Uncategorized - Lawrence Stephens

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Lawrence Stephens appoints Head of Financial Institutions and Head of Real Estate Finance

Posted on: April 4th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens is delighted to announce the appointment of Senior Director Greg Palos as Head of the firm’s Financial Institutions sector.

Greg has been at Lawrence Stephens for over 20 years, since merging his own firm in 2004. During this time, he has been responsible for establishing and building the Real Estate Finance and Banking teams at the firm which now includes 12 Directors and 46 professional staff in total.

With this appointment, Greg’s wider role will include ensuring Lawrence Stephens continues to meet the needs of its existing Financial Institution sector clients, build and widen these relationships, and explore new sector opportunities for the firm, both in the UK and internationally.

This important appointment reflects Lawrence Stephens’ twin-engine strategy of focusing on the Financial Institutions and Owner Managed Business sectors which have driven the firm’s strong growth over the last five years.

Lawrence Stephens is also pleased to announce the appointment of Ann Ebberson as Head of the Real Estate Finance department.

Ann is currently a Director in the team, having joined from City firm Rosling King in 2024. She is a well-known industry practitioner, recognised in the legal directories and brings to the role a wealth of sector knowledge and experience.

Acting for a range of banks, lending institutions and fixed charge receivers, her experience spans development finance, property acquisitions and sales, residential landlord and tenant issues, title rectifications and working with litigation colleagues on complex disputes which involve real estate and finance.

Managing Director Steven Bernstein commented: “Greg’s appointment to this wider sector-focused role confirms our commitment to our strategy of sticking to what we are good at and what we are well known for. Greg’s deep knowledge of the sector and the firm’s capabilities presents us with an opportunity to build on already strong foundations and take us to the next level of growth for the firm.”

“I’m delighted that Ann has taken on the role of Head of the Real Estate Finance department. She has already proven to be a strong and capable leader and I look forward to seeing her consolidate our position as a real force in the Real Estate Finance market.”

Lawrence Stephens announces four Director promotions

Posted on: April 1st, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Leading full-service law firm, Lawrence Stephens, is pleased to announce the promotion of Asim Arshad, Anna Christou, Sarah Gallagher and Ausra Triantafyllidou to Director, effective from 1 April 2025.

These promotions follow a year of continuing growth for Lawrence Stephens in response to increasing client demand. Director numbers have increased from 28 to 45 and this 60% increase also includes lateral hires in key areas of growth as well as a team of eight Directors recently recruited from Memery Crystal.

Asim Arshad becomes a Director in the Disputes Resolution team, specialising in commercial litigation. In particular, Asim has extensive experience handling disputes involving crypto assets, including acting for individuals seeking to recover lost or stolen crypto assets. In addition to contentious matters, Asim’s work has included advising on cryptoasset regulation and compliance, token issuance, NFT projects, and acting for one of the industry’s leading mining platforms and token issuing entities
Anna Christou becomes a Director in the Real Estate Finance team. She joined Lawrence Stephens as a trainee solicitor in 2011. She currently acts for leading UK buy-to-let lenders, bridging lenders, challenger banks and building societies, dealing with both regulated and unregulated loans on commercial and residential property portfolios.
Sarah Gallagher becomes a Director in the Residential Real Estate team. She heads up Lawrence Stephens’ team of specialists in the new build sector. Her primary client base is formed of purchasers of both leasehold and freehold new build properties, inside and outside of the Greater London area and developers selling plots at a variety of developments. Whilst Sarah’s specialism is largely new build work, she also acts for those selling and purchasing residential properties of all varieties, including shared ownership, HNW and UHNW.
Ausra Triantafyllidou also becomes a Director in the Real Estate Finance team. She acts for a number of long-standing investors with large commercial, residential and mixed-use portfolios. Her primary focus is on secured lending transactions including investment and development finance matters. She advises clients on landlord and tenant matters including acquisitions, disposals, lettings, transfers of portfolios to corporate structures and finance transactions.

Steven Bernstein, Managing Director at Lawrence Stephens, commented: “With these four Director promotions, we are proud to be recognising growth from within our own people. We continue to demonstrate Lawrence Stephens’ growth in traditional sectors and expansion into emerging ones. Asim, Anna, Sarah and Ausra’s specialist expertise reflect the full-service approach we take at Lawrence Stephens, and how we are able to deliver the best outcomes for our clients.”

