Search and find what you need faster.

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Ethnic abuse in the workplace – a practical guide for employers

Posted on: July 18th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers are legally required to protect their employees from abuse or discrimination related to ‘protected characteristics’. There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, pregnancy, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Discrimination can take several forms, including:

  • Direct discrimination: treating someone less favourably simply because they hold a particular characteristic;
  • Indirect discrimination: treating everyone the same, which results in an adverse effect on people with a particular protected characteristic (which cannot be justified);
  • Harassment: unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating or offensive environment; and
  • Victimisation: subjecting someone to a detriment because they have done (or will do) something in connection with the Equality Act 2010 (including make complaints about discrimination).

Ethnic abuse in the workplace

We were recently instructed by an individual who was subjected to serious and disturbing abuse by her colleagues, based on her ethnic background and assumptions about her political opinions. There was no evidence to support any of these contentions, which had been circulated within the workplace as if they were fact. This conduct constituted discrimination, bullying and harassment. We were able to negotiate significant compensation for our client in relation to these potential claims, which would have caused reputational damage to her employer if they had been contested in an open tribunal.

Practical advice for employers

Abuse on the basis of ethnicity may manifest through offensive remarks, exclusionary behaviour, or more overt acts of hostility. Employers must be alert to the ways in which global events can trigger or exacerbate such conduct in the workplace, as they increasingly influence interpersonal dynamics and employee relations within diverse workforces.

The war in Ukraine, Israeli action in Gaza and the conflict between Israel and Iran are fuelling heightened sensitivities in UK workplaces. Employers must take steps to safeguard employees from discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or unfair treatment based on their religion, national origin and/or perceived political stance.

To minimise risk of Equality Act 2010 claims, employers should aim to provide a safe and inclusive work environment in which employees are able to feel comfortable raising concerns. Employers should avoid stereotyping or making assumptions about employees based on nationality. Indeed, they can help to prevent this by offering training on unconscious bias and cultural sensitivity.

Employers are advised to:

  • review and reinforce anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies with a particular emphasis on preventing xenophobic or politically charged behaviour, including by promoting respectful dialogue in the workplace;
  • train managers in how to handle sensitive conversations and communications in a way which balances competing rights and freedoms;
  • monitor for signs of workplace tension or exclusion based on perceived religion, national origin or political or religious affiliations;
  • handle any grievances linked to political or religious tensions robustly;
  • manage reputational risk where employee conduct or public statements intersect with sensitive geopolitical issues, via disciplinary proceedings where appropriate; and

  • be alert to signs of stress presented by employees linked to external geopolitical events and signpost them towards mental health resources.

Take action today—review your workplace policies and ensure your team is equipped to prevent and address ethnic abuse. Contact the Lawrence Stephens employment team.

Upward-Only Rent Reviews Banned: What UK Leaseholders Need to Know

Posted on: July 17th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

As part of the newly introduced English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the UK Government has unveiled plans to outlaw Upward-Only Rent Reviews (UORRs) clauses in commercial leases — a move that could reshape the future of landlord-tenant dynamics.

The ban will apply to new agreements where, on the date the lease is entered into, the new rent following a rent review is not known and cannot be determined. It will not impact those leases already in place however, if implemented, any clause in a new or renewal commercial lease, whether contracted out of the 1954 Act or not, requiring the rent not to decrease will be unenforceable.

The proposal, aimed at revitalising high streets and supporting small businesses, has already been met with mixed reception across the property sector and The British Property Federation has criticised the lack of industry consultation.

What Are Upward-Only Rent Reviews?

UORRs are a common feature in commercial leases in England and Wales. UORRs allow rent to increase or remain static at review dates – typically every five years – but never decrease, even if market rents fall. This industry accepted approach to commercial leasing has long been favoured by landlords for providing income certainty and supporting property valuations.

