How athletes and celebrities can ensure they stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings

Posted on: July 18th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Following Rory McIlroy’s recent divorce filing, and his subsequent dismissal of these proceedings, Head of Family Jim Richards and Associate in the Sports & Entertainment team William Bowyer explore how celebrities and athletes can ensure they stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings. 

Jim and William’s article was published in eprivateclient, 13 June 2024, and can be found here.

Golf superstar Rory McIlroy’s recently announced divorce raises a number of important questions for athletes and celebrities managing divorce proceedings – particularly when filing for divorce overseas. 

While Mr McIlroy and his wife Erica Stoll have since ended divorce proceedings, this widely reported case still bears relevance for those looking to manage high-profile separation proceedings.

High-net-worth individuals such as athletes and other celebrities often have a choice of jurisdictions in which to file for divorce. The forum for proceedings can be pivotal to a case, and thus will often be a key factor in deciding where proceedings are filed. 

In Mr McIlroy’s case, the Northern Ireland-born sportsman had papers served on Erica Stoll, his wife of seven years and a New York state native, at their home in Jupiter, Florida. Court documents were subsequently revealed to have been filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, confirming the jurisdiction selected by Mr McIlroy for the couple’s divorce proceedings.

Deciding on the most appropriate jurisdiction to deal with a divorce case can, however, lead to a number of challenges in dealing with assets across a number of jurisdictions as well as the tax considerations to which high-net-worth individuals must pay heed if they are to stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings.

Failure to consider the various cross-jurisdictional complexities of divorce can give rise to costly and unwanted satellite litigation, and suggests that it is therefore important for athletes and celebrities to seek advice from legal, tax and pension professionals from all relevant jurisdictions to ensure as swift and efficient a resolution as possible. 

However, the procurement of such counsel comes at a not inconsiderable cost, especially in situations where there is a wide range of disputes between the divorcing spouses, leaving both parties exposed to a significant cost burden at the outset of the case and throughout the ensuing proceedings.

Beyond the legal case itself, image and reputation management is also of the utmost importance, particularly for athletes and celebrities, as a messy and public separation could result in lucrative endorsements being lost. In Mr McIlroy’s case, as with so many others living in the glare of the media spotlight, already every available detail of the divorce proceedings is being pored over by the press and public alike in typically scurrilous fashion. 

Mr Mcllroy’s brand partners will need to consider their contractual arrangements with the golfer and assess whether a) this matter impacts their partnership and b) whether they have any grounds under their contract to end the relationship or at the very least, use it to their commercial advantage.

Celebrities who are forced to live their lives in the public eye have to be extra vigilant as to how each and every move they make will be interpreted, no matter how private the matter at stake. The well-documented travails of Mr McIlroy’s fellow golfer Tiger Woods during the collapse of his marriage to Erin Woods in 2009 will have given Mr McIlroy and his advisers ample food for thought when considering how best to handle the optics of his own marital breakdown.

High-net-worth individuals, celebrities and athletes must seek a wide range of advice before filing for divorce – including everything from tax and pensions advice to image rights and IP – to ensure that separation proceedings are handled swiftly and any potential fallout is minimised. Of paramount importance is choosing representatives to sensitively handle child arrangements to minimise the impact of the separation on the couple’s offspring. 

Frequently, children become unwitting victims of warring spouses’ anger towards one another during divorce proceedings, and all too often the glare of publicity spurs parties into even rasher and more regrettable actions than they may otherwise have taken had they not felt compelled to ‘prove’ themselves and their resilience to the world at large.

Similarly, it is imperative for both parties in divorce proceedings to select advisers as carefully as possible. It is, after all, their guidance which will be of critical importance to the outcome of the case, and to the ultimate financial settlement between the divorcing couple. 

Divorce and separation is never easy, nor pleasant, for either side, but when played out in the public eye there is even more potential for mistakes and missteps. Time spent calmly and diligently assessing options at the outset of a case may at times seem onerous and expensive, but if deployed properly will pay dividends in the end.

