Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IN THIS ISSUE
BROUGHT TO YOU BY
The Commercial Law Newsletter issue sixteen
5-6 COMMERCIAL PROPERTYTake a look at what our property team and clients are up to – including Muffin Break’s successful new store openings and the new Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards
3 RECRUITMENTRecruitment specialist lawyers, Barney Laurence and Hannah Jones, highlight the importance of recruitment agencies abiding by their own terms and conditions
2 INTERNATIONALDiscover the top considerations for businesses looking to expand to China in our latest feature from international lawyer, Laurel Zhang
The corporate team at Sherrards recently acted for long-standing client, Lords Group, in a successful acquisition placing the business ahead of the curve in the building materials sector.
Led by Andrew Cooke, the team managed the acquisition of the majority share capital in Hevey Building Supplies from its retiring owner, Neil Hemmington. Established in 2001, Northampton-based Hevey Building Supplies is a leading independent builders’ merchant and is the first in the region to achieve FSC certification, providing the business with outstanding green credentials.
Both companies are members of the H&B Group and this is the third takeover of a fellow H&B member by the Lords Group, which is in a strong period of growth. The deal
follows the purchase of George Lines (Merchants) Limited in January 2016 – another transaction led by Andrew and team. Following this latest acquisition, Hevey Building Supplies will remain a separate company within the Lords Group, with Mark Mulvey continuing on as Managing Director. This year, there are also plans to move the main branch in Northampton to a new four-acre site.
Shanker Patel, CEO of the Lords Group, commented: “The acquisition is again another fantastic opportunity for the Lords Group to continue with our expansion plans.
Sherrards, and in particular Andrew Cooke, have been instrumental in helping us achieve this goal. The team were extremely professional and efficient during the transaction process and always offer commercially minded advice”.
Working in close partnership with Sherrards, the Lords Group looks to continue building their strong reputation and presence in the building materials sector throughout 2018 and beyond.
7 PRIVATE CLIENTHear from our private client team on current issues for individuals – including the implications of co-habitation for unmarried couples and avoiding boundary disputes
4-5 EMPLOYMENTOur employment team share the latest happenings in the world of HR and employment law – exploring current issues around holiday pay and sexual harassment in the workplace
CEMENTING SUCCESSFUL GROWTH FOR LORDS BUILDERS MERCHANTS
+44 (0)20 7478 9911
Welcome,
I hope you all had a good start to 2018. Our year has started very positively and we welcome a number of new recruits to the firm across both our London and St. Albans offices. This includes our new Partner, Caroline Vernon who joined us in January. Read more about Caroline and other new members of our team on the “Who’s New?” section on the back page. Our busy teams are also involved in some exciting work with a number of our clients. We have been supporting clients across a number of sectors in assisting them in growing their businesses including in the retail and recruitment sectors. This has included supporting Muffin Break in their expansion plans and the opening of stores across the Country. Our international team recently spent time in Asia building relationships with new and existing clients and won work on a number of new property developments.
In this issue, we explore best practice on doing business in China, the importance of recruitment agencies following their own terms & conditions, the new Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards coming into force in April and how co-habitation can make you poorer.
Enjoy the read!
Alasdair McMillinManaging Partner
+44 (0)1727 832830www.sherrards.com
WELCOME
© Sherrards Solicitors 2018
@sherrards
Visit our blog: blog.sherrards.com
4 Beaconsfield Road, St Albans, Herts, AL1 3RD. T: +44 (0)1727 832830
1-3 Pemberton RowLondon EC4A 3BG T: +44 (0)20 7478 9010
ISSUE SIXTEEN PAGE 2
DOING BUSINESS IN CHINA: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
While the Chinese market is attractive to investors across a range of sectors, the country has a reputation for being a difficult market to penetrate from an international perspective. As a result, growing UK companies with global aspirations require a carefully considered strategy to ensure a successful expansion into China, regardless of the size and sector in which they operate. With the right planning in place, businesses can ensure that they are prepared from the outset and are able to avoid the common mistakes made when navigating such a complex market.
At a recent event held by Sherrards’ China team, alongside IP law firm Haseltine Lake, the firm helped prepare businesses by shedding light on some of the key legal issues faced by companies entering and operating in China, as well as how these challenges can be overcome.
Chinese legal system
In the UK, the legal system is highly-established, comprehensive and reputable, so much so that it is often the preferred governing law for international business transactions. In China, corporate and commercial laws are developing rapidly,
with a number of laws in place that are yet to be tested. This can mean that processes around finalising contracts are often less formal than in the UK.
