Search and find what you need faster.

Danny Schwarz and Sophie Levitt discuss how the rise in NICs will affect property investors and landlords, in FT Adviser

Posted on: January 13th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Head of Commercial Real Estate Danny Schwarz and Solicitor Sophie Levitt discuss how the increased rate of employer Class 1 national insurance contribution rates will impact property investors and landlords.

Danny and Sophie’s article was published in FT Adviser, 13 January 2025.

NIC Rate Hike: UK businesses brace for landlord and tenant turmoil

Rachel Reeves presented her Autumn Budget 2024 to Parliament on 30 October, to a mixed reception. One of the most controversial changes announced was that the government will be increasing the rate of employer Class 1 National Insurance Contribution (NIC) rates from 13.8% to 15%. The current rate of 13.8% is payable on the amount that an employee’s earnings exceed the secondary threshold of £9,000 per year/£175 per week. However, the increased rate will be 15% and the secondary threshold will be reduced to £96 pounds per week/£5,000 per year. These changes to employers NIC rates will come into effect on 5 April 2025, however are already posing concerns for the UK’s retail and hospitality sector.

While the increase in employer NICs aims to raise revenue for vital services, such as the NHS, and may increase funding for contributory benefits, such as the State Pension, the measure could have a profound effect on retail and hospitality businesses due to the increasing costs such businesses face and may result in shop closures, and others feeling the strain.

As a result of these changes, it is vital that property investors and landlords consider how these measures will impact their buying strategies, and tenants may well consider renegotiating their lease agreements to offset the higher operational costs which may otherwise impact their businesses.

For landlords and tenants alike, these reforms pose a number of challenges.

Operational costs

The prospect of raising employer National Insurance costs could prove to be a major setback for businesses. As a result of these reforms, businesses could be forced to face higher operational costs due to increased NICs, which would reduce their profit margins and place a greater strain on their livelihoods. For instance, it has been estimated that Tesco alone could face a £1 billion pound increase in its National Insurance bill over the course of this parliament.

Smaller and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are expected to be the most severely impacted as a result of these changes. SMEs often operate on tighter profit margins and many such businesses will therefore be forced to decide whether to fund the higher NICs by operating on reduced profits, cutting back on expenses or increasing their prices.

As a result, a phased introduction of the NIC threshold may be a better way for businesses to absorb the costs without passing them on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Price increases

If a retail business opted to increase their prices of goods and services to offset the higher costs, consumer spending and demand could also be impacted as a result of the NIC hikes. Higher prices could exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis, making everyday items more expensive for shoppers.

It therefore comes as no surprise that more than 70 of Britain’s largest retailers have signed an open letter to warn the Chancellor that the NIC hike may lead to price increases and job losses throughout the high street. Some of the signatories included Aldi, Lidl, Boots, Ocado, Morrisons, Greggs and JD Sports – all of whom share concerns about the viability of such proposals.

Lease agreements

Business tenants who face the higher operational costs from the increased NIC rates may also seek to renegotiate their lease terms as a result of these changes. This could potentially lead to more flexible or reduced rent agreements since landlords are likely to be reluctant to lose longstanding tenants and will want to avoid being left with vacant properties and no rental income.

There are several ways for landlords to offer incentives and concessions to tenants to help them through this new financial burden. Temporary rent reductions could help tenants manage their cash flow during challenging times. Landlords could otherwise offer reduced rent for early renewal, waive certain fees or provide additional services such as maintenance.

Consequently, the terms of the lease could be made more manageable for tenants.

Rent arrears

Moreover, under the strain of these measures, certain landlords may also be less willing to renegotiate their lease terms and tenants may struggle to absorb the additional costs. Tenants, particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors, may be unable to generate enough income to meet their rent obligations. This could lead to higher rates of tenant defaults, leaving landlords with no choice but to forfeit their leases and to re-market the property. If landlords were left with no rental income, this would place a further strain on their finances.

There would also be additional expenses including administrative costs and legal fees when dealing with tenant defaults.

