member

Ahead of the start of the summer season, Norwich International Airport has invested in new generation x-ray screening equipment and reconfigured its main security search area.

The new layout aims to ensure that individual passenger screening times are kept to a minimum making the security process a much speedier and efficient process for all passengers.

To improve the processing of inbound passengers the airport has also invested in an additional UK Border Agency desk to ease congestion on arrival.

Jamie Price, Airport Security Manager said: “The improvements within our central search will not only enhance security, but also the overall passenger experience at the airport.”

Andrew Bell, CEO said: “We are committed to making the airport experience an easier, speedier and less stressful one for all of our passengers and we hope that these improvements will enhance their journey through the airport”

We are so pleased to be able to finally announce the results of our Ofsted inspection in February.

Our leaders and staff of Swarm Training CIC have been working hard to develop a very strong provision for our clients and learners during their time with us on their apprenticeships. We were able to demonstrate to Ofsted the quality of our courses, our support and care for learners and employers, our additional personal development provision and our team.  It was a very busy week of inspection but everyone pulled together to showcase the very best of Swarm.

We won’t spoil the surprise too quickly as to what our final result was but we are so excited to share with you the full story and incredible feedback we received.

For the full story, take a look at our blog:
https://www.swarmtraining.org.uk/news/ofsted

Epic Studios is looking for TV presenters to be part of our exciting plans for the future. Epic Studios is fast becoming the premier venue in Norwich for a variety of live performances. We also stream many of our performances as well as creating dozens of music videos every month. We’re now looking for presenters for the next stage of our programme development. We are looking for someone who is confident in front of camera and who will work on a variety of projects, including but not limited to: • Live performance shows, with compere skills and ability to interview • Discussion and magazine style programmes • To introduce Epic videos for a highlights show • to host a magazine and discussion programme • to interview audience members before, during and after performances • to interview artists live on stage Our core requirements are for a male and female presenter to become the face of our channel and brand. In addition, we may also recruit other presenters for genre-specific formats. We will be holding an appointment-only audition process in May. To apply, please submit, where available: • Pictures (portfolio where possible) • Examples of front of camera work • Examples of performance, presenting, interviewing in front of camera • CV with specific reference to media experience. If you do not have any of these items, please explain in your application why you think you might be suitable for the position and why you should be invited to the audition. Include in your application reasons why you think you would be suitable for the position and include any programme ideas you may have and how you can contribute to the development of the Epic TV channel. Please email [email protected] with your application by 1pm on Friday May 3. Screen tests will take place the week after. We will reply to every application.

On Sunday 28th April East Anglia’s Children’s Hospices Royal Patron HRH The Duchess of Cambridge supported Children’s Hospice Week with her first ever video message.

In her inaugural message, The Duchess of Cambridge states: ‘As Patron of East Anglia’s Children’s Hospices I have been fortunate enough to see first hand the remarkable work that they do for children and young people with life-limiting conditions, and their families’.

The Duchess of Cambridge also encourages viewers to ‘recognise, celebrate and support the inspirational work of hospices’ to ensure ‘children and their families can make the most of the precious time they have together’

Tosee the full video message please visitwww.each.org.uk .

Join Atlantic Holidays and Travel Norwich Airport for a Taste of Madeira event, and enjoy all that Madeira has to offer on Wednesday 1st May 2013 at Norwich Airport.

Dino Toouli from Atlantic Holidays will be hosting informal presentations at 10:30am, 12:30pm or 2:30pm which will include essential destination advice for a holiday to Madeira.

There will be some fantastic offers for any bookings made at the event including:

• 5% discount
• FREE car parking on all Norwich International Airport departures
• FREE introductory tour of Funchal

Complimentary refreshments and car parking will be provided to those attending the event. Places must be registered by simply calling Travel Norwich Airport on 01603 4284700.

Children’s Hospice Week runs from 26 April to 3 May and is the UK’s only awareness and fundraising week for children with life threatening conditions – it’s theme is Be a Hero!

East Anglia’s Children’s Hospices Royal Patron – HRH The Duchess of Cambridge in her first ever video message says ‘I hope you will join me this Children’s Hospice Week in supporting your local service.’

So why not be a hero for EACH’s Quidenham hospice here in Norfolk and consider the following ways of pledging your support:

• Take on your own personal challenge and raise money for EACH.
• Take part in an EACH event like our Ride for Life (or Walk) being held in Thetford Forest onSunday 19th May.
• Hold an event for EACH at work.
• Give 2 hours of your time to EACH to help with a supermarket collection.
• Donate a bag of unwanted items to our shops.