Abtin Yeganeh comments on landlord-imposed work from home bans in The Independent

Posted on: July 8th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate, Abtin Yeganeh, comments on landlords banning their tenants from working from home, as well as tenants’ protections in this area, in The Independent.

Abtin’s comments were published in The Independent, 07 July 2024.

“As a general rule, a landlord cannot stop a tenant from working from home as it would interfere with a tenant’s statutory right to quiet enjoyment of their property. The position is somewhat more complicated where a tenant seeks to run a business from their rental property. With that said, whilst landlords can seek to exclude a tenant’s right to work from home, The Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (subject to several exclusions) provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to do so.”  

Emma Cocker comments on challenging bad references from previous employers in The Telegraph

Posted on: July 5th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Emma Cocker, Senior Associate in the Employment team, comments on whether an employer can give a bad reference, and how employees can challenge a bad reference from a previous employer.

Emma’s comments were published in The Telegraph, 5 July 2024.

“An employer can give a negative reference, but it must be factual. Employers owe the subject of a reference a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the information it contains is true, accurate and fair. The reference must not give a misleading impression. If a referee gives a reference which is misleading, they may be liable for negligence, either to the new employer or the employee.

“In addition, if a referee knowingly includes false information with the intention that the recipient will rely on it, the referee will be liable to the recipient for a civil claim of deceit.

“It is difficult for employees to challenge a bad reference, unless they can demonstrate that the information was inaccurate, discriminatory or was given in retaliation for raising allegations of discrimination or whistleblowing. In practice, most employees will only become aware of a bad reference once a job offer has been withdrawn. At that stage, it is highly unlikely a prospective employer could be convinced to offer a role again, as the seeds of doubt will have already been sown.

“The only real option is for the employee to take legal advice to see whether they have a claim against the referee. If an employee does become aware of a bad reference before it has been shared with a prospective employer, they should try to discuss the reasons for the negative content with their new employer as soon as possible.

“Protecting your reputation is simple: be the best employee you can be. Courteous, on time for work and reliable – these are all behaviours employers hold in high regard. If there are circumstances which might affect your ability to comply with expected norms, such as being a parent or carer, or having a disability, discuss these with your employer as soon as possible so they are aware of any mitigating circumstances.

“There is a common misconception that employers are obliged to provide references. However, with the exception of regulated industries such as financial services, this is not the case. In reality, most employers will provide a “factual” reference, outlining the employee’s name, job titles and dates of employment, but they cannot be forced to provide further information.

“Employers are also entitled to include a disclaimer within the reference that limits any liability to the recipient of the reference. References may be given orally or in writing. However it is generally safer to provide basic factual references in writing with no further information given to avoid any liability to the employee or the recipient. If incorrect or misleading information is given, the recipient may allege negligence. Do not be tempted to say things on the phone that you wouldn’t commit to in writing!

“If you are not happy with a reference provided by your ex-employer, the first step is to find out whether the reference has actually been sent to the prospective employer. If not, you may be able to talk to your ex-employer and see whether they might be prepared to change the content. Remember however that they are under a duty to provide accurate information, so they may not be willing to change it. Also consider whether their approach or any of the information they have provided might be discriminatory, such as commenting negatively on high absence levels if you have taken a period of parental leave, or on your performance which has been adversely affected by a disability.

“If you have been given a bad reference because of or after raising concerns about discrimination, or after you have “blown the whistle”, you may have a claim against your ex-employer for victimisation or whistleblowing detriment. It is important to take legal advice at an early stage to assess whether you might have viable claims against the referee. This will be especially important if you have lost a job opportunity because of a negative reference.”  

If you have any questions relating to the above, please contact a member of our Employment team.

Lawrence Stephens strengthens Real Estate Finance and Banking teams with new Directors from Rosling King

Posted on: July 1st, 2024 by Yvonne Uzoka

Leading corporate and commercial law firm, Lawrence Stephens, is pleased to announce the appointment of Ann Ebberson as Director in the Real Estate Finance department, and Alex Edwards as Director in the Banking department – both joining from Rosling King.

Ann and Alex are well-known industry practitioners and their expertise complements the firm’s established Real Estate Finance and Banking practices. They are both recognised in The Legal 500 directory and bring with them a wealth of knowledge and experience across these sectors. 