The fact that the British Retail Consortium is seeking a meeting with the Chancellor to discuss their concerns about the increased NIC rates, is proof that the scale of the new costs has the potential to cause severe financial hardship across different businesses.

Property transactions

The hike in NIC rates could affect the overall cost structure of property transactions and lead to higher property prices for buyers and sellers. Buyers may face higher purchase prices, which can affect affordability and demand in the property market. This could create a more challenging environment for property transactions, with reduced demand leading to slower market activity. 

If property investors and developers must operate on reduced profit margins, therefore, certain projects may seem less attractive or viable. This could lead to a decrease in the number of new development projects.

Higher NIC rates would also likely lead to increased labour costs for property investors and developers. This would inevitably make construction and development projects more expensive, potentially leading to higher prices for new properties.

Additionally, higher costs may be reflected by the fees of the professionals who are involved in the development projects, such as surveyors, architects and contractors.

Reduced investment

With increased costs due to higher NIC rates, landlords and tenants may also reduce investments in property improvements, expansions, or new technology, potentially slowing growth and innovation in the sector. The NIC rate hike has the potential to exacerbate economic uncertainty and make buyers, sellers and investors more cautious.

It is highly likely, therefore, that the changes will affect the overall health of the property market and have a significant knock on effect on the UK’s retail and hospitality sector.

Potential for legal disputes

Unsurprisingly, therefore, changes implemented as a result of the Budget could lead to legal disputes over lease agreements, employment terms and other obligations as parties adjust to the new financial landscape. There is also potential for businesses to struggle to comply with these new NIC regulations, which could lead to disputes with HMRC over unpaid contributions or penalties for non-compliance.

It is vital that businesses stay updated with the latest NIC regulations to ensure that they remain complaint. Payroll systems will need to be reviewed and updated to reflect the changes in the NIC rates. Compliance will reduce the risk of disputes arising from regulatory issues and will ensure a smoother operation of business.

Navigating the increased secondary NIC liability

As a result of Reeves’ proposals, the UK government estimates that 940,000 employers will face an increased secondary NIC liability. It is therefore inevitable that businesses across the UK and especially SMEs are feeling the pressure of this financial burden. It is essential for businesses to consider a variety of cost saving measures and to save price increases and redundancies as a last resort.

Landlords must also take a balanced approach and agree to renegotiate their lease agreements with loyal tenants if it is reasonable to do so. Landlords may be able to offer more flexible payment plans or allow temporary reductions with the agreement to recoup the difference at a future date.

However, maintaining open and transparent communication is fundamental.

Landlords and tenants should discuss the financial challengers together to find mutually beneficial solutions. By adopting this strategy, landlords can help their tenants through financial hardship whilst maintaining occupancy and fostering positive landlord-tenant relationships.

Looking ahead

Unsurprisingly, the proposed NIC hikes has provided cause for concern for many UK businesses in the retail and hospitality industry. From the impact on operational costs to the risk of litigation, there are a plethora of factors that must be considered if businesses are to weather the storm and remain both profitable and compliant.

In order to navigate these choppy waters, it is therefore vital that businesses seek tailored legal advice concerning their employment obligations and property agreements to ensure that they are braced for the upcoming changes and able to tackle the issues head on.

For more information on our Commercial Real Estate services, please click here. For our services in the Retail and Hospitality sector, click here

 

Lawrence Stephens advises The Cotswold Company on the expansion of its omni-channel presence

Posted on: December 19th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens has advised The Cotswold Company, the well-known premium furniture and homeware brand, on commercial contracts to support the expansion of its omni-channel presence through third party retailers. The company has launched its products on NEXT.co.uk and with John Lewis & Partners online, alongside the introduction of a dedicated brand space within the iconic Peter Jones store in Chelsea.

Founded in 1996, The Cotswold Company offers a range of thoughtfully designed furniture, with a focus on quality materials and craftsmanship. These contracts mark the brand’s first entry onto third-party retail platforms, complementing its fast-growing e-commerce site and 10 UK showrooms.