Gareth Hughes comments on wills for parents in The Guardian’s ‘The Good Life’ supplement

Posted on: March 28th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director and Head of Private Wealth and Succession Planning, Gareth Hughes, explains why having wills in place is crucial for parents looking to protect the interests of their children.

Gareth’s comments were published in The Guardian’s ‘The Good Life’ supplement, 8 March 2025.

“For many parents, taking steps to secure their child’s future in the event of their own death is an area of primary concern. Putting a will in place can be a daunting prospect; however, we consider it essential to protect the best interests of the child.

“A key concern is responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child. Under a will, a parent can appoint a guardian and ensure that minor children will be cared for by a person they trust with the responsibility.

“Finances also warrant careful consideration. By making a will, a parent can put appropriate structures in place so that assets are managed and used to support their children until they are of an age to manage the assets themselves.

“A will gives a parent peace of mind: that they have done everything they can to protect their children in the event of their death.”

If you would like advice on drawing up your will, please contact a member of our Private Wealth and Succession Planning team.

Danny Schwarz and Stephen Dodge discuss the imminent closure of Prince Charles Cinema in Estates Gazette

Posted on: March 27th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director and Head of Commercial Real Estate Danny Schwarz, and Trainee Solicitor Stephen Dodge examine how the ongoing lease renewal dispute between a tenant – the Prince Charles Cinema – and their landlord reveals real estate concerns for many of London’s independent businesses.

Danny and Stephen’s article was published in Estates Gazette, 25 March 2025, and can be found here.

——

From packed showings of cult classics like The Room to raucous singalong presentations of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Londoners are united by weird and wonderful memories from the iconic Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square. However, few visitors would have imagined, while passing through the theatre’s red carpeted corridors, that such a long-standing institution does not own its space.

Like many of London’s independent businesses, the Prince Charles Cinema is a tenant, and is currently suffering the nightmare of all tenants – a bitter dispute with its landlord. However, unlike the horror classics that have played across its screens, the plucky protagonist of this story seems unlikely to make it out alive.

The cinema announced earlier this year that its landlord has all but chosen to force the cinema to close its doors.

Lease renewals and break clauses

In what otherwise might be a standard lease renewal at market rents, the landlord has demanded rents the cinema pays are far above market rates. It has also proposed a rolling break right in the lease, which would allow the landlord to terminate the lease on six months’ notice at any time. The belief is that the landlord, owned by real estate development company Criterion Capital, intends to redevelop the property.

It’s not hard to see why

Already a prime London location, the Prince Charles Cinema is an historic building in an area of high footfall. Despite the theatre’s old-world charm, there are likely scores of rival businesses that would happily swoop in on such a desirable plot.

While break clauses in commercial leases are a part of business included to provide a degree of certainty of term to the parties and to minimise the risk of non-payment of rent, they are typically commonplace in commercial leases. A landlord or tenant may have an option to break on the third or fifth anniversary of their agreement, but that option allows the break to occur only on that specific date, with notice. Sometimes, tenants with break clauses are even rewarded for not exercising that clause with a rent-free period after the break date.

The proposed break clause in the Prince Charles Cinema’s new lease would throw certainty to the wind by allowing the landlord to force out the tenant at any time.

The demand for above-market rents adds a further layer of obfuscation to the negotiations.

The landlord’s break which they can exercise at any time is not in itself a reason for the Prince Charles not stay in occupation. The above market rent is more likely to prevent the cinema from renewing its lease. If the landlord wanted the property vacant, it might have simply elected not to discuss renewal. Unless of course the Prince Charles is protected by the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954.

A look at the lease

A look at the current lease which is available to view at the Land Registry suggests that the Prince Charles could be in a better negotiating position than reported, given that it enjoys security of tenure under the lease. This means the cinema could serve a notice on the landlord requesting a new lease on the same terms as the existing lease save for the rent and the term of the lease which would both need to be in line with the current market. This would mean that for the landlord to oppose the grant of a new lease it would have to object on one of the prescribed grounds, in this case most likely redevelopment.

The difficulty the landlord would face is that at present its plans to redevelop the property are nothing more than rumours and to oppose a new lease the landlord must show genuine intent, through applying for planning permission, for example

A look at the rent review provisions in the current lease of the cinema hints at another reason the landlord may be wary of statutory renewal proceedings. The lease granted in 1963 contains provisions for rent review every 21 years and capped at £14,000 per annum. This may explain how the cinema has survived this long in Leicester Square. Capped rent reviews are less common in modern leases. Leases also tend to be shorter, and rent reviews usually occur every 5 years, not every 21.