Ann has acted for and advised lenders, loan servicers, developers and LPA/fixed charge receivers on real estate and real estate portfolio refinancing, sales, purchases, development acquisitions and sales, landlord and tenant matters including service charge disputes and forfeiture proceedings. She also has notable experience in title rectification issues and advising litigation colleagues in complex real estate disputes.  

Alex advises lenders, sponsors, developers and corporate borrowers on all forms of finance transactions. With a particular focus on real estate and development finance, Alex also regularly advises on senior and mezzanine loans and bridging finance, as well as restructuring and resolving existing loan facilities. In addition, Alex’s construction law expertise allows him to provide a comprehensive service to his clients on development finance transactions, dealing with both the finance and construction elements.

They join Directors Greg Palos and Ajoy Bose-Mallick who lead Lawrence Stephens’ Real Estate Finance and Banking practices respectively.

Ajoy Bose-Mallick commented: “Alex is a fantastic addition to our banking team and brings with him great experience of working with sponsors, developers, corporate borrowers and other alternative lenders especially development finance lenders, at a very exciting time for the firm.”

Greg Palos said: “Ann’s arrival provides us with greater strength in depth and bolsters our ability to advise clients in a wide range of transactions. Her arrival is in line with the expansion of our Real Estate Finance capability, which continues to go from strength to strength.”

News of Ann and Alex joining Lawrence Stephens was covered by Law360, New Law Journal and LegalMoves.

Matt Green comments on the UAE approving stablecoin regulations in The Fintech Times

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

Matt Green, Director and Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets and Technology Disputes, comments on how the UAE’s approval of stablecoin regulations may impact how stablecoins are generated and considered globally, in The Fintech Times.

Matt’s comments were published in The Fintech Times, 19 June 2024.

“It may be that the UAE is having its MiCA moment, which was the EU’s response to the issuance of stablecoins. 

“Here there are some ground rules which are helpful and may have a wider impact on how stablecoins are generated and considered globally – Dirham backed and clearer criteria for defining stablecoins. 

“The UK government may be prompted to take action – Britcoin progression has been limited, assumedly following more immediate political issues, and the market’s eyes may continue to turn east where innovation continues to climb.”

Lawrence Stephens appointed to Glenhawk’s Panel of Solicitors

Posted on: June 20th, 2024 by Yvonne Uzoka

We are delighted to share that Lawrence Stephens has been appointed as a panel firm by Glenhawk, the award-winning short-term real estate lender.

This strategic partnership comes in the wake of Glenhawk’s announcement earlier this year that it has secured substantial funding to bolster its lending capacity and enter the buy-to-let market. With a continuing drive to remain competitive and market-leading in the bridging finance space, Glenhawk are revamping its range of unregulated and regulated products while introducing new products in order to deliver an ongoing programme of growth.

Lawrence Stephens will play a crucial role in supporting Glenhawk’s growth objectives. With a commitment to excellence and delivering top-tier legal services, there is an alignment with Glenhawk’s ethos of quality and integrity within the industry.

Guy Harrington, CEO of Glenhawk, commented: “Lawrence Stephens’ reputation as a well-established high-quality law firm makes them a welcome addition to our panel solicitors. We’re delighted to be working with Greg and his team.” 

Director and Head of Real Estate Finance, Gregory Palos, added: “Our multi-disciplinary firm has a long track record of being a people business devoted to delivering a high-quality personal service to clients. We’re proud to be supporting Glenhawk in the next step of their lending journey.”

Lawrence Stephens looks forward to this collaboration with Glenhawk that promises to enhance the lending landscape and deliver exceptional service to clients across the board.