In a recent article in Retail Week, Cotswold Company chief executive Ralph Tucker said: “With our new partnerships with John Lewis Partnership and Next – both of which have gone live in time for Christmas – we’re making tangible steps towards delivering growth and becoming one of the UK’s leading premium homeware brands.”

Rachael Pinchbeck, Head of Commercial Finance, The Costwold Company said “Bradley and Craig were a pleasure to work with. Their contractual expertise and retail experience resulted in the smooth and timely completion of contracts ahead of our successful launches. We look forward to working with Bradley and the Lawrence Stephens team on future projects.”

Director Bradley Lee advised on the commercial contracts, while real estate advice was provided by Director Craig Mullen.

Danny Schwarz and Stephen Dodge discuss the redevelopment of Oxford Street in Property Week

Posted on: October 2nd, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Head of Commercial Real Estate Danny Schwarz and Trainee Solicitor Stephen Dodge explore the proposed pedestrianisation of Oxford Street, and discuss its potential impact on London’s retail and hospitality sectors, in Property Week.

Danny and Stephen’s article was published in Property Week, 2 October 2024, and can be found here.

Facelift will revive Oxford Street

Some shops may lose out, but pedestrianisation plan will broaden iconic retail destination’s tenant mix.

Last month, London mayor Sadiq Khan announced radical plans to pedestrianise London’s iconic Oxford Street. This proposal, Khan’s second for the famous high street, appears likely to succeed thanks to a Labour-led Westminster council, and for Oxford Street the timing could not be better; it is ripe for revitalisation.

The pandemic resulted in a slew of notable Oxford Street shop closures. With tourism statistics showing footfall is still yet to fully recover, it is clear that the retail district is struggling. This is hardly surprising; Oxford Street is often not London’s most desirable destination. Its pavements are cramped, the thoroughfare is plagued by antisocial drivers and the shopfronts are infested with much-derided American candy shops.

So, how will pedestrianisation breathe new life into Oxford Street? Case studies on the pedestrianisation of locations such as nearby Carnaby Street or Copenhagen’s Strøget Street are telling. Despite objections from business owners, particularly restaurateurs, these streets were closed to traffic and experienced significant increases in footfall. Local businesses benefited from an increase in customers.

However, there are risks involved in this latest proposal for Oxford Street. Prior to the announcement of plans for pedestrianisation, the post-pandemic rebound was in full swing on the street. Property vacancies are down 40% from 2023, with leasing activity breaking records in that year and remaining high now. With rents rising for commercial tenants on and around Oxford Street, mere speculation on the pedestrianisation proposal is likely to see rents continue to spike. The value of freehold titles could similarly creep upwards.

Tenants subject to upcoming rent review may see rates rise far beyond their short-run means and there is a risk that landlords may see an opportunity to trade up tenants, exercising break clauses to hike rents. Property lawyers will be busy with a flurry of breaks, renewals and disputes.

However, tenants on fixed rents may be buoyed by increased footfall and have a highly profitable few years. Tenants with high-volume businesses also stand to win regardless of their rents, as greater footfall will correlate directly to sales.

Winners and losers
Unfortunately, not everyone will be a winner as a result of Khan’s proposal. Low-volume luxury shops are often more reliant on patronage from customers who arrive by car and may prefer to move elsewhere, as their clients will not wish to brave crowds. At the other end of the spectrum, accessibility will be hampered by pedestrianisation, further inconveniencing those reliant on cabs or buses.

If these long-standing and successful luxury businesses fail, landlords will be seriously affected. Those who relied on the status quo, and did not obtain adequate guarantees or security at their last lease renewal, may also find themselves as low-ranking creditors in protracted insolvencies.