Governing laws
It is recommended that all matters related to UK businesses operating in China are governed by UK law so that if disputes arise they are subject to one of the three UK legal systems for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. UK law enables parties to resolve matters through arbitration rather than court proceedings, if applicable. However, it is important to have a trusted Chinese law firm involved from the outset, working in partnership with UK businesses and law firms to support matters on the ground in China.
Market access
Chinese businesses tend to operate through trusted local networks due to language and cultural familiarities, which can make accessibility a challenge for external overseas companies. This reinforces the need to build relationships with legal contacts and business partners who are familiar with the Chinese market, fluent in the language and have access to crucial networks.
Intellectual property
Having only introduced patent laws over the past 30 years, there are question marks over China’s reputation for IP protection, and businesses are advised to be vigilant as a result. This is in fact shifting, with China implementing stricter enforcement of patent laws, but it still remains an issue. It is, therefore, advised that businesses adopt measures to protect their IP through the use of trusted legal partners who understand the IP legal landscape in China.
Litigation
Litigation procedures in China are significantly different to those of the UK system. The Chinese process for resolving disputes is often considered to be less thorough and stringent than the British approach, involving practices that are considered the norm in China but not widely accepted in the UK.
Laurel Zhang of Sherrards’ China and Southeast Asia team explains: “The key to operating in China is to gain the trust of your partners and investors. Most importantly, when trading with China, connections are crucial. Ensuring you have a partner on hand, who understands the market and the risks involved from the outset, is vital.”
With a booming economy, China has become a commercial powerhouse for UK businesses looking to expand, as a result of the country’s high growth and investment potential. Laurel Zhang of Sherrards’ China and Southeast Asia team explores the key considerations for any business looking to expand east.
+44 (0)20 7478 9916
ISSUE SIXTEEN PAGE 3
RECRUITMENT AGENCY FEE DISPUTES – DO YOU ABIDE BY YOUR OWN TERMS & CONDITIONS?
In this case, Company A was engaged by Company B to source a candidate for a role. Company A supplied a quality candidate, whom Company B subsequently engaged without Company A’s knowledge. When Company A discovered that its candidate had been hired, it immediately approached Company B seeking payment of its fee pursuant to its terms and conditions. Court proceedings were then issued.
Company B initially disputed that there was any contract at all, but conceded only days before the trial (well over a year later) that there was a contract and that Company A’s terms and conditions applied to that contract.
Under Company A’s terms – and as is commonplace in recruitment – its commission fee was to be a percentage based on the amount of the candidate’s “remuneration”. In the event that the actual remuneration was not known to Company A, Company A could calculate its fee based on what it deemed the remuneration to be, but could only do so after having first asked Company B what the remuneration was and allowing Company B a period of time to respond.
Company A, therefore, enquired of the level of the candidate’s remuneration but did not receive an answer. Six days after having made the enquiry, Company A proceeded to raise an invoice based on an assumed salary and issued the invoice to Company B. Company B responded (albeit not sufficiently) thirteen days later, but by this time Company A had already issued its invoice. The problem with this was that, under Company A’s terms and conditions, Company B had fourteen days to respond as to the level of remuneration, and so an issue therefore arose as to whether Company A had “jumped the gun” in issuing its invoice without giving Company B the fourteen days provided for in Company A’s terms and conditions.
In this case, Company A’s commission was 30%. But if it could be shown that Company A had failed to comply with its own terms and conditions (by raising an invoice prematurely), Company A risked losing the right to claim its 30% fee under the contract. Instead, it might have to fall back on a claim for damages, which could well have meant Company A receiving substantially less in monetary terms than the 30% it had contracted for.
In any event, the case settled the day before trial, so the issue was not determined by the Court. Further, it was unlikely (for various reasons, not least a demonstrable lack of honesty on the part of Company B) that Company A would have lost the right to recover its contractual fee at 30%. Nevertheless, the case stands as a stark warning to recruiters that, if you fail to follow your own terms of business and the procedures, you could well find that you lose the ability to recover your contractual fee and instead have to settle for a potentially far lesser amount. So whatever your terms and conditions say, make sure you follow them to the letter.
Well-drafted, unambiguous terms and conditions, along with robust procedures, can prove to be the recruiter’s saving grace in situations where there is a dispute about fees, so it is always worth investing in having your documentation and processes reviewed by specialist recruitment lawyers. The cost of doing so will invariably be a mere fraction of what you could spend in legal fees pursuing payment from your client. Worse still, poor documentation and procedures could mean having to forego a fee altogether.