Tenant Perspective: A Welcome Relief

For tenants, particularly small and independent businesses, the proposed ban is likely to be regarded as a positive development. UORRs have incurred criticism for binding tenants to unsustainable rent levels, especially in volatile markets. However, the outlaw of UORRs will effectively transfer the risk from tenant to landlord.

As such, a decision will need to be made by landlords as to whether to adopt a fixed rent or to permit rent variation through a rent review clause that accommodates both rises and reductions in rent throughout the term of the lease.

Landlord Perspective: A New Risk Landscape

Landlords, however, will almost certainly have concerns about the reform. Whilst rental income from commercial leases is currently considered a stable and predictable revenue stream, the prohibition of UORRs will introduce greater volatility in cashflow. Furthermore, industry stakeholders will argue that the outlaw of UORRs will undermine the perceived security of rental income and place prospective commercial property developers at a disadvantage when seeking finance.

Landlords may therefore choose to obviate the balance between risk and reward by abandoning open market review clauses and opting for the stability provided by index linked reviews.

What Happens Next?

The proposed ban on upward-only rent reviews marks a significant shift in UK commercial leasing. Whilst it aims to give tenants greater flexibility and affordability, landlords face a more complex and potentially less predictable income landscape.

In order to counteract this, it is possible that landlords will take a more aggressive stance at the outset of negotiations to mitigate the risk of stagnant or falling rents. Similarly, the inclusion of tenant-friendly terms, such as break clauses and rent-free periods, may become less prevalent as landlords reassess their leasing strategies.

Alternatively, landlords may opt for shorter leases which are to be contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The potential drawback of this approach is that the cost of reletting the property will likely be passed to the tenant.

We may also see more pre-agreed stepped rents being negotiated (such increases would not be caught by the ban as the rent would be known at the outset) and this would give both tenants and landlords certainty at the start of a lease as to how much rent will be payable at any given time during the lease term.

Ultimately, the success of this legislative change will depend on how effectively the market adapts to a model that seeks to balance commercial flexibility with financial viability. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, stakeholders on both sides will need to stay alert to legislative developments and prepare for a new era in lease negotiation.

For more information on our Commercial Real Estate team, click here.

Authors

Nickhil Mandora

Louisa Hartley

Sophia Dixon

Digital Asset Law Reform: Key Takeaways for UK Advisers

Posted on: July 17th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Following the Law Commission’s proposals for crypto and digital asset reform regime, Director Matt Green explores what these proposals mean for advisers – as well as those looking to recover stolen or hacked cryptocurrency.

Matt’s article was co-authored with Ashley Fairbrother, Partner at Edmonds Marshall McMahon.

Matt and Ashley’s article was published in FT Adviser, 16 July 2025, and can be found here.

In June 2025, the UK’s Law Commission proposed new powers to drastically help victims of fraud following the loss of cryptoassets where key details, like the bad actors’ details, are unknown. These proposals would allow courts to grant free-standing information orders at the outset of crypto fraud investigations, before the victim needs to commit to pursuing a substantive claim.

This may prove to be a vital legal reform and significantly increase access to justice, especially when victims have lost significant funds, and do not want to risk spending more money pursuing unknown parties who may or may not still hold funds.

The crypto fraud epidemic

Fraud concerning cryptoassets is a significant issue for consumers and businesses alike. Chainalysis’s “The 2025 Crypto Crime Report” notes that ‘pig butchering’ scams (i.e. scams via social engineering) have increased 40% year on year, and cost victims a total of $9.9 billion as of 2024. Separately, Chainalysis’s report notes that $2.2billion was stolen from crypto platforms across this period.

Last year, Action Fraud – the UK’s reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime – reported over 649,000 instances of investment fraud, with 66% attributed to crypto investment related schemes. Individuals are losing life savings, family homes and pensions, and taking out astronomical loans to pay fraudsters who demand more money to release funds already taken under the guise of investment profits.

Scams are often initiated by telephone calls, texts and emails from actors purporting to be from major cryptocurrency exchanges or banks who hold convincing personal data, usually obtained via data scraping, to harbour a victim’s trust and eventually extract funds. Assets are then typically laundered to facilitate human trafficking, drugs trades and organised crime.