What is clear is that disruption creates opportunity and Oxford Street has already begun to change – no longer are all leases on the high street exclusively for retail use. Parts of John Lewis and similar buildings are being converted to office space, bringing a new type of consumer to the area, while parts of Debenhams are being converted for leisure use, alongside the openings of new entertainment venues. Spaces left behind in the ongoing – and welcome – retreat of American candy shops are similarly ripe for conversion into cafés, which could apply for pavement seating.

A new type of tenant, with a new clientele and different priorities, is coming to Oxford Street. Landlords may find it difficult to adjust to this new normal, but those who can be flexible and see the potential in their new tenants stand to gain from the new face of London’s iconic retail district.

If you would like further information regarding your obligations as tenants/landlords of retail spaces, please contact a member of our Commercial Real Estate team.

Danny Schwarz and Sophie Levitt discuss the proposed outdoor smoking ban in The Times

Posted on: September 26th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Director and Head of Commercial Real Estate, Danny Schwarz, and Solicitor Sophie Levitt discuss the potential impact of the proposed outdoor smoking ban on the hospitality sector, as well as the legal implications for landlords and tenants, in The Times.

Danny and Sophie’s article was published in The Times, 26 September 2024.

Ministers are considering imposing stricter rules on outdoor smoking to reduce the number of preventable deaths connected to tobacco use. There are no final plans, but smoking could be banned in pub gardens, outdoor restaurants and sports grounds.

The proposed ban appears as a puritanical tendency to reach for authoritarian solutions to complex public health problems. When politicians choose to cement their intolerance of the behaviour of others through legislation, it restricts individual freedom, further eroding people’s right to choose what they can do and where they can do it.

Arguably, such misuse of state control is antidemocratic: an extreme anti-smoking agenda which is not supported by scientific evidence that smoking in the open air creates any quantifiable threat to public health.

And now the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) is pleading with the government to abandon plans for greater smoking restrictions in pubs since it would affect their viability as businesses. But not all pubs would be impacted equally by such a ban. For instance, gastropubs are less worried about a slowdown following the ban, given the focus of their business on serving full meals, typically indoors.

While there is some disagreement within the hospitality industry regarding the precise impact of such a ban, there is a broad consensus that beefed up rules need to be clearly worded and ‘outdoor area’ must be precisely defined to minimise uncertainty.

A pub garden smoking ban could affect both landlords and tenants. If the ban has a heavy impact on the viability of tenants’ businesses, they may be unable to generate enough income to pay their rent. Landlords may have to forfeit leases, leaving them with vacant possession and the need to remarket the property.

Tenants would be obliged to comply with the smoking ban, which could be outlined expressly in leases or implied under a compliance with laws clause. If the tenant used the property in a manner which was not permitted, the landlord could forfeit the lease and end the unlawful use. Alternatively, the landlord could claim damages if they suffered any loss because of the tenant’s breach.

While the government’s proposals have received support from public health experts, many landlords, operators and customers have voiced concern that the rules would be unenforceable.

Bar staff would have to police this ban in addition to their existing obligations. Smokers would crowd on pavements outside of pubs, which would cause disturbance and nuisance to neighbours, or breach licence conditions, particularly in residential areas. Smoking could also be prohibited in parks and therefore create confusion in public spaces as it would be difficult to police.

If you are needing advice on matters relating to the hospitality sector or the legal obligations of landlords and tenants in commercial real estate, please contact a member of our Commercial Real Estate team.

Lawrence Stephens advises Genuine Dining on its acquisition by WSH

Posted on: September 26th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Lawrence Stephens advised workplace caterer Genuine Dining and its shareholders, including investor Luke Johnson and CEO Chris Mitchell, on its acquisition by WSH, a leading food and hospitality company.

This acquisition by WSH will support Genuine Dining’s growth and development in partnership with an industry-leading business.

The team was led by Director James Lyons and Managing Director Steven Bernstein, with assistance from Solicitors Lucy Cadley, Carla Bernstein, and Avni Patel from our Corporate and Commercial team. Employment advice was provided by Senior Associate Joanne Leach and Solicitor Becci Collins.