As a company you could go one step further and pledge to make EACH your Charity of the Year for 2014.

For more information please visit our website www.each.org.uk or call the Norfolk FundraisingTeam on 01953 666767.

Ian Robotham, Associate in the dispute resolution team at Steeles Law provides the latest development in the “Interest Rate Swap Scandal” that has dominated the headlines in recent months.

Update

Since last reported by Ian and Marija Markovic, trainee solicitor at Steeles Law, the UK Courts have given Judgment in the first reported case on the mis-selling of interest rate swaps.

On Friday 21 December 2012, in the case of Green & Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland 2012, the Manchester Mercantile Court (High Court of Justice) dismissed a claim brought by Mr John Green and Mr Paul Rowley against RBS.

Green and Rowley have appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal, and the Financial Conduct Authority (one of two regulatory authority successors to the FSA) has written to the Court asking for permission to participate in the Appeal.

Background to the Case

Mr Green and Mr Rowley were business partners in property investment. In May 2005, their partnership had liabilities to Royal Bank of Scotland of £1.5m, repayable over 15 years at 1.5% above base rate. Their bank manager, Mrs Gill, suggested that they may wish to enter into an interest rate protection product. After a meeting with an RBS specialist in this area, Mrs Holdsworth, they entered into the “swap” (click here for our previous article explaining this term). The base rate at that time was 4.75% and the fixed rate was set at 4.83%.

This arrangement worked well for Green & Rowley initially; in June 2006 the base rate increased significantly and carried on at a higher rate than the swapped rate until October 2008. This meant that, during this period, Green & Rowley received payments from RBS under the swap. However, following the financial crisis in late 2008, the base rate drastically decreased and, in March 2009, settled at the current record low base rate 0.5% and stayed there. This left Green & Rowley paying increased amounts under the swap and unable to take advantage of the record-low rate.

Judgment

His Honour Judge Waksman QC made it clear upon delivering Judgment that this case was highly fact sensitive. The evidence concentrated on what was said at the meeting with the specialist and before the swap was entered into. Green & Rowley claimed that RBS breached its common law duty of care in making negligent mis-statements and in giving negligent advice with regard to the swap.

The Judge accepted that, in line with Rubenstein v HSBC Bank PLC 2011, if a product had been recommended this may amount to advice. Mrs Gill recommended Green & Rowley to consider an interest rate protection product and arranged a meeting with the specialist, Mrs Holdsworth. At the meeting with Mrs Holdsworth, the advantages and disadvantages of various products were discussed. But the Judge stated in this case that this does not amount to a recommendation (and therefore advice) and that Green & Rowley were free to make their own decision.

Mrs Holdsworth retained a note taken of the particular meeting, including manuscript diagrams and figures used for illustrative purposes and more importantly a typed note from the manuscript note she took at the meeting setting out what was said. By contrast, Green & Rowley had no notes of the meeting or what was said at the time, therefore relaying information purely from memory of some seven years before. The Judge stated that he generally preferred the evidence given by the Bank to that of Green & Rowley.

Even though the word ‘suitable’ was used to describe the chosen swap product in a note taken by Mrs Holdsworth at the meeting, the Judge found that this was only confirmation that the product was suitable for Green & Rowley’s expressed requirements, not advice that it was suitable pursuant to the Conduct of Business Rules.

Therefore, as no advice had been given, the claim for negligent advice failed.

In relation to break costs, RBS provided documentation which stated that, if the swap was broken, there would be a cost or benefit depending on the market conditions. That was the extent of a reference to break costs by RBS. Green and Rowley claimed that the information provided by RBS did not go far enough and that RBS owed a duty of care to explain the potential extent of the break costs in much more detail.

However, the Judge found that the information provided was sufficient and, what mattered in common law, was whether the statements in themselves were accurate, not whether more could have been said. Therefore the Judge concluded that the information provided by the Bank was not misleading, so the claim for negligent mis-statement also failed.

Further Developments

In January 2013, shortly after Judgment was given, the Financial Services Authority (as it then was) released a report on the outcome of its pilot scheme.

Included in that report was a section titled ‘Assessing Compliance with Regulatory Requirements’. This gave examples of what, in the FSA’s opinion, sales of the interest rate hedging products by banks should include for those sales to be conducted within the regulatory requirements.

The report also stated that “for the disclosure of break costs to comply with our regulatory requirements, the bank should be able to demonstrate that in good time before the sale, the bank provided the customer with an appropriate, comprehensible and fair, clear and not misleading disclosure of any potential break costs.”