Lawrence Stephens celebrates the launch of the FEBE Growth 100 2024

Posted on: June 19th, 2024 by Yvonne Uzoka

There are 4.2m private companies in the UK, but just 1% or 45,000 of these are considered to be ‘high growth’. These are the entrepreneurs that are making a difference and helping drive the economy. FEBE (For Entrepreneurs, By Entrepreneurs) is an organisation that enables a close-knit community of British founders to empower, celebrate and support these.  The annual FEBE Growth 100 list showcases the fastest-growing, founder-led privately owned businesses with an annual turnover of between £3m and £200m and we are delighted to recognise those who have made the 2024 list.  The criteria for inclusion on this list is rightly very strict, so congratulations also go to the 29 companies who haven’t quite met all of these, but are recognised in FEBE’s ‘Watch List’ for their drive and ambition. We look forward to seeing you on a future Growth 100 list!

Many of our clients are privately owned, founder-led businesses and as a law firm led by its founders and sharing the challenges they face, we feel great empathy with these. We are right behind FEBE’s championing of the sector, their philosophy and vision, and Lawrence Stephens is proud to continue to support them as a Corporate Partner.

You can take a look at the latest Growth 100 and FEBE Watch List here: https://www.febe.com/

William Bowyer discusses the importance of protecting athletes’ image rights in Law360

Posted on: June 18th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Associate William Bowyer discusses athletes’ image rights following an award of €200,000 to the family of former Formula One champion Michael Schumacher, over publication of an AI-generated interview of him in Die Aktuelle magazine, in Law360.

Will’s article was published in Law360, 14 June 2024.

—————————————————————————

F1 driver AI case sheds light on winning tactics in IP suits

Athletes should ensure they protect their image, both via the contracts they enter into, such as sponsorship and broadcast deals, as well as by monitoring use of their image online. This will require considerable tenacity given that an uploaded image generated by artificial intelligence can suddenly go viral.

In this context, a decision by a Munich Labor Court to award €200,000 ($216,215) to the family of former Formula One champion, Michael Schumacher, which was reported in May[1] could set a precedent for athletes in image rights cases.

Although the circumstances of this case were highly unusual, given Schumacher’s profile and the nature of the interview in the article, the controversy over presenting quotes generated by AI as a genuine interview with Schumacher indicates that publishers cannot simply take advantage of the latest technology to behave less responsibly.

Indeed, the admission by publisher, Funke Mediengruppe that the April 2023 article in Die Aktuelle magazine was “tasteless and misleading”[2] indicates that athletes remain in a strong position when it comes to protecting their image and reputation.

Instead of encouraging media outlets to be ever more cavalier, this case implies that positive outcomes for sports personalities who take an aggressive and proactive approach remain achieveable.

The Schumacher case has opened the door for a wave of issues surrounding circumstances where third parties misuse image rights or create digital representations of real people without their authority.

In this particular example, the facts of the case indicate brazen misrepresentation on the part of Die Aktuelle. On the front cover of the edition in question, the headline ‘Michael Schumacher, the first interview!’ ran next to a photograph of the celebrity.

The magazine also wrote that “it sounds deceptively real”, with supposed, AI-generated quotes attributed to Schumacher. Only when reading the article on the inside pages did it become clear that the quotes had been produced by an AI tool.

Schumacher, the winner of seven F1 titles, has not been seen in public since being in an induced coma after suffering severe head injuries in a skiing accident in December 2013. The headline, which blatantly misrepresented reality, was obviously a ploy designed to attract maximum attention to potential readers not looking beyond the front cover.

Two days after publication, the magazine’s editor-in-chief Anne Hoffmann, who had held journalistic responsibility for the paper since 2009, was sacked and Bianca Pohlmann, managing director of Funke media group, apologised to Schumacher’s family.

Schumacher’s family was able to use Funke’s admission of responsibility and poor judgment against the publisher to reach a settlement, along with the fact that they wanted to reduce the public attention on this case as much as possible.

The battle between celebrities or brands and imitators is by no means a new phenomenon, and athletes and sports personalities work hard to protect the intellectual property and brand in their image, voice and likeness.

For instance, in February 2024, French football star Kylian Mbappé applied to European Union Intellectual Property Office to register a black and white logo depicting his crossed-arms celebration as a trademark[3] for  clothing, footwear, games, sports equipment, accessories, luggage, and printed matter such as books and magazines.