Currently, victims can follow their funds across their respective blockchains by providing practitioners with their transaction identifiers, which show the funds being withdrawn or sent from their control to the fraudster. Following a traceable laundering process, funds can end up at centralised retail outfits like Binance, Kraken and Coinbase, offshore swapping services like SimpleSwap and ChangeNow, to purportedly decentralised outfits, who offer services without obtaining Know Your Client documents or Anti Money Laundering checks, performing permissionless transactions.

Once at these exchanges, victims need to know key information to consider the viability of pursuing a legal claim, including details of the exchange’s customer, information concerning internet-protocol addresses, trading histories and, of course, the balances held at accounts. Without this information, it is extremely difficult to consider whether a victim should spend good money chasing lost assets, and in most reported cases, victims have taken a high-risk approach in pursuing “persons unknown” with limited information.

To obtain this material, lawyers can use gateway 25(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules (which dictate the rules around litigation in England and Wales), which requires victims to start a substantive claim alongside an application for disclosure of information. This means they must be prepared to sue someone and detail the claim clearly at that stage.

As a commercial proposition, this might be extremely costly. The Law Commission recognises this at paragraph 3.78 of its report, where it states that “victims are not always able to say that they definitely intend to commence proceedings in England and Wales”

Similarly, to obtain wider reliefs against perpetrators, including a worldwide freezing injunction which prohibits the defendants from moving or dissipating their assets globally up to the value of the claim, the victim must also show from the outset that they have other assets to the value of the loss, on the basis that the injunction detriments the defendants unfairly. This is an enormous burden for any victim of fraud to overcome, without really knowing anything about the defendants.

Currently, the bar to entry is very high. Only those with deep pockets, and a high appetite for risk, can pursue their funds via the courts.

The Law Commission’s proposal

The Law Commission has recently published the “Digital assets and (electronic) trade documents in private international law, including Section 72 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, consultation paper” to assist victims, by allowing the court to grant a “free -standing information order to assist a claimant at the initial investigations stage of the proceedings”.

Should the proposal be successful, this would allow victims to assess the viability of the claim and consider the facts at hand without starting a formal claim. The costs might be substantially lower, and without the risk associated with formal litigation.

The proposed test for granting one of these orders is provided at paragraph 4.92 within the consultation paper, and summarised as:

  1. The case has a certain strength, in that the claimant must evidence a wrongdoing;
  2. The disclosure of this information is necessary to allow the victim to bring legal proceedings or other redress;
  3. The court must be satisfied that there is no other court in which the claimant could reasonably bring the application for disclosure;
  4. The court must be satisfied there is an adequate link to England and or Wales. For example, that the victim resides, domiciles or is a national here. This might also include (though not explicit in the paper) that the defendant purports to have an adequate connection to this jurisdiction – for example where a scam investment website says the company is registered in England.

Effect and next steps

In principle, this initiative will drastically lower the obstacles to recourse by giving victims a cost-effective solution to assess a claim’s viability and mitigate litigation risks early on. A consultation period for this paper is open until 8 September 2025, and many law firms and individuals have already backed the Law Commission’s above proposal, including both of us as authors of this piece as well as our peers including Nathan Capone at Fieldfisher.

This reform is vital in widening access to justice by revolutionising the initial stages of crypto asset recovery by removing substantial financial and procedural barriers that currently prevent many victims from commencing a claim.

To find out more about our Blockchain and Digital Assets services, please click here

 

Mo Pasricha interviewed on talkSPORT

Posted on: July 14th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

Head of Sports and Entertainment Mo Pasricha was recently featured on the weekday mid-morning sports programme talkSPORT.  Speaking to well-known radio and television presenter Jim White and co-presenter Simon Jordan, businessman, media personality and former chairman of Crystal Palace Football Club, Mo discussed a range of topics, including:

  • the role of lawyers behind the scenes in the modern game
  • the debate around profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) and whether it can work in football.
  • the intricacies of regulatory enforcement, including Manchester City’s 115+ charges. The Premier League charged City in 2023 with breaking financial fair play rules on 115 occasions, and Mo provided insight into the charges case and the potential outcome.

talkSPORT is the go-to station for sports fans in the UK, especially those passionate about football, rugby, and boxing. The video of the interview is available on talkSPORT’s YouTube video channel here.