Ultimately, this is all speculation. It is impossible to know the exact status of the negotiations. Unless the Prince Charles has grounds to oppose the proposed higher rents and rolling landlord’s break, there is likely little the cinema can do in this situation.

Despite a petition circulating gathering more than 15,000 signatures at the time of writing, for independent businesses in the entertainment and hospitality sectors who are facing these ‘David vs Goliath’ battles against their larger landlords, there is simply not enough bargaining power.

Silver screens and silver linings

This position is made worse for businesses with unique or novel requirements for their property, such as cinemas.

While the Prince Charles is a unique business with its niche and devout following, cinemas are becoming increasingly less desirable as tenants, due to their relatively low turnover post-pandemic. In areas like Leicester Square, there is an added incentive for landlords to attract businesses with high turnover and higher spend per customer, so that they can charge turnover rents.

There is one silver lining to the storm cloud gathering above the Prince Charles Cinema: the landlord has not yet applied for planning permission to redevelop. A search of Westminster Council’s Planning Portal shows just one entry relating to the property – an approved application to display an unlit sign reading ‘to let’.

So, for now at least, the show goes on.

If you would like to know more about our Commercial Real Estate services, or to get advice about commercial leases, please click here

Jim Richards discusses divorce and pension sharing orders in FT Adviser and Today’s Wills & Probate

Posted on: March 25th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director and Head of Family Jim Richards discusses how despite their usefulness, the use of pension sharing orders in divorce proceedings has not become widespread since their introduction 25 years ago.

Jim’s article was published in FT Adviser, 20 March 2025, and can be found here. A version of his article was also published in Today’s Wills & Probate, 21 March 2025, and can be found here.

It is a sadly familiar scenario at the end of a marriage – especially in TV dramas. Along with the sale of the house there is the dividing up of the debris from the failed relationship. Who gets the pictures? Who gets the potted plants? Who gets the cat?

Not so often featured is perhaps the most important decision of all: who gets the pension?

A study undertaken on pensions and divorce at the start of the decade by research hub MICRA, based at the University of Manchester, along with the Pensions Policy Institute, came to some clear conclusions.

The research found that there were “wide gendered pension disparities” within couples at the higher end of the income distribution, as well as those at the lower end too. Overall, it suggested that such disparities could make a “marked difference” to couples going through separation proceedings.

However, unlike a prenuptial agreement, for example, pension sharing on divorce should not exclusively be a concern for the wealthy.

Its potential importance and contribution to wellbeing applies widely across society as a whole.

Yet, in the midst of the mayhem that often accompanies the dissolution of a marriage, it can easily get overlooked.

Pensions often not priority

By and large couples heading for divorce are in their 30s and 40s.

Retirement may seem a long way off and the immediate priority might be ‘what happens now?’ rather than the remote issue of finances 30 years ahead.

Of course, one aspect of this is that pensions still do not loom large enough in younger, middle-aged people’s awareness. Many do not save enough and they do not do so when they are young enough for it to make a difference.

As revealed by the MICRA and PPI research, most people are also significantly under-resourced in terms of their retirement income and pay little attention to this until they are in their 50s.

By this point, it is obviously much harder to compensate by increasing contributions for the years that have already passed.

Meanwhile, on divorce, this deficit problem can be compounded if parties are aiming to take on new mortgages to meet their housing needs with the possibility that they might not be repaid until well into retirement.

Any income that they enjoy must be deployed first to repaying the mortgage.

They will not have time enough from perhaps their early 50s until retirement in which to put more money into a pension fund.

Short-term thinking about pensions can overlook the importance of long-term financial security – and it also reflects the importance of receiving tailored legal advice.

If you would like advice on divorce and financial settlements, please contact a member of our Family team.

Lawrence Stephens Directors named in Spears’ Property Indices 2025

Posted on: March 20th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Whether handling commercial properties, mixed-use developments or the most exclusive super-prime residences, the very best property lawyers are trusted by HNW clients to provide expert guidance throughout the often lengthy, intricate, and high-stakes process of buying, building, and selling real estate.

We are delighted to announce that Stephen Messias, Director in our Commercial Real Estate team, and Goli-Michelle Banan, Head of Residential Real Estate, have been named top property lawyers in Spears’ Property Indices 2025.