CEO of Genuine Dining, Chris Mitchell, commented: “The excellent advice and personal attention of the team at Lawrence Stephens were a huge help in making this transaction as smooth as possible.”

Director James Lyons added: “We are delighted to have advised the selling shareholders of Genuine Dining on this significant transaction – Lawrence Stephens has worked alongside Luke, Chris and the rest of the Genuine Dining team for a number of years and the sale to WSH marks an exciting moment in the continued growth ambitions of the business.”

If you need assistance with a corporate transaction or need advice on the drafting of employment agreements, please contact a member of our Corporate and Commercial or Employment teams.

Joanne Leach comments on minimum service levels and industrial action in City A.M.

Posted on: August 8th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Joanne Leach, Senior Associate in the Employment team, comments on the news that the UK government will repeal controversial laws enforcing minimum service levels during industrial action, in City A.M.

Joanne’s comments were published in City A.M., 7 August 2024, and can be found here.

“With the proposed plans to ignore minimum services levels legislation, the government can secure an easy early win in terms of following through on the employment commitments of their election manifesto.

“Repealing this controversial and ineffective legislation, which had already been subject to challenge via judicial review, will take up minimal legislative time in contrast to the scrutiny that will inevitably be required of the implementation of the rest of its New Deal for Working People. A direction to ignore its provisions in advance of that repeal will effect an even more immediate impact – the strengthening of the fundamental right of any worker to withdraw their services to protect their contractual terms.”

If you would like further advice on these legislative changes and the impact they may have on you, please contact a member of the Employment team.

General Election 2024 – what are the various parties’ proposals relating to employment law?

Posted on: July 4th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

While many may feel that the outcome of today’s General Election is a foregone conclusion, we felt it was important to look at each of the political parties’ manifestos to consider what they are proposing in the field of employment law – and what the consequences of these might be. 

Some of the parties have announced extensive proposals (which could mean the Lawrence Stephens’ Employment team will be extremely busy over the coming months!) while others have caused us to wonder how they will be implemented in light of recent court rulings / existing legislation.

If you have any questions on how the general election may affect your obligations as an employer, please contact any member of our Employment Team (see end of article).

Labour

In summary, Labour propose to:

  • Introduce a day one right to sick pay, parental leave and unfair dismissal;
  • Extend Employment Tribunal time limits for bringing all claims from three months to six months;
  • Ban “exploitative” zero hours contracts (which means an outright ban on such contracts is unlikely);
  • End fire and rehire (although Labour’s New Deal document indicates they would stop short of an outright ban);
  • Set up a single enforcement body to enforce workers’ rights;
  • Alter the criteria for determining national minimum wage so all adults are entitled to the same minimum wage;
  • Create a “Fair Pay Agreement” to allow for sectoral collective bargaining in the adult social care sector;
  • Give employees the right to have a contract which reflects the hours they regularly work based on a 12-week reference period;
  • Require employers with more than 250 employees to have a menopause action plan;
  • Place new duties on large employers to produce ethnicity and disability pay gap reports;
  • Make collective redundancy consultation requirements dependent on the number of redundancies across the whole business rather than the number at each ‘establishment’;
  • Require section 1 statements to inform staff of their right to join a trade union;
  • Introduce a right to ‘switch off’;
  • Consult on an eventual move towards a single status of worker, incorporating all but the genuinely self-employed;
  • Make flexible working a default right unless employers have a ‘good reason’ to refuse it;
  • Reverse the changes made under the Trade Union Act 2016 (which placed more stringent requirements on those engaging in industrial action);
  • Abolish the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023;
  • Remove the requirement for fully postal ballots for industrial action;
  • Make it easier for unions to gain recognition;
  • Give trade unions the right to access workplaces for recruitment and organising purposes; and
  • Introduce a right to unpaid bereavement leave (which is currently only available following the death of a child).

