available, the relief reduces the taxable value of qualifying assets by either 50% or 100% depending on the circumstances.

Rumours ahead of the upcoming Budget are suggesting that we could see changes to IHT BR. This could now be capped at anywhere between £500,000 and £1m per person, removing the reliefs that currently apply without limit on qualifying assets meeting certain requirements. IHT Business Relief changes could the have a significant impact on business legacy.

When will these likely changes happen?

It is unclear what date that these changes will take effect from. There is potential that these changes may be brought in with immediate effect following the conclusion of the Autumn Budget from 30 October.

Alternatively, the Government could choose for any changes to the CGT rates to take effect upon the commencement of the new tax year – 6 April 2025.

The Government’s final decisions will be revealed on 30 October 2024 and there is considerable uncertainty what the upcoming changes may be. Please do not hesitate to contact us for further details about how the upcoming Autumn Budget may impact you.

Lawrence Stephens appointed to LendInvest Bridging panel

Posted on: October 14th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

We are delighted to share that Lawrence Stephens has been appointed to LendInvest’s Bridging panel.

Launched in 2008, LendInvest has grown to be a leading platform for property finance, offering short-term, development and buy-to-let mortgages to intermediaries, landlords and developers across the UK. Since then, they have lent more than £3 billion of mortgages and have helped to put thousands of new or improved homes into the UK housing market.

Leanne Ardron, Director of Bridging Finance at LendInvest said: “Lawrence Stephens will play an important role in supporting our growth objectives. With a commitment to excellence and responsiveness, there is good alignment with LendInvest’s ambition to ‘getting things done’”.

Arnold Enefé, Bridging Operations Change Manager at LendInvest added: “As our business continues to grow, it’s important for us to extend the range of advisers with the skillset and experience of bridging specialists such as Lawrence Stephens”Director and Head of Real Estate Finance, Gregory Palos, commented: “Ambitious organisations like LendInvest are core to our focus on Financial Institutions. We have enjoyed working with them since being appointed to their Development Panel in 2019 and we are delighted to formally extend what is already a very good relationship”.

Lawrence Stephens looks forward to this further collaboration with LendInvest in helping their clients achieve their objectives.