“The advisers selected for the Spear’s Property Lawyers Index 2025 demonstrate not only an extraordinary depth of knowledge but also an ability to navigate the evolving landscape of property law with skill and precision.”

To read the full list, click here

Lawrence Stephens launches tax offering with key Director hire

Posted on: March 19th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens is delighted to announce the appointment of Director Leigh Sayliss, who will be heading up a brand-new Tax practice for the firm. Leigh joins from Memery Crystal where he was a Partner in their highly-respected Tax department.

Leigh is a Chartered Tax Advisor with particular expertise in property, corporate and employment taxes. He advises on the tax aspects of a wide range of property and corporate transactions, including incentive arrangements for key employees.

At Lawrence Stephens, Leigh will primarily be working alongside the well-established Corporate & Commercial team, as well as other related departments such as Real Estate and Private Wealth to provide integrated Tax advice.

Leigh is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT), Chair of the CIOT Property Taxes Committee and a member of HMRC working groups in relation to Stamp Duty Land Tax and construction matters. He is also a Chartered Engineer and uses his previous experience in industry to ensure that his advice is not only technically accurate but also is of practical help to his clients.

Speaking on his appointment, Leigh commented: “It is a pleasure to be joining an excellent and dynamic team at Lawrence Stephens, particularly during such an exciting period of growth for the firm.

“I look forward to working alongside friends old and new, heading up this new practice for the firm to providing cross-departmental expertise to Lawrence Stephens’ valued and loyal clients.”

Managing Partner Steve. Bernstein commented: “Leigh’s experience and expertise perfectly compliment that of our growing team and we are delighted to welcome him to the firm.

“With Leigh’s appointment, we are also excited to launch our brand-new Tax offering which will allow us to provide our clients with truly integrated legal advice, while building upon our existing suite of services.”

Leigh’s appointment follows that of Directors Steve Clinning, John Aynsley, Chris Cagney, Matthew Hind, Nickhil Mandora and Sam Silverman, who all recently joined the firm from Memery Crystal.

Emma Cocker outlines how zero-hours contracts can contribute to sexual harassment in People Management

Posted on: March 18th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker discusses how the prevalence of zero-hours contracts at McDonald’s may have contributed to widespread sexual harassment, in People Management.

Emma’s article was published in People Management, 18 March 2025.

McDonald’s is in expansion mode, with ambitious plans for 200 new restaurants to add to its existing UK network of 1,450 outlets. However, this growth is somewhat overshadowed by persistent allegations of abuse and harassment from those working under the golden arches.

Following allegations by more than 100 current and former staff, a July 2023 BBC investigation into McDonald’s described working conditions as “a toxic culture of sexual assault, harassment, racism and bullying”. According to the BBC, workers as young as 17 had been abused, bullied, groped and harassed.

The investigation came off the back of McDonald’s signing an agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in February 2023 in which it pledged to protect its staff from sexual harassment. The agreement was reached following concerns about how sexual harassment complaints made by McDonald’s staff were handled. McDonald’s accepted that it had “fallen short” and “deeply apologised”, confirming that every employee deserves to work in a safe, respectful and inclusive workplace.

However, the problem persists. Appearing before MPs sitting on the business and trade select committee in January 2025, Alistair Macrow, CEO for McDonald’s UK and Ireland, told the committee that 29 people had been dismissed over the past 12 months as a result of sexual harassment allegations. Macrow was asked by the committee chair, Liam Byrne MP, whether McDonald’s had “basically now become a predator’s paradise”. Macrow said the allegations made by the BBC were “abhorrent, unacceptable and there is no place for them in McDonald’s”. He added that the company was determined there should be “no hiding place for bad actors”.

Despite Macrow’s pledges that appropriate action would be taken, the situation does not appear to have improved. Some 300 incidents have been reported to the EHRC, while 700-plus current and former employees are taking legal action against McDonald’s in which they accuse the firm of failing to protect them.

Employers’ responsibilities towards their staff are clearly outlined in the Equality Act 2010, which specifies that they have a statutory duty to protect all employees from discrimination and harassment, regardless of whether they are full time, part time or employed on a zero-hours basis.