For more information on Sports and Entertainment services, please click here. 

Lawrence Stephens hosts An Audience with Karen Millen

Posted on: July 14th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Directors Stephen Messias, Nickhil Mandora and Alexa Kordowicz were delighted to host An Audience with Karen Millen OBE in partnership with the Foundxrs Club, a private membership club for founders and entrepreneurs.

Karen is well-known for her sophisticated, tailored womenswear and the brand grew into an iconic name in British fashion with a presence in over 65 countries. Karen exited her business following its sale to Icelandic bank Kaupthing.

Head of Retail and Hospitality sector Nickhil Mandora introduced the firm to members followed by Karen who shared her inspiring journey from founding a small boutique in Kent with just £100 to building a globally recognised fashion brand valued at over £120 million.

Karen’s thought-provoking story was a powerful example of entrepreneurial vision, resilience, and strategic growth.  She relayed the challenges of building a global fashion empire, navigating the complexities of business ownership and exit, which resonated with the audience of fast-growing entrepreneurial businesses.

For more information on our Retail and Hospitality services, please click here.

Lawrence Stephens advises Scutum on strategic acquisition of Black Box Group

Posted on: July 11th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

Lawrence Stephens has advised global security and fire protection provider Scutum UK & Ireland on its acquisition of Black Box Group, a leading integrated fire and security solutions provider based in the Northwest of England.

Founded over 45 years ago, Black Box Group delivers end-to-end fire and electronic security services including system design, installation, maintenance, and 24/7 monitoring. The group comprises Black Box Security Alarm Systems (BBS), INS (Integrated Network Systems), and ESI (Electronic Security Installations), and serves clients across sectors such as education, healthcare, defence, and commercial property.

The acquisition, completed in tandem with a second,  significantly strengthens Scutum’s regional presence in the Northwest, complementing its existing fire detection capabilities and enhancing its strategic account offering across the UK.

The Lawrence Stephens team was led by Corporate and Commercial Head Jeff Rubenstein, supported by Tax Director Leigh Sayliss, Senior Associates Harshita Samani and Krysha Hunt, and Solicitors Avni Patel, Becci Collins and Carla Bernstein.

Jeff Rubenstein commented: “We are delighted to have supported Scutum, a long standing and valued client for Lawrence Stephens, on this important strategic acquisition. The integration of Black Box Group marks a significant step in Scutum’s UK growth strategy, and we are proud to have played a role in bringing this deal to completion. It was a pleasure working with the Scutum team. Their collaborative approach was greatly appreciated and we look forward to supporting them on future transactions”

Richard Jones, Chief Executive Officer of Scutum UK & Ireland, added: “We are extremely grateful to the team at Lawrence Stephens for their expert guidance and commitment throughout the transaction. Their commercial insight and responsive approach were instrumental in helping us complete this important acquisition efficiently and effectively.”

 

Lawrence Stephens secures rescission of winding-up order

Posted on: July 10th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The Lawrence Stephens Restructuring and Insolvency team, represented by Associate Lefteris Kallou, have succeeded in making an application to rescind a winding-up order. This is a relatively rare order granted only in exceptional circumstances, and which is the subject of very few reported cases in England and Wales.

The order, made under Rule 12.59 and Schedule 5(3) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, enabled our client (shareholder of the company) to regain control of his company from the Official Receiver and resume trading, thereby minimising the company’s exposure.

This matter involved several significant challenges:

Out-of-time application: We were instructed outside the strict five-business-day time limit for rescission applications. We successfully argued that exceptional circumstances justified the court exercising its discretion to allow the application to proceed.

