Conveyancing tax hike on 1 January? - Society demands answers

An apparent ’stealth tax’ hike on housebuying has left conveyancing solicitors facing an uncertain Christmas.

The Law Society is today seeking urgent clarification from HMRC on unconfirmed reports that VAT will be imposed on searches conducted by local councils from 1 January - just six working days away. Chancery Lane warns this will create confusion and delays for both conveyancers and their clients. 

Council searches provide information for buyers and lenders about matters including planning decisions, building regulation consents, highway information, road schemes and public footpaths. They are carried out on the Law Society’s CON29 and CON29O forms, providing standardised questions to make conveyancing searches quicker and more efficient for both local authorities and property buyers.

The reason for addition of VAT is unclear, though it would appear to be intended to level the playing field between councils and private search organisations (PSOs), which already add VAT to searches they are instructed to conduct. A trade body representing PSOs has welcomed the move as a fait accompli, though Chancery Lane’s requests to HMRC for confirmation have gone unanswered.

’A lack of clarity around conveyancing processes and costs helps no one, and we are asking HMRC urgently to explain if, and if so, how and when, these changes will come into effect,’ said Law Society president Robert Bourns. ’A surprise new year’s tax hike will only create confusion and delays in the conveyancing process.  With no public announcement from HMRC about these changes to fees, buyers and their lenders could face delays in getting the information they require. Even small delays in the home buying process can have big consequences, including the possibility of a sale falling through, causing enormous stress for consumers.’

He added: ’Property buyers and their solicitors need certainty.’

The Council of Property Search Organisations said it is ’pleased that the long-running saga about adding VAT to CON29 searches produced by local authorities has finally been resolved’, though its claim that an announcement to that effect has already been made appears unfounded.

James Sherwood Rogers, chairman of CoPSO, said: ’At least from 1 January our members will be able to compete on a level playing field when it comes to the provision of regulated personal searches to their customers. CoPSO has engaged with HMRC for many years seeking resolution to the unacceptable position whereby local authorities have enjoyed a price advantage in offering the CON29 to conveyancers and their clients.

’A level playing field between public and private sectors ultimately can only be to the benefit of homebuyers.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Conveyancing tax hike on 1 January? - Society demands answers

Brexit: top global firm seeking to expand – but UK-qualifieds ‘unlikely to be of interest’

The potentially career-limiting consequences of Brexit for ambitious junior City lawyers are writ large in a job advertisement from a top global litigation boutique.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which claims to be the largest law firm in the world devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration, is seeking applications from experienced associates qualified at an EU bar to expand its Brussels practice.

‘We are looking for the best, most entrepreneurial and ambitious as we develop a major Brussels top-tier business,’ it says.

‘Perfect English’ in essential, the advertisement states – somewhat ironically in the light of the next rider, which is that ‘UK-only qualifieds [are] unlikely to be of interest unless [the] individual has a clear path to an EU27 qualification’.

The new business is being developed by highly experienced former Shearman & Sterling Brussels antitrust partner Trevor Soames, who joined Quinn as a partner earlier this month.

Barrister and solicitor-advocate Soames, who has been a Brussels resident for over 20 years, sets out his stall in no uncertain terms in his biography on Quinn’s website.

This reads: ‘To proclaim his commitment to the EU and continental Europe and to preserve his ability to work in Brussels post-Brexit, Trevor has applied for Belgian citizenship and has no plans to return to the UK post-Brexit. He was admitted to the Barreau de Bruxelles on 5 December 2016 as a Belgian Avocat. This will guarantee essential legal privilege and advocacy rights before the EU courts.’

Soames is also former co-chair of Howrey’s worldwide antitrust practice and founder of its Brussels office.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Brexit: top global firm seeking to expand – but UK-qualifieds ‘unlikely to be of interest’

Brexit: top global firm seeking to expand - but UK-qualifieds ‘unlikely to be of interest'

The potentially career-limiting consequences of Brexit for ambitious junior City lawyers are writ large in a job advertisement from a top global litigation boutique.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which claims to be the largest law firm in the world devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration, is seeking applications from experienced associates qualified at an EU bar to expand its Brussels (pictured) practice.

‘We are looking for the best, most entrepreneurial and ambitious as we develop a major Brussels top-tier business,’ it says.

‘Perfect English’ in essential, the advertisement states – somewhat ironically in the light of the next rider, which is that ‘UK-only qualifieds [are] unlikely to be of interest unless [the] individual has a clear path to an EU27 qualification’.

The new business is being developed by highly experienced former Shearman & Sterling Brussels antitrust partner Trevor Soames, who joined Quinn as a partner earlier this month.

Barrister and solicitor-advocate Soames, who has been a Brussels resident for over 20 years, sets out his stall in no uncertain terms in his biography on Quinn’s website.

This reads: ‘To proclaim his commitment to the EU and continental Europe and to preserve his ability to work in Brussels post-Brexit, Trevor has applied for Belgian citizenship and has no plans to return to the UK post-Brexit. He was admitted to the Barreau de Bruxelles on 5 December 2016 as a Belgian Avocat. This will guarantee essential legal privilege and advocacy rights before the EU courts.’

Soames is also former co-chair of Howrey’s worldwide antitrust practice and founder of its Brussels office.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Brexit: top global firm seeking to expand - but UK-qualifieds ‘unlikely to be of interest'

Magistrate sacked for failing to understand legal adviser’s role

A lay magistrate has been sacked for his conduct during proceedings, which included showing a failure to understand the role of a legal adviser.