It is widely recognised that zero-hours workers are particularly vulnerable to experiencing discrimination and harassment. Workers engaged in this way face employment insecurity and often fear negative consequences if they complain about working conditions. The BBC states that, as of January 2025, almost 90 per cent of McDonald’s 170,000 UK workforce were on zero-hours contracts. This, along with a predominantly franchise model where local McDonald’s managers are usually responsible for staff recruitment, is likely to be a contributing factor to the present circumstances.

Without a fixed hours guarantee and the right to reasonable notice of shift changes, vulnerable employees can be easily pressurised into complying with employer demands or find themselves facing financial losses they may not be able to bear.

Last October, the government introduced the employment rights bill, which is designed to bring ‘exploitative’ zero-hours contracts to an end. The draft bill includes a right to guaranteed hours, a right to reasonable notice of shifts and a right to payment for shifts cancelled or curtailed at short notice. It is hoped that these changes will go some way to fixing the power imbalance inherent in zero-hours contracts, whereby the employer holds much more power than the employee.

Failure to provide a safe, harassment-free environment has led to significant adverse publicity for McDonald’s, putting a spotlight on the risks facing businesses that allow such behaviour to persist. At least in the case of McDonald’s, there appears to be a direct correlation between the use of zero-hours contracts and complaints of discrimination and harassment. As such, employers need to understand the consequences of failing to address potential claims of discrimination and harassment, and the relationship these claims have with zero-hours contracts.

Moving forwards, people will pay close attention to what McDonald’s does in creating a safe working environment for its employees that is free from discrimination and harassment. In the meantime, much needs to be done to reassure the general public that things have changed, and how the company handles an escalating number of claims will also be closely monitored.

If you would like some advice on meeting your employer obligations regarding discrimination and harassment, please contact a member of the Employment team.

Employment law insight: what were the BBC’s obligations during the Huw Edwards scandal?

Posted on: March 7th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The BBC have come under questioning regarding its handling of the Huw Edwards case in the wake of him pleading guilty to child sex offences on 31 July 2024. There is a particular focus on the period of Edwards’ suspension from July 2023, when he continued to receive his full pay of £475,000 per annum, and also received a pay rise of £40,000 during this time. We now know that the BBC were made aware of his arrest during November 2023. The underlying question here is whether his employer should have dismissed him at this point.

Putting aside the awful nature of his crimes, there is no getting away from the fact that, from an employment law perspective, the BBC had obligations towards Edwards until his resignation in April 2024.

Obligations during suspension

Once an employer is made aware of allegations of criminal activity and criminal charges relating to its employee, they are obligated to investigate to try and obtain as much information as possible.

Right to suspend

In most cases of gross misconduct (and more serious cases of simple misconduct), employers should consider suspending an employee pending the results of their investigation. Whilst suspension is by no means the default position, the ACAS code of Practice suggests suspension is acceptable if the employer reasonably believes it would be protecting any of the following:

the investigation: for example, if you’re concerned about someone damaging evidence or influencing witnesses;
the business: for example if there’s a genuine risk to your customers, property or business interests;
other staff; or
the person under investigation.

During the suspension, the employer will need to carefully consider decisions surrounding pay. Unless there is a clear contractual right to do so, the employer is not entitled to suspend a salaried employee without pay or contractual benefits.

In this case, if the BBC withheld or reduced Edward’s pay during his suspension, there would have been a risk of legal action by Edwards, although it is questionable whether Edwards would have wished to attract further media attention by instigating legal proceedings. In fact, there would still have been a risk of legal action, such as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal even if the contract allowed reduced or no pay during suspension.

Would it have been fair to dismiss Edwards from November 2023, had he not resigned in April 2024?

Following the allegations, careful consideration ought to have been given to the pending disciplinary process and what action to take.

Prior to any dismissal, employers should consider the following:

nature of the conduct: in cases of misconduct, consider whether actions or allegations relating to actions outside of work are sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action at work. Sometimes even cases that appear to be obvious misconduct affecting employment can lead to successful claims of unfair dismissal, such as in Walters v Asda Stores.
the evidence: when considering dismissal, the employer should endeavour to have as much information as possible prior to making any decision.
employee’s health: prior to any dismissal, the employer ought to consider whether there are any allegations or information to suggest ill-health on the part of the employee. If so, the employer ought to investigate the employee’s health. If the employee refuses to co-operate, it may be fair for the employer to dismiss.
the procedure: an employer must still follow a fair and reasonable procedure if an employee is accused of misconduct, including gross misconduct. What is fair and reasonable will vary from case to case, but there are certain minimum requirements, which ought to be followed in all cases. For example, employees have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or Trade Union representative at a disciplinary hearing.