A recent case handled by Sherrards’ recruitment specialists, Barney Laurence and Hannah Jones, brought into sharp focus the importance of the client recruitment agency (‘Company A’) following its own terms of business.
+44 (0)1727 [email protected]
+44 (0)1727 738978
ISSUE SIXTEEN PAGE 4
A TOUCHY SUBJECT… 5 TIPS FOR DEALING WITH A SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT
1. Take the complaint seriously … but don’t go over the top – too many employers fall foul of this fundamental rule. However trivial the complaint might seem to you, and however historic, don’t dismiss it out of hand. If such complaints are not taken seriously, it’s amazing how things can snowball. Similarly, though, don’t charge in like a bull in a china shop and make a bigger deal of it than the complainant intended. Take time to listen, be sensitive in your response and try to get an understanding from the individual as to what outcome they are looking for. Talk them through the likely process (which, depending on the circumstances, might include an investigation, grievance process and disciplinary against the alleged harasser) and reassure them that you will support them – but make sure that is what they want.
2. Two sides to every story – however bad the allegations might seem, try to avoid jumping to any conclusions until you have had an opportunity to investigate further and, at the very least, get the accused’s version of events. In the employment arena, “guilt” isn’t held
to a criminal burden of proof (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) but you should still bear in mind that people are innocent until you have reason, on the balance of probabilities and having undertaken an appropriate investigation, to decide that they are not.
3. Intention is irrelevant – when it comes to deciding the tricky question of guilt, remember that the alleged perpetrator’s intentions are irrelevant when deciding whether there was harassment in the legal sense. Harassment occurs when the conduct is unwanted and where it has the purpose or effect of violating the recipient’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him/her. In other words, it is the recipient’s perception of the conduct that is all important, not whether the perpetrator intended for the recipient to feel harassed.
4. Think about the bigger picture – don’t get so caught up in the process that the substance gets lost. Remember that you are dealing with people, and the way
in which you handle any complaint will have a knock-on effect throughout the whole organisation. The temptation might be to suspend immediately the person who has been accused – and that certainly might be the appropriate course of action depending on the circumstances – but you ought to think carefully about the pros and cons of this approach. Consider whether the impact of that decision, both in terms of internal perception and business operations, might outweigh the benefit. There may be other ways around the problem.
5. Take advice! – negotiating your way through this particular minefield is tricky. The consequences of getting it wrong, both legally and internally from an HR perspective, could be serious. Emotions often run high and it can be difficult to remain entirely objective. An external adviser will be worth their weight in gold. Not only can they help you get the process right, but they can provide an independent point of view … as well as a sanity check (and someone to lean on) when you need it.
Over the past few months, we have seen a number of serious sexual misconduct allegations surface about several well-known individuals. For business owners, while it is the common view that such behaviour is unacceptable in any capacity, many are now concerned that the floodgates have opened for staff to make sexual harassment allegations against their colleagues. How should they deal with such allegations? What is their duty of care? HR and employment partner, Joanne Perry gives her top tips on how businesses can deal with the complexities of such allegations in the workplace:
+44 (0)1727 738920
ISSUE SIXTEEN PAGE 5
HOLIDAY PAY AND OVERTIME: TO INCLUDE, OR NOT INCLUDE?
Most employers will be aware of the continued uncertainty surrounding the calculation of holiday pay, but we are beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel. Employment lawyer, Priya Magar explores the Employment Appeals Tribunal’s (EAT) recent conclusion that regular payments for voluntary overtime must be taken into account when calculating holiday pay.
The clarification comes after a number of cases on this very subject – none of which gave clear answers to all the different issues. In particular, the issue of whether or not overtime payments should be included when calculating holiday pay has been unclear insofar as that overtime is genuinely voluntary.
Whilst this might cause some concern for employers, it does not mean that ALL overtime received in the pay reference period should be included. In summary, the EAT said:
Holiday pay should reflect “normal remuneration” so that workers are not discouraged from taking annual leave (because of a resulting drop in income).
What counts as “normal remuneration” is a payment that is paid over a sufficient period of time and on a regular or recurring basis. Therefore voluntary overtime can come within this if it is, indeed, on a regular basis. Whether overtime falls to be included is a question of fact, depending on the circumstances.
Elements which are not usually paid or are exceptional do not fall within “normal remuneration”.