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/eFZQ_mva

Conservatives

In summary, the Conservatives propose to:

  • Overhaul the fit note system to move responsibility from GPs to other healthcare professionals;
  • Continue with the implementation of minimum service level agreements in relation to industrial action;
  • Cut employee National Insurance contributions to 6% from 2027; and
  • Abolish National Insurance for self-employed people by the end of the next parliament.

It’s worth noting that the first two proposals are not new – a consultation on the fit note system had already started before the General Election was called and we already knew the Government planned to introduce minimum service levels during strikes in hospitals and schools. It looks largely like business as usual if the Conservatives are successful.

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/ekQNictf


Liberal Democrats

In summary, the Lib Dems propose to:

  • Establish a new ‘dependent contractor’ employment status between ‘employment’ and ‘self-employment’, with entitlements to basic rights such as minimum earnings levels, sick pay and holiday entitlement;
  • Increase minimum wage by 20% for people on zero-hour contracts at times of normal demand to compensate them for the uncertainty of earnings;
  • Promote employee ownership by giving staff in listed companies with 250+ employees a ‘right to request’ shares;
  • Change the burden of proof in Employment Tribunal claims so that the employer has to disprove employment status, rather than the employee proving it;
  • Improve Statutory Sick Pay by removing the 3-day waiting period and lower earnings limit;
  • Extend the use of name-blind recruitment processes;
  • Make parental leave and pay day 1 rights;
  • Double Statutory Maternity Pay and Shared Parental Pay to £350pw;
  • Introduce a ‘use it or lose it’ month for fathers and partners, paid at 90% of earnings;
  • Introduce new Equality Act protected characteristics of ‘caring’ and ‘care experience’;
  • Require large employers to publish data on gender, ethnicity, disability, and LGBT+ employment levels, pay gaps and progression, and publish five-year aspirational diversity targets;
  • Introduce specialist disability employment support and simplify the Access to Work scheme; and
  • Introduce ‘Adjustment Passports’ to record the adjustments, modifications and equipment a disabled person has received, and ensure that Access to Work support and equipment stays with the person if they change jobs.

While there are undoubtedly some proposals that will be attractive to the electorate, the proposed introduction of ‘dependent contractor’ employment status seems to be something of style over substance – aren’t these people already classified as ‘workers’? In addition, the proposed introduction of new protected characteristics of ‘caring’ and ‘care experience’ seems fraught with difficulties – it would certainly keep us employment lawyers busy with the courts grappling to put into practice what these terms actually mean…

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/ehU4gcMw

Reform

In summary, Reform UK intend to:

  • Abolish IR35 rules to support sole traders;
  • ‘’Scrap thousands of laws that hold back British business and damage productivity, including employment laws that make it riskier to hire people’’;
  • Replace the Equality Act 2010;
  • Scrap all Diversity Equality and Inclusion roles that, “cost huge sums, create division, inequality and exclusion, and reduce productivity.’’; and
  • “Scrap EU Regulations with immediate effect. British Laws on [employment] are still based on EU regulations.”

I think it’s fair to say that Reform UK’s manifesto is somewhat light on the detail of how they plan to achieve the above…

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/eMYNR6Qr


Plaid Cymru

In summary, Plaid Cymru intend to:

  • Support the devolution of employment law to Wales;
  • Make paid bereavement and miscarriage leave a day 1 right;
  • Extend the entitlement to statutory bereavement leave and pay entitlement to all people with a ‘close relationship’ to a person who has died;
  • Increase Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) in line with Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) and remove the lower earnings limit;
  • Reform Shared Parental Leave;
  • Consider making Carer’s Leave paid;
  • Re-introduce the ‘bankers’ bonus cap’
  • Implement an apprenticeship living wage and pay social care workers at least £1 above the real living wage;
  • Investigate increasing higher earners’ National Insurance contributions and promote employee ownership models;
  • Reverse “the Tories’ regressive anti-strike legislation”;
  • Support legislation to tackle insecure work and outlaw fire and re-hire tactics;
  • Abolish compulsory zero-hours contracts;
  • Establish the right to ‘disconnect’;
  • Promote LGBTQ+ inclusion throughout society, including all workplaces, and propose a simplified, de-medicalised gender self-identification system;
  • Adopt the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People into UK law and introduce a Business, Human Rights and Environment Bill which would mandate that private companies conduct due diligence in their supply chains to prevent human rights abuses; and
  • Put the power to decide Bank Holidays in Wales in the hands of the Senedd and make St David’s Day a Bank Holiday in Wales on 1 March each year.