Evidencing solvency post-winding-up: Despite a winding-up order having already been made, it was crucial to demonstrate that the company remained fundamentally solvent. We worked closely with the client to assess the company’s financials, debtor lists, and trading impact. We presented robust evidence, including up-to-date financial statements and management accounts, confirming the company’s ability to meet its debts.

Full discharge of unsecured creditors: A key condition was full repayment of the company’s unsecured creditors. In this case, all trade creditors had been discharged in advance of the hearing. The remaining creditor, HMRC (the petitioning creditor), had not confirmed up-to-date figures or bank details prior to the hearing. To provide the court with the necessary comfort, the client transferred £1.2 million into our client account to adequately cover the company’s HMRC liability. This allowed us to provide a solicitor’s undertaking to make full payment immediately upon HMRC’s confirmation.

Rare neutrality from the Official Receiver: Typically, where the petitioning creditor has not yet been paid (or where the petitioning creditor’s involvement has been limited), the Official Receiver will oppose rescission. In this case, however, the Official Receiver took the unusual step of remaining neutral – a significant factor in the court’s decision to grant the order.

Preventing receiver appointment by secured creditor: We engaged with Barclays, the secured creditor, to negotiate a temporary standstill pending the outcome of our client’s application. The delay in enforcement action prevented significant costs being incurred whilst preserving the company’s position during the interim.

Commenting on the case, Lefteris Kallou said “This matter presented a unique combination of procedural, evidential, and strategic challenges over a very short period of time. The court’s decision reflects both the strength of our client’s position and the structured approach we took in presenting it”.

For further information on our insolvency and restructuring services please click here

Gregg Wallace sacked by BBC: Businesses must take a strong stance against workplace misconduct

Posted on: July 9th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Following the news that presenter Gregg Wallace has been sacked by the BBC over an inquiry into alleged misconduct, Solicitor Becci Collins comments on the importance of businesses taking strong and immediate action against inappropriate behavior in the workplace.

Becci’s comments were published in Personnel Today, 9 July 2025, and can be found here.

Becci Collins, a solicitor in the employment team at Lawrence Stephens, said Wallace’s dismissal was “a stark reminder that inappropriate workplace behaviour will not be tolerated.

“However it is concerning that individuals have reported concerns about his behaviour for many years without action being taken.

“Employers must do better in complying with their obligations to employees, particularly in relation to their obligation to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

“The reputation and seniority of the individuals about whom complaints are made must have no bearing on how those complaints are investigated, what outcomes are reached or the punishments meted out to those who violate the law on harassment and discrimination.”

To find out more about employer obligations and how we can help, please click here

Ban on non-disclosure agreements: victory or vanity?

Posted on: July 9th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The government’s press release of 8 July 2025[1] sets out its proposal to amend the Employment Rights Bill (‘ERB’) to introduce a statutory ban on employers using non-disclosure agreements (‘NDAs’) in cases where an employee alleges harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination.

While the ERB already contained a variation to the Employment Rights Act 1996 to extend the scope of whistleblowing legislation to include allegations of sexual harassment, this new amendment could completely rewrite the rules on how employers deal with claims of harassment and discrimination by employees. But is it really the glorious victory campaigners make it out to be?

What is an NDA?

In employment law, NDAs are most commonly used in the form of a confidentiality clause. They are found in a number of employment-related documents, including contracts of employment.

It has also been standard practice for some time that settlement agreements entered into between employers and employees (either on termination of the employee’s employment or as part of the settlement of an ongoing Employment Tribunal claim) include a confidentiality clause preventing the disclosure of the existence of the settlement agreement. Crucially, they also prevent the disclosure of the circumstances leading up to the settlement agreement. This has traditionally been one of the biggest benefits for employers, allowing them to minimise the risk of adverse PR arising from Employment Tribunal claims. So why would the government take that benefit away?