It is important to remember that these principles only apply to the 4 weeks of holiday specified within the EU Working Time Directive and do not apply to the additional 1.6 weeks added as a result of the Working Time Regulations 1998 or any enhanced contractual entitlements to holiday. Employers who are affected will need to consider whether to purely apply these principles to just the 4 weeks’ leave under the Directive or to apply it to all leave.
Employers ought to consider now whether payments received by staff for voluntary overtime are regular enough to be classified as “normal remuneration”. This is not always a straightforward answer, particularly in seasonal businesses where “regular” overtime is concentrated into a particular period.
MUFFIN BREAK CONTINUE TO BAKE WITH NEW STORE OPENINGS Long-standing client and successful bakery chain, Muffin Break, continue to grow rapidly across the UK - bringing more jobs and freshly baked food to the market. With the help of Sherrards’ dedicated legal team, four new sites across the country opened to the public at the end of 2017.
The new outlets, based in Romford, Birkenhead, Camberley and Hull, were finalised by the firm’s retail team within 10 days, enabling the sites to open in time for Christmas.
Originally established in Canada, Muffin Break has enjoyed strong growth of 4.5% per annum over the past three years. The chain now has over 300 stores worldwide, 62 of which are based in the UK.
With a strong retail and franchising sector focus, Sherrards have supported Muffin Break to achieve their expansion plans since 2008, having facilitated a number of previous store openings across the country including Newport, Birmingham, Telford and Stratford-upon-Avon. They are looking to continue their expansion and plan to open more new stores across the UK over the next 12 months.
Terry Fendt, property partner leading the retail team, comments: “Muffin Break is a great client to work with. The team are very focused and ambitious for their business. They have a product and approach which really appeals to the UK. We enjoy being part of their success”.
The firm works with an extensive portfolio of high street retailers, advising on a variety of legal matters including acquisitions, lease negotiations, disposals and franchise structures. The firm has the resources, expertise and experience to react quickly and commercially to the needs of retail and franchise clients, helping to maximise opportunities for business growth.
+44 (0)1727 738922
Priya [email protected]
+44 (0)1727 738909
ISSUE SIXTEEN PAGE 6
Introduction of the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) is due to come into force on 1 April 2018. Applicable to both commercial and residential properties, the new standards will make it unlawful to grant a new lease of residential or commercial premises with an EPC rating of band F or G. Commercial property lawyer, Claire Haywood advises on the changes due to take place.
Changes that are coming into effect from 1 April 2018Landlords traditionally ‘shy away’ from carrying out energy-improving works, as it may be considered a cost that is only beneficial to the tenant. However, the introduction of the MEES changes this. From April 2018, it will be unlawful to grant a new lease of residential or commercial premises with an EPC rating of band F or G, except for tenancies of less than six months or over 99 years. It will also apply to all existing residential and commercial lettings, meaning landlords must not continue to let a property with an EPC rating of band F or G.
Whilst failing to comply with the regulations will be unlawful, it will not invalidate the lease or result in the landlord having to evict the tenant. If a landlord fails to comply, they will potentially be subject to a substantial civil fine. A breach for less than three months could mean a fine of up to £50,000 (minimum – £5,000) and for a breach of three months or more, it could be up to £150,000 (minimum – £10,000) for commercial properties.
The fines for residential properties are lower. A breach for less than three months could result in a fine of up to £2,000 and a breach of three months or more could result in a fine of up to £4,000.
These are not insignificant sums for either a commercial or residential landlord. However, there are a number of exemptions from which a landlord can benefit.
Exemptions for landlordsFirst there is consent exemption. This is where the tenant of the property refuses to consent to any relevant energy efficiency improvement being made, despite reasonable endeavours by the landlord. It can also occur when consent is granted but subject to a condition with which the landlord cannot comply. Another is devaluation exemption, which can apply where improvements would result in a reduction of more than 5% in the market value of the property. There is also the temporary option, where a six month exemption is applicable in the case that a landlord purchases a property subject to an existing lease or in other leasing scenarios. Finally, a landlord could benefit from seven-year payback, if the savings made from the recommended improvement works are less than the capital cost of their implementation over a seven year period.
Exemptions must be registered on the central government PRS Exemptions Register before 1 April 2018. However, landlords should bear in mind that the exemptions are only valid for five years and cannot be transferred to a new landlord. It is important to register any exemption as soon as possible.
Landlord and tenant considerationsMoving forward, this is an area that landlords and tenants (and their lawyers) should take into consideration.