In doing so, he followed a path pioneered by his former Paris Saint Germain teammate Lionel Messi. Messi, who set the precedent, was engaged in a nine-year legal battle before the European Court of Justice finally approved his registration in September 2020 of an EU-wide trademark for a logo consisting of his name and a stylized letter ‘M’[4].

Seeking to monetise their image and using the law to proactively build their brand, Mbappé’s move is part of a wider trend by sports stars and celebrities to protect IP rights relating to their signatures, names, and other personal characteristics. Trademarking a logo, symbol, name or other similar mark grants these owners a monopoly right over their IP assets and helps to stop third parties from using their image without consent or payment.

While athletes have looked to the law to protect their brand and visual identity from copycats, the boom of generative AI has led to a slew of legal claims surrounding IP. Globally, lawyers are already seeing a rise in AI-related litigation surrounding image rights, and the German court’s decision will no doubt add to the momentum.

Another case, which could set a legal precedent in the UK, is the dispute between Getty Images and Stability AI[5], a London-based AI developer, which was filed in June 2023 and is currently pending trial before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

Getty claims that Stability AI is responsible for infringing its IP rights through the development of its Stable Diffusion system, which automatically generates images based on text or image prompts input by users. It argues that the synthetic images generated by AI in this instance reproduce in substantial part its copyrighted works.

Separately, in January 2023, a group of artists filed a claim against Stability AI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after one of them discovered that over 50 pieces of her artwork had been uploaded to LAION[6], a data set which feeds artificial intelligence image generators including Stable Diffusion.

The EU AI Act[7], which has been at the vanguard of legislation racing to catch up with the technology, proposes that AI tools will have to disclose any copyrighted material used to train their systems. As AI becomes more embedded into the workstreams of both online and print publications, it is likely that many more of these cases will occur.

While you cannot use someone’s image without their consent to sell or promote goods or services under both UK and EU IP law, there are exceptions when reporting the news. In the Schumacher case, however, Die Aktuelle were representing that the interview was both genuine and endorsed by his family in an attempt to sell their magazine.

Many well-known figures have already found their reputations damaged by such AI-generated images, which are so convincing that they are widely shared online – a scenario that athletes and their representatives will need to be ready to counter robustly.

Despite the general uncertainty that the widespread use of AI brings to image rights, the Schumacher case rightly shows a trend towards how athletes are looking to the law to protect their brand, enabling them to place themselves in pole position in image rights cases.

 

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/cd1176240lko.

[2] https://news.sky.com/story/michael-schumachers-family-win-legal-case-over-tasteless-ai-generated-interview-in-german-tabloid-die-aktuelle-13141870.

[3] https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/018984428

[4] C-449/18 P EUIPO v Messi Cuccittini and C-474/18 P J.M.-E.V. e hijos v Messi Cuccittini

[5] Getty Images v Stability AI [2023] EWHC 3090 (Ch)

[6] Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 23-cv-00201-WHO

[7] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lawrence Stephens is delighted to announce the appointment of Director Matt Green as the firm’s Head of Technology Disputes and Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets

Posted on: June 17th, 2024 by Yvonne Uzoka

With considerable growth in the past four years in particular, Lawrence Stephens bolsters its practice to include a leading litigator with a wealth of experience in the sector, which includes crypto asset recoveries, complex litigation involving blockchain technology and intellectual property.

Matt’s seminal case AA v Persons Unknown confirmed that crypto assets are property at common law, and since then he has led on high-profile cases involving blockchain technology. 

Paired with a background in intellectual property and commercial disputes, the firm is now further equipped to deal with issues arising from emerging technologies including crypto and digital assets.

Steven Bernstein , Managing Director and co-founder of Lawrence Stephens, comments: “We are all very excited for Matt to join the team. His industry-leading expertise in blockchain technology and disputes in this sector adds an exciting dimension to our existing crypto and disputes offerings.”

Matt is recognised in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners as a leader in the field, and is the host of the In Early Podcast, which was featured in the Lawyer’s Briefing room. His also gives annual lectures at the University of Cambridge, has published academic papers on DAOs and NFTs and is a regular speaker at industry conferences and webinars.