There’s definitely some overlap here with the other manifestos described above (i.e. Labour’s pledge regarding the right to disconnect, as well as increasing SMP and SSP, reforming zero hours contracts and making some employment rights available from day 1).

However there are also some issues that are likely to be divisive, such as the proposal to introduce a simplified, de-medicalised gender self-identification system. How will this work in practice in light of such decision as Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, Meade v (1) Westminster City Council; and (2) Social Work England and Forstater v CGD Europe?

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/enRssnpZ

SNP

In summary, the SNP intend to:

  • Support the devolution of employment law to Scotland to enable changes such as banning ‘exploitative’ zero hours contracts and ‘fire and rehire’, as well as increasing the level of the National Minimum Wage and removing the age brackets;
  • Create a single status of ‘worker’ for all but the ‘genuinely self-employed’;
  • Increase access to statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period;
  • Increase the rate of Statutory Maternity Pay to 100% of average weekly earnings for the first 12 weeks, dropping to 90% of average weekly earnings or £150 (whichever is lower) for 40 weeks;
  • Increase the available period of Shared Parental Leave from 52 to 64 weeks with the additional 12 weeks to be the minimum taken by the father on a ‘use it or lose it’ basis to encourage better uptake of the statutory right; and
  • Support the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and the Trade Union Act 2016

Any of this sounding familiar?

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/eh5YiBKj

Greens

In summary, the Green Party intend to:

  • Repeal anti-union legislation and introduce a ‘positive’ Charter of Workers’ Rights, containing a right to strike and a legal obligation on employers to recognise trade unions;
  • Remove ‘arbitrary’ ballot thresholds and requirements for postal ballots;
  • Overturn bans on secondary picketing and industrial action for political objectives;
  • Introduce a maximum 10:1 pay ratio for all private and public-sector organisations;
  • Increase the national minimum wage to £15 an hour, regardless of age;
  • Campaign for ‘safe sick pay’;
  • Provide equal rights for all workers from their first day of employment, including platform workers, zero hours workers and those working in the ‘gig economy’;
  • Properly fund the enforcement of workers’ rights and abolish tribunal fees;
  • Move to a four-day working week;
  • Transition towards a green economy, led by workers and trade unions;
  • Establish an Offshore Energy and Skills Passport so that workers can transition between offshore energy industries;
  • Require all large and medium-sized companies to carry out equal pay audits, redress any inequalities and extend pay-gap protections to all protected characteristics;
  • Introduce a right to flexible working and ensure disabled workers have the in-job support they need, as well as ‘proper pay and conditions’;
  • ‘Defend’ the Human Rights Act 1998 and continued access to the European Court of Human Rights;
  • Protect the right to religious expression and support gender self-identification for trans and non-binary people; and
  • Push for a precautionary regulatory approach to the development of AI, ensuring that workers’ rights and interests are respected when AI leads to significant changes in working conditions.

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/emtteMbV

If you have any questions on how the general election may affect your obligations as an employer – or any other employment law concerns, please contact any member of our Employment Team (see below).

Ricardo Gaeda discusses the deregulation of the cannabis market in The Times

Posted on: June 6th, 2024 by Yvonne Uzoka

Ricardo’s article was published in The Times , 6 June 2024, and can be found here.

In the biggest shake-up of federal drug policy for more than 50 years, the US Drug Enforcement Administration recently announced plans to reclassify cannabis as a less dangerous drug. The move came as a belated response to even greater liberalisation that has occurred over many years at a state level: since California became the first state to legalise cannabis for medical purposes in 1996, a further 37 US states have followed its example. After several states decriminalised cannabis in the 1970s, Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalise the drug’s recreational use in 2012. Today, cannabis is legal for medical use in 40 states, with recreational/adult-use legal in 24 states. 