On purchasing or selling freehold properties, whether vacant or occupied, landlords and their lawyers should carefully
consider the MEES in view of the property’s EPC rating. If it falls below band E, sellers may see a reduction in the value of their property, unless they carry out the works. Purchasers, on the other hand, may look to reduce a purchase price depending on the level of works required.
Landlords should also review and assess their portfolios and consider current lease terms, break dates and renewal dates to check whether required works fit into the MEES timings.
In addition, tenants who are occupying or anticipate occupying a property should also consider the EPC rating as this may impact on their ability to sub-let. Tenants should also carefully check any dilapidations claims going forward to ensure they do not pay for any necessary improvements on behalf of the landlord.
Finally, both parties should consider who is to fund any works. When negotiating, the lease terms should be taken into account as the landlord may try to make the cost of the works recoverable from the tenant through a sum reserved as rent or the service charge.
In light of the fines, landlords should review their portfolios, prepare EPCs, consider any exemptions and carry out any necessary works. Landlords can delay the process, but it is likely that work will need to be undertaken unless an exemption is logged.
DON’T GET IN A ‘MEES’ ABOUT THE NEW MINIMUM ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
+44 (0)1727 738904
ISSUE SIXTEEN PAGE 7
CO-HABITATION – IT CAN MAKE YOU POORER
HOW TO AVOID BOUNDARY DISPUTES WITH YOUR NEIGHBOURS
In light of BBC’s recent insights on the current challenges faced by unmarried couples, private client lawyer, Nicole Marmor discusses the financial implications for co-habiting couples in the event of death.
There are two major impact areas for co-habiting couples who are not married. Firstly, they may be at a disadvantage in how the estate is shared if their partner dies without leaving a Will. In the event of death, there is no automatic claim for the surviving party on the assets solely owned by their partner and they therefore have to make a formal claim, potentially to the Court. Secondly, the couple are likely to be at a disadvantage in terms of inheritance tax (IHT).
Inheritance tax can be a major problem for cohabiting couples. Cohabitees that own property and other assets with a combined value of more than £650,000 face an IHT charge if one party dies. This is because unmarried partners can only pass assets up to the value of the nil-rate band of £325,000 free from the imposition of inheritance tax. Everything that passes from one partner to the other above that sum is taxed at 40% of that value.
Compare this with property or assets left to a married spouse or civil partner, which is 100% exempt from inheritance tax. In addition, the surviving spouse or civil partner can “inherit” the other party’s nil-rate band, meaning the full £650,000 can pass to other beneficiaries such as children on the death of the second spouse or civil partner. This transfer of the nil-rate band is not available to unmarried couples.
There is also the new Residence Nil Rate Band, which potentially provides married couples and civil partners with an additional exemption of up to £200,000 on the second death. This is not available to cohabitees passing assets to their children.
Unmarried cohabitees are advised to act early to ensure that they are protected against the financial disadvantages outlined above. Despite the implications for cohabitees on distribution of the estate and IHT upon death, there are measures that can be implemented to reduce the negative impact. It is important for those in this situation to seek professional advice, prepare a Will and arrange their affairs in a tax efficient manner to ensure that they are sufficiently protected for when the inevitable happens.
Boundary disputes can be unpleasant, stressful, expensive and often unnecessary. Whatever your situation, it is always wise to prevent disputes arising where possible and maintain a harmonious relationship with neighbours. Residential property lawyer, Anu Hunt explores how boundary disputes can be avoided in a few simple steps.
Picture the scene: John Smith decides to move a fence a few inches into his neighbour’s land. He thinks nothing of it. In fact, he believes the additional land is his anyway. He re-locates the fence whilst his neighbour is away on holiday. John’s actions spark a row and a claim for adverse possession is lodged by his neighbour resulting in sleepless nights for John, stress, family conflict and finally thousands of pounds to settle the claim out of court. Not a situation you want to find yourself in.
The Party Wall Act 1996 is the ‘go-to’ legislation that deals with such boundary issues. In short, it offers a framework for resolving disputes and highlights the step by step procedure to follow to ensure that disputes are avoided in the first place.
Bear in mind that if you own a flat for example with a garden and you wish to undertake extension works, you would need to consider the above Party Wall Act. Not only will you need to obtain the freeholder/landlord’s consent to the works but you must engage a party wall surveyor, notify the neighbouring flat-owner/s and then request that they each consult a party wall surveyor before you proceed with the works.
There are some common sense ways to deal with such a situation before it escalates and to maintain good will between neighbours at all times.