The government’s rationale

The current proposal is not to ban NDAs in their entirety. However, their use will be severely curtailed in that they will be barred in cases of discrimination and harassment. 

There are existing mechanisms in place that restrict the use of NDAs. For example, any attempt to prevent an employee from making a protected disclosure under whistleblowing legislation (for example reporting a criminal offence to the authorities) is unenforceable. There has also been non-statutory guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission[1] in place since 2019 on the use of confidentiality agreements in discrimination, harassment and victimisation cases. However, these protections have been criticised as too weak and that is why the government has tabled this amendment to the ERB. Campaigners say that NDAs have been misused for too long, ‘silencing’ victims of discrimination and harassment by preventing them from speaking about their experiences in the workplace. High profile cases such as that of Zelda Perkins (an ex-assistant of Harvey Weinstein) who has fought the NDA she signed for the last eight years, highlight why campaigners felt this change was needed.  

Effect on settlement agreements

If passed, the ban will mean that any NDAs that seek to prevent an employee disclosing an allegation of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination will be unenforceable.

While this change will affect the use of NDAs in any employment documentation, the change will be most keenly felt in relation to settlement agreements.

These agreements have an important place in settling employment disputes, providing certainty and closure for both employees and employers. There is a risk that the government’s proposal will place employees at a disadvantage because employers may be less inclined to enter into settlements when they no longer have the comfort that the circumstances complained of, and any settlement reached, will remain confidential. This may force employees to pursue their claim via the Employment Tribunal, a process which is expensive and arduous, particularly due to the extreme delays within the Tribunal service. For these reasons, the government is unlikely to achieve its aim of ensuring that employees are no longer forced to suffer in silence because instead they may be forced to either walk away with nothing, or simply ‘put up and shut up’.

That said, if the ban on NDAs does come into force, settlement agreements will remain an important mechanism for employers in dealing with employment disputes because:

  • With the current Tribunal backlog, the average time from issuing a claim to a final hearing is over a year (and more commonly, over 18 months in cases of discrimination). This means that seeing cases all the way through the Tribunal process will result in significant legal costs.
  • In addition, litigation is distracting and time consuming, sucking up resources that could be used elsewhere.
  • Key witnesses may have left the business prior to a final hearing, meaning the company won’t be best placed to defend itself.
  • The ERB is a significant overhaul of employment legislation and creates several ‘Day 1’ rights for employees, including protection against unfair dismissal, which will further increase the wait time for Employment Tribunal claims.
  • In matters not involving allegations of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination, the ban has no effect.

When will this be implemented?

The government’s July 2025 roadmap for implementing the ERB[2] describes a phased approach to implementation. Some changes will take effect on the day the ERB is given Royal Assent, while others will take effect from April 2026 and October 2026. It is not yet known when this amendment, if passed, will take effect, but it would be no later than 2027.

Get in touch if you require further guidance on the use of NDAs or in relation to allegations of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination.

[1] Government Press Release: Press release: Ban on controversial NDAs silencing abuse

[2] Implementing the Employment Rights Bill – Our roadmap for delivering change

 

 

 

DEI in Real Estate Finance: How Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Are Reshaping the Sector

Posted on: July 9th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

Director Rachel Coulthard comments in Private Equity and Real Estate (PERE) Magazine on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the real estate finance space.

Rachel’s comments were published in PERE, 1 July 2025, and can be found on page 69 of the issue, here.

“There has been a massive increase in the prevalence of DEI awareness. Many organisations have implemented regular training and promoted conversations about the impact of language towards women and minority groups, for instance knowing not to use infantilising language towards women.”

“Investors and managers are now accepting that DEI is not just important to promote inclusive workplaces, but also vital to attract and retain employees. The best want the best, and by any measure, equality is what is best. For instance, we have created a Gender Equality Network, which seeks parity between the sexes. This includes goals such as increasing our proportion of women directors and striving for equal pay for employees, regardless of gender.