In the case of Edwards, the complexity arises from the fact his criminal activity and convictions were unrelated to his work. Further, at the time of his arrest, the BBC claimed it did not have all the details surrounding the offences. It was also known that Edwards was hospitalized due to experiencing severe mental health issues which had worsened since the allegations were made.

While criminal allegations or convictions alone may not justify disciplinary action or dismissal, there may still be grounds to dismiss. An employer may be able to establish a potentially fair reason for dismissal, if they can show there is misconduct sufficiently serious to justify dismissal for some other substantial reason.

Employers may consider that an employee’s conduct (in this case criminal conduct outside of the workplace) is sufficiently serious to justify a dismissal on the basis that continuing to employ them would have a reputational impact. They would have to consider the nature of the offence and whether this will attract negative publicity. If so, they would need to consider reputational risk, as well as their health and safety obligations towards other staff, or service users.

In the case of Edwards, given the nature of his offending, the reputational damage would have had a huge negative effect on the reputation of the BBC – a body that must be seen to uphold the highest standards. Had Edwards not resigned and the BBC continued to employ him, this would have exposed the BBC to disrepute, scandal and contempt. Edward’s link to the BBC could have caused sufficient damage to its reputation to affect the amount of licence revenue the BBC could generate for years to come.

The BBC probably had all these considerations in mind when it decided not to dismiss Edwards. Edwards had not been found, or pled, guilty and the complex investigation was still ongoing. He was also hospitalised due to a mental health crisis. Failing to follow a fair and reasonable procedure, and disregarding his ill-health, could have exposed the BBC to liability for a claim of unfair dismissal. However, had Edwards not resigned in April 2024, the BBC would have had fair reason to dismiss him following his guilty plea.

When should an employer take action against the employee?

There are no hard and fast rules to apply when determining whether to go ahead with disciplinary proceedings when there is a criminal trial pending. The most important thing is for the employer to conduct its own investigations into the issues and to properly consider the options available in line with their requirements in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employers have discretion whether to postpone disciplinary action where the employee’s misconduct is also the subject of a criminal investigation and prosecution. Even in emotive cases such as this, an employer ought to be careful not to act precipitously.

BBC’s obligations to other staff

Whistleblowers who gave evidence to the BBC internal inquiry into Huw Edwards have criticised the way it was handled. One staff member says they were sent flirtatious private messages by the presenter in 2023. They complained that they had not been kept informed about the progress of the inquiry. Another staff member claimed that Edwards sent suggestive messages alongside a picture of his hotel suite.

Such allegations may constitute whistleblowing, which affords the employee various protections from dismissal and detriment, on the ground that they have made a protected disclosure. Providing effective protection for whistleblowers is important for several reasons, including:

encouraging a speak-up culture;
internal risk control;
limiting reputational damage;
protecting staff morale; and
avoiding unnecessary litigation.

If an employee is dismissed or is subjected to detriment on the ground that they have made a protected disclosure, this can expose the employer to potential tribunal claims for automatically unfair dismissal or whistleblowing detriment. Importantly, financial compensation in respect of these claims is uncapped, so employer liability can be significant.

When someone blows the whistle, the employer should explain its procedures for making a disclosure and whether the whistleblower can expect to receive any feedback. Often a whistleblower expects to influence the action the employer might take, or expects to make a judgement on whether an issue has been resolved, but this will rarely be appropriate.

It is in the employer’s best interests to deal with a whistleblowing disclosure promptly. This allows the employer to fully investigate, make any further necessary enquiries and determine any appropriate action.

There are several things an employer should do when a whistleblowing disclosure is made. It is important to make sure that as an employer, you:

handle any whistleblowing complaint fairly and consistently;
follow any process your organisation has for whistleblowing; and
keep the identity of the whistleblower confidential.

The Government’s Whistleblowing Code of Practice encourages clear and prompt communications between the whistleblower and the employer. They should provide feedback to whistleblowers, within the confines of their internal policies and procedures. This is vital so that whistleblowers understand how their disclosure has been handled and dealt with. Failing to do so may result in the whistleblower approaching other individuals or organisations to blow the whistle externally. Therefore, it is strongly advisable for an employer to have a policy which explains the benefits of making a disclosure, the process and how the disclosure will be dealt with.