Before you tear down a joint wall, mend or move a fence or cut down a tree on a boundary for whatever reason, consider the following:
• If there is a joint boundary you want to do work on, always sound out your neighbour before you do any work – it is advisable to discuss this with him/her and then put the request in writing.
• Always engage a party wall surveyor before you do any work.
• Remember that Land Registry plans show a general boundary and until that boundary has been “determined” by survey (which is rare), the boundary is not definitive.
• Note that making a party wall taller, shorter or deeper, removing a chimney breast from a party wall and digging below the foundation level of a neighbour’s property, building a new wall on or at the boundary of 2 properties, cutting into a party wall, knocking down and rebuilding a party wall all constitute building works for the purposes of the Party Wall Act 1996.
• It is vital to consider the lawyer/surveyor interface. Whilst lawyers have to describe land in a way that precisely defines those boundaries, they are not trained to do what is essentially the work of a surveyor. When purchasing a piece of land without adequate plans, ensure you arrange for accurate plans to be prepared by a surveyor to a large enough scale – it could save you time and expense.
• Always check with the local planning department to make sure that the tree you wish to cut down or trim is not subject to a tree preservation order or situated in a conservation area.
• In law you are entitled to cut off any branches of a tree overhanging your property provided you return them to their owners.
• You have the right to prune back any overhanging vegetation on your land on the basis that the pruning does not cause long term damage to the tree.
• Entering someone’s property, without permission, to cut a tree would of course, be illegal.
The full Party Wall Act 1996 is available on the UK Gov website, viewable at: www.gov.uk/guidance/party-wall-etc-act-1996-guidance.
+44 (0)20 7478 9914
This magazine is for general interest only. Nothing in this magazine constitutes legal advice or gives rise to any solicitor client relationship. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of any article, no warranty is given, express or implied, as to any of the content of the magazine and Sherrards does not accept any liability for loss or damage (including loss of business or profit) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from use or reliance upon it. All copyright is vested in Sherrards unless expressly stated otherwise. No permission is granted for reproduction, use or adaptation of the material, save as provided under Statute, and any such use must be accompanied by the appropriate accreditation.
ISSUE SIXTEEN PAGE 8
+44 (0)20 3795 0036
+44 (0)20 3795 0033
+44 (0)20 7478 9914
+44 (0)20 7478 9013
Caroline Vernon, Partner, Residential Property
Caroline has joined to further strengthen and develop Sherrards’ offering in the residential real estate sector - advising investment funds, entrepreneurs, high net worth individuals, lenders, individual investors and developers. She specialises in a number of areas including site, portfolio or single acquisition and disposals, development, leasehold management work, together with all enfranchisement aspects both contentious and non-contentious and refinance and banking work. Caroline’s experience stretches across the country including London properties, country estates and development sites.
Victoria Mundy, Solicitor, Commercial Property
Victoria has a broad commercial property background including landlord and tenant matters, disposals and acquisitions, lease extensions, property management and assisting clients on general commercial real estate law. Her experience includes advising on site acquisitions for photovoltaic power plant including feed-in tariff leases, acquisitions from LPA Receivers, assisting overseas investors on investment acquisitions, and advising a UK JV and US REIT on investment in senior healthcare living, working alongside corporate and debt finance groups. Victoria also has experience in the real estate aspects of corporate investments and banking transactions. She joined Sherrards from a US based City firm and works closely with clients and colleagues to achieve the required outcome in a timely and efficient manner.
Johan Garcia, Trainee Solicitor, Commercial Property
Johan joined Sherrards in September 2017 after having completed his LPC LLM, obtaining a distinction from the University of Law in Bloomsbury. His first seat is in the commercial property team. Prior to joining the firm, Johan was a paralegal at a West End law firm, working in residential property investment. He gained substantial experience with a diverse range of clients, from overseas banks to high-net-worth individuals. Johan does his utmost to provide the highest possible standard of legal service and prides himself on client care, working to consider not just a client’s legal needs but their commercial needs as well.
WHO’S NEW?
Anu Hunt, Senior Solicitor, Residential and Commercial Property
Anu is a senior residential and commercial property lawyer with considerable knowledge and expertise on a full-range of property-related matters and is well-versed in all aspects of property law having advised a variety of clients from pension trusts to individual high net worth clients. She specialises in new-build properties acting for mostly investors here and in the Far East. Anu brings a focused and commercial approach to her legal advice and is known for her ability to work closely with her clients to achieve success in their transactions.