“I lead our Women in Real Estate Finance initiative, which spotlights the incredible work being done by women in the sector and creates further opportunities for women, both by building networks of like-minded individuals and by giving more junior women in the field mentoring and educational growth opportunities.”

“While progress has been achieved, it has not been without hurdles and occasional setbacks. Most notably, there has been a social and political backlash to DEI in the United States, and many major law firms, corporations, and other non-government bodies have either lessened their emphasis on DEI or removed it entirely. Furthermore, the increase and normalisation of toxic masculinity among influencers has shifted the landscape for younger generations. These trends are deeply troubling, and all those who believe in and fight for equality and inclusion need to stand their ground amidst the current climate.” 

Lawrence Stephens Joins Castle Trust Bank’s Prestigious Legal Panel

Posted on: July 8th, 2025 by zhewison

Lawrence Stephens is pleased to announce that we have been appointed to the legal panel of Castle Trust Bank.

Castle Trust’s range of specialist Bridging products covers standard bridging as well as light and heavy refurbishments, and their Buy to Let product provides longer-term funding with competitive fixed rates. Their business volumes have increased significantly over the last nine months, to the point where their legal panel warrants further expansion to help meet demand.

As a leading provider of legal services, Lawrence Stephens is excited to bring our specialist expertise in real estate finance and banking to Castle Trust Bank’s panel of legal advisors.

Anna Lewis, Commercial Director – Property comments: “We are delighted to welcome Lawrence Stephens to our exclusive panel of legal advisors. Demand for our Bridging and Buy to Let products has increased significantly over the last nine months and we expect that trend to continue. Bringing the expertise and experience of Lawrence Stephens onto our legal panel will help ensure we can continue to meet the high standards that specialist brokers have come to expect from Castle Trust Bank. ”

Gregory Palos, Head of Financial Institutions Sector at Lawrence Stephens comments: “We are thrilled to have been appointed to Castle Trust Bank’s legal panel. It is a pleasure to work with a bank that prioritises strong relationships and delivers a bespoke, tailored service, and client focused solutions – values that closely align with our own.
We look forward to collaborating with Castle Trust Bank to support its mission of accelerating their continued growth.”

For more information on our Banking and Real Estate Finance solutions please click here.

Lawrence Stephens & Howden Unveil Innovative Crypto Theft Recovery Solution

Posted on: July 7th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens has partnered with Howden, the global insurance intermediary group, to launch a first-of-its-kind solution for the cryptocurrency sector. This innovative facility combines robust crypto theft insurance with expert legal asset recovery services, offering clients a comprehensive and credible response to digital asset theft.

The new solution delivers more than just insurance – it provides clients with a fully integrated approach that includes legal expertise, access to leading crypto vendors, and forensic recovery capabilities.

“At Howden, we believe in delivering solutions that go beyond traditional insurance,” said Freddie Palmer, Head of Digital Assets and Blockchain at Howden. “By partnering with Lawrence Stephens, we’re empowering our clients with a seamless, end-to-end service that combines technical insurance advice, legal recourse, and access to the broader crypto ecosystem. It’s a powerful response to one of the industry’s most urgent challenges.”

Key features of the facility include:

  • Specialist legal support from Lawrence Stephens to initiate asset freezing and recovery proceedings.
  • Insurance coverage that includes partial reimbursement of legal recovery costs when engaging Lawrence Stephens.
  • Access to a trusted network of crypto vendors and forensic experts to trace and recover stolen assets.

“We’re delighted to offer our legal expertise to the insurance market through this collaboration with Howden,” said Matt Green, Head of Blockchain, Digital Assets and Technology Disputes at Lawrence Stephens. “After all, the legal process began helping an insurer reclaim payment following a ransomware attack.”

This launch marks a significant step forward in institutionalising crypto asset protection, offering clients a credible, structured, and responsive solution in an increasingly complex digital landscape. As digital assets become more mainstream, institutional-grade protection is essential to build trust, reduce risk, and support the long-term growth of the crypto economy.

To find out more about our Blockchain, Digital Assets and Technology Disputes services, please click here