Matt notes “I am hugely excited to be joining Lawrence Stephens, a firm that really understands the glaring value of emerging technology for clients across the board, and that innovation without barriers is the determining factor in helping those who need specialist advice”.

News of Matt joining Lawrence Stephens was covered by Law360 and Citywealth, 17 June 2024, LegalMoves, 20 June 2024, and New Law JournalFinancial News, and The Legal Diary, 21 June 2024.

Landlord and tenant works – Construction Industry Scheme payments now made simpler

Posted on: June 13th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

In brief:

Regulations were introduced in April of this year which removed the uncertainty and complexity on which payments made by commercial landlords to tenants are covered by the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS). As a result,  the majority of such payments will now fall outside the scope of the CIS and the requirement for deductions as advance payments towards a sub-contractor’s tax and National insurance to HMRC.

The pre-April 2024 rules created a cumbersome legal and administrative obligation and the removal of these compliance burdens must be welcomed.

Legislation

The Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/308)  introduced in April 2024 added a new Regulation 20A to the main CIS regulations which specify that payments made by a landlord to a tenant for construction operations in connection with a lease or agreement for lease are not contract payments and are, therefore, outside the scope of the CIS.

To fall within the scope of this exclusion, payments must meet the following conditions:

  • The payment is made by or on behalf of a landlord;
  • The payment is received by a tenant or prospective tenant (tenants include sub-tenants);
  • The payment is for construction operations agreed in connection with a lease or agreement for lease;
  • The tenant that occupies or will occupy the property will carry out the construction works themselves or contract with a third party to undertake the work; and
  • The payment must be for construction operations relating to works intended primarily for the benefit and use of the tenant that occupies or will occupy the property under the lease.

The definition of ‘landlord’ includes a person with the legal or beneficial ownership of the property, who granted the lease or who will grant the lease.

What does this mean?

Under the pre-April 2024 rules, and prior to entering into any agreement relevant to the construction operations, both the landlord and tenant were required to take legal and taxation advice in order to jointly agree and document that any payments from the landlord to the tenant regarding such construction works either fell within the exclusion for ‘reverse premiums’ in Regulation 20 of the main CIS regulations so that they fell outside the scope of the CIS – or they did not and deductions would need to be made. 

Although contributions made by a landlord towards the tenant’s own fit out works were easier to assess, it was far more difficult where a contribution was being made towards the tenant undertaking Category A fit out works. This led to some landlords being more ‘careful’ in requiring the operation of the CIS on such contributions. Tenants were being asked to take on the added cost of CIS deductions –  as well as the added administrative and cash flow burdens of having to reclaim the amounts deducted. 

The new exclusion under Regulation 20A should lead to most payments by landlords to tenants (or prospective tenants) for construction operations being defined as outside of the scope of the CIS. However,, the implications of Regulation 20A do need to be fully understood.  Most notably,is the requirement that the landlord’s payments must be for construction works intended primarily for the benefit and use of the tenant. This means that any payment which relates to works outside the property occupied by the tenant is likely to fall outside the new exclusion and will therefore remain within the scope of the CIS.

As a reminder…

The new regulations do not affect the application of the CIS to payments by tenants to landlords for construction operations. Take an example where where the landlord has agreed to undertake the tenant’s own fit out works., While these payments will continue to usually fall outside the scope of the CIS, if the tenant will be sub-letting part or the whole of the property or they are registered with HMRC as a so-called ‘contractor’, the CIS deductions would apply in accordance with  Regulation 24 of the main CIS regulations for payments in respect of property used for the purposes of the business of the tenant or another company in the same group.

If you need any advice on the Construction Industry Scheme or any other aspects of construction law, please contact our team of experts Anne Wright and Tom Pemberton.

 

Lawrence Stephens advises Compliance Group on the acquisition of CT Fire Protection

Posted on: June 13th, 2024 by Yvonne Uzoka

The Lawrence Stephens Corporate team has advised Compliance Group, a leading provider of safety and regulatory compliance for electrical, fire and water services, on the acquisition of CT Fire Protection, an owner managed company specialising in fire control systems.