Takeaways from this case

It is reasonable to say that this case is far more complex than it may have initially appeared. If you need further guidance in relation to employee misconduct, suspension or dismissal, or you need a whistleblowing or disciplinary policy, please speak to our specialist employment team.

Celebrating gender equality on International Women’s Day

Posted on: March 7th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Supporting women in the progression of their careers is important to us at Lawrence Stephens. We are proud to have established a Gender Equality Network (GEN) to drive equality initiatives forward. In its first year, GEN has developed a toolkit of supporting resources, held a panel event to explore allyship, arranged the provision of sanitary protection in the loos in our building and invited speakers to discuss topics from effective communication to hormone health.

With International Women’s Day approaching, we decided to widen the conversation to mark GEN’s first anniversary. Over the last few weeks several members of the GEN committee and the wider firm were interviewed on the topic of equality in the workplace. Many interesting insights were shared, including the things we would say to our younger selves and what we would like to see change in the next decade. We put them together in a short film which was premiered at our International Women’s Day party yesterday. We look forward to sharing a shorter version of this video with you soon. We hope you enjoy watching it and that some of our insights resonate with you.

This International Women’s Day we celebrate our brilliant female colleagues and our wonderful male allies with whom we continue our efforts to move towards greater equality at work and in society.

Who inspires you to use your voice to strive for greater equality?

Dominic Holden discusses encryption in The Times

Posted on: March 6th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director Dominic Holden explores the recent dispute between Apple and the Home Office over the use of end-to-end encryption and potential backdoors into user data, in The Times.

Dominic’s article was published in The Times, 6 March 2025, and can be found here.

Apple refuses to open the backdoor, but at what cost?

The Home Office’s demand for Apple to provide them with a ‘backdoor’, allowing access to users’ encrypted data, has been met by simple refusal by Apple. In protest, the tech giant instead opted to entirely withdraw from UK users the ability to protect their data using Apple’s most advanced encryption feature.

End-to-end encryption is double-edged – and the arguments on both sides are compelling.

On the one hand, it allows users to better protect their private data from hackers and other prying eyes. On the other, it can allow criminals to avoid law enforcement’s digital surveillance. It can also be a minefield for prosecution lawyers hampering their ability to obtain disclosure of the documents they need to build a case against terrorists and others who have threatened national security.

Like many tech companies, Apple faces a dilemma. It must respect the laws of the jurisdiction in which it operates. However, security and privacy are at the heart of its offering. Kowtowing to the UK government, risks opening the floodgates to other governments making similar demands in spite of Apple’s privacy commitments to its customers.

As this debate rages on, it remains to be seen whether Apple’s solution sufficiently placates the UK Government, or whether the next round will involve a demand that a backdoor is provided for all data.

The creation of a backdoor is, by its very nature, a risk. It creates a vulnerability which could be exploited by hackers. It is perhaps for this reason that Apple has made this decision – either you have encryption (with no backdoor), or you don’t have encryption at all.

This approach, however, misses a nuance.

Permitting users to encrypt their data is an effective tool against hackers and will ward off the vast majority of opportunistic hackers. Although creating a backdoor may create a vulnerability for the most sophisticated of hackers to exploit, this must surely be a better option than a blanket removal of such a powerful weapon users have at their disposal?

Understandably, many will bristle at the idea of the Government being able to gain access to their encrypted data. However, given that we do not live in a police state and the vast majority of us are not up to no good, a backdoor could help to keep the public safe – provided that there is robust, considered legislation and supervision from the English Courts.

For now, Apple users should take stock of their data and consider that which they would most regret falling into the hands of a hacker. There are still, after all, many (non-Apple) services available that allow for the secure storage and transmission of your data.

For more information on our data privacy and data protection services, please click here

Helping children understand divorce and blended families: Our top book picks

Posted on: March 3rd, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

World Book Day, on the 6th of March, presents an excellent opportunity to explore literature that can assist families in navigating the complexities of separation and blended family dynamics. The emotional turmoil that often accompanies separation can make it difficult for parents to communicate effectively with their children. While each family’s circumstances are unique, the following books can serve as valuable resources to facilitate discussions with younger children about these significant changes.

Metaphors can be an effective tool in helping children comprehend and process difficult topics. The selected titles below not only address the issue of separation but also explore the dynamics of blended families, offering a gentle and relatable approach to these sensitive subjects.

Our Top Seven Recommendations