Although federal reclassification would not automatically result in national legalisation, it could result in lower tax rates for the cannabis industry and less restrictions on scientific research. In anticipation of cannabis’ wider medical usage and reduced regulation, leading to a number of listed cannabis companies’ stocks have reached new highs.

The momentum of potential investor interest will inevitably extend to the UK and Europe as companies seek to expand their cannabis operations. This will however depend upon a comparable shift in legislation and regulation.

In the EU, the legislative pendulum has already begun to swing. Cannabis has been available for recreational use in Amsterdam’s coffee shops for decades, as part of the Dutch policy of toleration.  More recently, as at 1 April 2024, Germany decriminalised personal possession and allowing the cultivation of up to three cannabis plants at home. Notably, most EU countries already permit, or are considering to allow, the medical use of cannabis or some form of cannabinoids.

However, progress on patient access in the UK continues to be painfully slow. Despite the law being changed in November 2018 to allow the prescribing of unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPMs),  there are only a handful of prescriptions for CBPMs made available through the NHS, mainly used for the treatment of children with epilepsy. The vast majority of CBPM prescriptions are made through private clinics, meaning only those able to afford private medical care can obtain the medicines while their less affluent peers are denied access.

The current government has shown little appetite to confront the issue in parliament while Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer has repeatedly made it clear that he has “no intention” of changing the UK drug laws if his party wins the next general election.

It is therefore evident that a long road to legislative reform may lie ahead.

But if the UK is to keep pace with its global counterparts in medical cannabis regulation, it is vital that the next government reforms its approach to medicinal cannabis – not only to help those with chronic health conditions, but also to enable a viable new industry to be established without being hampered by unnecessarily restrictive regulation.

Angélique Richardson comments on Ryan Garcia’s doping case in World Boxing News

Posted on: June 3rd, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Following the news that boxer Ryan Garcia’s B sample has tested positive for ostarine, Associate Angélique Richardson comments on how high-profile fighters and their legal teams navigate doping cases.

Angelique’s comments were published in World Boxing News, 3 June 2024, and can be found here.

Angelique’s comments:

“Garcia is on the ropes, facing a lengthy ban from the sport of boxing.

“It’s not hugely surprising that Garcia’s B-Sample has also tested positive – it is extremely rare for an A-Sample and B-Sample to return differing results. As a Sports lawyer, we would always advise our fighters to request that their B-Samples be tested – it is good form and good diligence.

“The lead-up to the Haney v Garcia fight was controversial enough, with Garcia’s victory called into question. Now we have a positive A-Sample and B-Sample from Garcia to add to the mix. Issues like this continue to give the sport of boxing a bad rep.

“Garcia is an entertaining character in the sport of boxing. If he chooses to pursue his innocence, which is unclear from the ping-pong nature of his social media, he’ll come out swinging. I’m sure we’ll all have a ringside seat.”

Lawrence Stephens completes £3.9m loan with Butterfield Mortgages

Posted on: May 2nd, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Our  Real Estate Finance team have recently completed their first deal for Butterfield Mortgages Limited – a £3.9million loan over a property in West London.

The loan has a five-year term and was secured over a Knightsbridge property with a value of £6million. The transaction involved the refinance of several leasehold titles

Butterfield Mortgages provide specialised mortgage solutions for domestic and international high net worth clients.

Gregory Palos was assisted by Lawrence Molloy and  Sophie Morton who worked tirelessly to ensure a swift and successful completion of this loan which pleased all parties involved.

Lawrence commented: “A complex matter which required careful consideration from all parties, we are delighted to have secured this loan and navigated the multiple refinances involved in this deal. It was a pleasure to work alongside the team from Butterfield Mortgages on our first deal together, and we look forward to strengthening our relationship over the coming months.”