Green & Rowley have since dis-instructed the solicitors acting on their behalf for the case at first instance and have appointed new solicitors to act in relation to an appeal.

Following an application, Lord Justice Lewison has granted Green & Rowley permission to appeal His Honour Judge Waksman QC’s Judgment on grounds of public interest. It is expected that an appeal will take place in October 2013 (coincidentally the same month that Graiseley Investments Limited & Ors v Barclays Bank plc, another interest rate hedging product case, is expected to be heard).

Very recently, the Financial Conduct Authority (which has superseded the FSA) wrote to the Court and both parties to the case seeking permission to make a submission to the court to offer clarity on its regulatory requirements.

Conclusion

Although the case was a success for RBS at first instance, permission to appeal has been granted and the matter has not yet reached a final conclusion. Even if the decision at first instance is upheld at the Court of Appeal, this case should not necessarily deter a person or company from pursuing a claim against a bank.

This case was fact specific (His Honour Judge Waksman QC said as much) and every case has different facts. The outcome in this case was determined by what was said between the parties and how the evidence was given.

This case highlights the importance of accurate evidence. Before bringing a claim, it is imperative that all relevant information is obtained. The evidence given by the claimants must also be consistent and not conflicting. The court is likely to look on contemporaneous documents taken from that period of time more favourably. To maximise an opportunity of success it is crucial that the evidence is properly prepared from the outset and the case is dealt with by a legal team that have the requisite expertise.

The Judge found both claimants to be intelligent and experienced businessmen, and described the swap they entered into as ‘straightforward’. Many potential claimants will not have the same knowledge and experience and many products entered into will be of far greater complexity.

At Steeles Law we have acted and continue to act for a number of clients involved in disputes with banks including the mis-selling of complex financial products. We have already secured significant settlements on behalf of clients.

If you or your business has entered into a hedging agreement, whether that agreement remains in place or not, we would like to hear from you. For a no obligation discussion about interest rate hedging products call Ian Robotham today.

The Partners of leading East Anglia law firm Leathes Prior are delighted to announce that Chris Hoxley, currently an Associate in the firm’s Real Estate Team, has accepted their invitation to join the Partnership with effect from 1 May 2013. Dave Richards, currently Solicitor in the Dispute Resolution Team has also been promoted to Associate.

Chris is Norfolk born and bred and was educated at Norwich School, the University of Reading and Anglia Ruskin University and joined Leathes Prior in 2007.

Chris advises clients on a wide range of property matters. Although specialising primarily in commercial property work, including residential and commercial developments, commercial investment property and business tenancies, Chris also acts for a number of agricultural and high net worth residential property clients.

Dave graduated from Kings College London in 2006 and joined Leathes Prior in 2007. Since qualifying as a solicitor in 2009, Dave has also become accredited as a mediator. Having gained substantial experience in a wide variety of litigation matters, Dave now focuses predominantly on Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence claims. He has fought tirelessly for his clients over the past few years and is proud of his high success rate and the level of damages achieved.

Dave also mediates a variety of civil and commercial disputes regularly, continuing to develop Leathes Prior’s ADR arm, mediation-1st. Based purely on client feedback, Dave has already managed to become one of the top 50 mediators in the country.

Ben Burgess required an update to their infrastructure to accommodate modern network practises BYoD and Intersite secure VPNs. FreeClix proposed and installed multi-network FortiNet infrastructure with both private and guest WiFi access, Secure Active Directory controlled user level access throughout their organisation. Great features of the FortiNet system have enabled SSL VPN Tunnelling for remote workers, customised dynamic content filtering, anti-virus and intrusion protection, and a simple to use WiFi guest portal for temporary guest administration.

FreeClix were delighted to be able to contribute to the Olympic Torch Relay through the County, by providing wireless internet feeds to run the large screen televising the route outside The Forum in Norwich

The Leathes Prior Insolvency Department recently represented a local Insolvency Practitioner in his response to a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, made by a former bankrupt. The appeal was in relation to a claim the former bankrupt had brought against the Insolvency Practitioner who was once the bankrupt’s Trustee in Bankruptcy.

Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Mann held in our client’s favour, refusing permission to appeal.

The case addressed matters such as:

• The appropriate test to be applied to an application by a bankrupt under Section 304 Insolvency Act 1986; • Issues relating to limitation on an application pursuant to Section 304 Insolvency Act 1986; • The manner in which a claim would be conducted by a bankrupt being an appropriate consideration in an application under Section 304 Insolvency Act 1986; • The way in which Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 is applied in relation to adducing fresh evidence on appeal.