Compliance Group focuses on providing integrated electrical, water and fire compliance services and applies best of breed technology solutions to ensure the full compliance of its customers. The company has built its leading position in this sector through a number of strategic acquisitions. Compliance Group’s long-term mission is to provide the best proposition in the industry by bringing together five-star customer services and technical excellence.

This latest transaction is Compliance Group’s third deal of 2024, underscoring its robust growth and strategic expansion plans via partnerships with high-quality businesses across the fire, water, and electrical compliance areas.

The Lawrence Stephens team was delighted to advise on this and earlier transactions. The team was led by Senior Associate Katherine Zangana, supported by Director Craig Mullen in commercial property and Solicitor Carla Bernstein in corporate.   

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024: What homeowners need to know

Posted on: June 5th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 marks a significant shift in the landscape of home ownership in England and Wales. This legislation is designed to empower homeowners, providing them with increased rights, greater transparency, and enhanced protections. As a law firm committed to supporting our clients in navigating complex property issues, we are here to break down the key aspects of this transformative Act. 

Empowering homeowners with greater rights and protections

One of the most notable changes is the simplification of the process for leaseholders to buy their freehold. Historically, this process has been both complex and costly. The new legislation makes it easier for leaseholders to secure ownership of their homes and reduces the expenses involved. Additionally, the standard lease extension terms have been extended to 990 years for both houses and flats, up from the previous 50 years for houses and 90 years for flats. This change ensures that leaseholders can enjoy long-term security without the ongoing stress and financial burden of future extensions.

Facilitating the Right to Manage and collective enfranchisement

Leaseholders will now find it much easier to take over the management of their buildings, with the floor space limit for Right to Manage and collective enfranchisement being increased from 25% to 50% of commercial space. This will allow more leaseholders to exercise control over their properties, by appointing their preferred managing agent or collectively buying the freehold.

Streamlined processes for lease extensions and freehold purchases

New leaseholders were previously required to own their property for two years before they could extend their lease or buy the freehold. The Act abolishes this requirement, giving new homeowners immediate rights to extend leases or purchase freeholds, thereby simplifying and expediting these processes.

Enhanced transparency and fairness in service charges

Transparency over service charges has long been a contentious issue between leaseholders and freeholders. The Act mandates that freeholders and managing agents issue bills in a standardised format, allowing leaseholders to scrutinise and challenge these charges more effectively. This move towards greater transparency is a significant step in addressing unclear and often unjustified service charges.

Increased rights to challenge unreasonable practices

The Act empowers leaseholders to challenge their landlords’ unreasonable charges at the Tribunal without the deterrent of covering their freeholders’ legal costs. This change is expected to encourage more leaseholders to stand up against unfair practices, fostering a more balanced relationship between leaseholders and freeholders.

Rights for freehold homeowners on private and mixed tenure estates

For freehold homeowners on private and mixed tenure estates, the Act extends similar rights of redress that leaseholders enjoy. This includes greater transparency over estate charges and the ability to challenge their reasonableness. The legislation ensures that homeowners are well-informed about the charges they incur and can dispute unfair costs.

Banning new leasehold houses and excessive insurance commissions

In a bid to curtail the practice of selling new houses as leaseholds, the Act bans this practice except in exceptional circumstances. This move guarantees that future homeowners will generally acquire freehold properties, ensuring full ownership rights from the outset. Moreover, the Act addresses the issue of excessive buildings insurance commissions by banning opaque and excessive fees, replacing them with fair handling fees.

Conclusion

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act is a landmark piece of legislation that significantly enhances the rights and protections for homeowners in England and Wales. By making it easier and cheaper to extend leases, buy freeholds, and challenge unreasonable charges, the Act aims to create a fairer and more transparent property market. 

However, while the Act has received Royal Assent, numerous pieces of secondary legislation will be needed in order to clarify the exact, day-to-day application of these changes in practice. It is currently unclear when this additional legislation will be passed.

At Lawrence Stephens we are dedicated to helping our clients navigate these changes and leverage their new rights effectively. If you have any questions or need assistance regarding the implications of this Act, please do not hesitate to contact our specialised Residential and Leasehold Enfranchisement team.