In a statement on its website, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said David Lynds, who was assigned to the East Kent Local Justice Area, was removed from office following an investigation into his conduct.

The JCIO said that, during a sitting, Lynds failed to understand the role of the legal adviser and failed to communicate with his bench colleagues and the legal adviser ‘in an appropriate manner’.

Court legal advisers are legally trained people who give advice to magistrates.

The statement adds that the lord chancellor and lord chief justice also found that the way Lynds ‘introduced and subsequently withdrew evidence in the course of these proceedings and the inconsistency of his account in this respect’ failed to demonstrate the qualities required of a magistrate.

‘The lord chancellor and lord chief justice considered therefore that Mr Lynds failed to demonstrate the standard expected of a judicial office holder and have therefore removed him from office,’ the JCIO said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Magistrate sacked for failing to understand legal adviser’s role

Fine for solicitor who accepted cash payments

A solicitor who asked clients to pay fees into his personal bank account and accepted a cash payment that was not paid to the firm where he was working has been fined.

James Liasis asked one client to pay a £40 bill into his personal account and also accepted a £100 cash payment from another client which he failed to account for when he was approached by the firm.

In an agreement published this week, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said Liasis was fined £2,000 and had agreed to pay £4,500 in costs.

Liasis, now 29, was working for JML Law Limited at the time of the offences, which took place between 2013 and 2014.

He previously worked as a consultant at Faradays Solicitors in London. Faradays then entered into an agreement with JML Law allowing it to provide legal services to the firm. Under the agreement, Liasis was responsible for paying his own tax and national insurance. His pay was 50% of net profit costs received by Faradays from work he had carried out at JML Law.

Liasis said he never benefited from the money as the £100 payment was paid back and the £40 payment was never received.

According to the SRA agreement: ‘If any terms of this agreement are not complied with, or if Liasis acts inconsistently in any way with this agreement, Liasis accepts that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Fine for solicitor who accepted cash payments

Insurers threaten judicial review of damages discount decision

Insurers have mounted a legal challenge to lord chancellor Liz Truss’s decision to review the rate at which personal injury awards are discounted. The Ministry of Justice confirmed earlier this month that it would publish the outcome of its review of the rate by the end of January 2017.

The rate, used to calculate the level of deduction from damages payments based on the claimants’ assumed interest earnings, has long been contested by all sides of the personal injury sector.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has now said it will judicially review the decision to review the rate. The insurers’ representative wants a proper consultation to be completed and for the government to change its methodology for calculating the discount before proceeding.

The challenge is an indication that insurers expect the discount rate to fall from its current level of 2.5% to reflect current interest rates.

Huw Evans, director general of the ABI, said: ‘Despite two public consultations over three years ago and convening an expert panel, the Ministry of Justice has not yet shared any findings. Instead they are now trying to rush out a new rate for the first time in 15 years at a time of great uncertainty in the investment markets.

‘To proceed in these circumstances is reckless and wrong. Insurers are open to a proper dialogue on how to reform the system but this is not the way to do it.’

The ABI says the UK is unique in basing its discount rate on the yields from index-linked government gilts.

Insurers say the principle of full compensation is no longer served by this link, as long-term investment behaviour of compensated claimants is so different in practice.

The MoJ consulted in 2012 on the methodology that should be adopted but the ABI says the department has breached Cabinet Office guidelines by not responding to this consultation.

It also points out that the MoJ has not published a report made in January this year following a review of consultation responses by a panel of experts.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Insurers threaten judicial review of damages discount decision

Preserve UK’s legal reputation, City group urges government

Professional services lobby group TheCityUK has urged the government to ensure the continuity and competitiveness of the UK’s legal sector after Brexit. A paper released today called The impact of Brexit on the UK-based legal services sector calls for ‘urgent and clear articulation’ on areas including enforceability of judgments from UK courts and the importance of English contractual law.

The paper also stresses that English courts should be kept as a hub for businesses that want to resolve international disputes.

Miles Celic, chief executive of TheCityUK, said: ‘It is vital that the key challenges and opportunities for the sector are addressed in the Brexit negotiations and that its competitiveness is maintained and enhanced. The best Brexit deal will be one which is mutually beneficial to the UK, the EU and globally and which allows for a clear and predictable shift from current business conditions to whatever new arrangement is agreed.’



Last week, the Bar Council echoed fears regarding contract law in its Brexit Papers – a working paper that examines the legal issues surrounding Brexit.

Bar Council chair Chantal-Aimée Doerries said it ‘rightly highlights the value to the economy of the English and Welsh courts and UK legal services’.

‘We must not take for granted the high regard in which our courts and judges are held around the world, and the role this plays in our economic success,’ she added.

TheCityUK’s paper also identifies recommendations for the government to consider to optimise the future legal framework including:

• Providing an urgent and clear articulation of how the future position of the UK in cross-border civil justice within the EU will be addressed;
• Continuing to allow firms to access legal talent and skills on similar terms to how they do now;
• Continuing engagement with sector-specific industry bodies to assess and understand knock-on impacts of Brexit on the legal sector.

The Law Society has also called on the government to ensure recognition and enforcement of judgments, collaboration on policing and security, and that UK lawyers are able to practise and base themselves in EU member states.

Chief executive Catherine Dixon has also been appointed to London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Brexit Expert Advisory Group, a team of academics, investors and business leaders set up to provide advise on the challenges and opportunities of leaving the EU.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Preserve UK’s legal reputation, City group urges government