Court of five judges refuses contempt of court appeal by former ambassador who disclosed sensitive details in Alex Salmond trial

By Mitchell Skilling

Craig Murray, who was not an accredited journalist, was permitted to petition the nobile officium of the court following a finding that he had breached a court order. He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment, which he had served in full by the time the petition was brought. 

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice General, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lady Paton, Lord Woolman, Lord Pentland, and Lord Matthews. The Dean of Faculty, Dunlop QC, and Young, advocate, appeared for the petitioner and A Prentice QC and A Gray, solicitor advocate, for the Crown. 

Test of liability 

The High Court originally found that four articles published on the petitioner’s website between March and April 2020, along with an accompanying tweet from 2 April, contained information likely to allow a particular section of the public to identify four of the complainers in the Alex Salmond trial. The articles, including one titled Yes Minister Fan Fiction, also claimed that Mr Salmond was the subject of a government “fit-up”, and in one case encouraged readers to read “very, very carefully” between the lines. 

In presenting his case, the petitioner argued that it was in the public interest that the public should know who the complainers were “in order to judge the actions of those in power over them”, and that while his actions were “up to the line”, he had not crossed it. On appeal, he continued to hold a belief that there had been a conspiracy and that the public had a right to know of it. 

It was argued that the court had erroneously applied a test of strict liability, and wrongly considered that it was sufficient that the publications allowed particular sections of the public to identify the complainers rather than the public as a whole. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the court had made findings that were contrary to passages in his affidavits that he had not been cross-examined upon, including explanations of strategies he had used to avoid being in contempt of court.

In respect of the petitioner’s sentencing, it was submitted that it was excessive in the absence of exceptional circumstances, particularly for a journalist. He was unlikely to re-offend and comparative cases where complainers had in fact been identified by name had attracted a lower sentence than the one given to him. 

Deliberate and calculated 

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Carloway began: “The petitioner’s principal affidavit effectively admits the breach and the contempt. He states that in writing the Yes Minister Fan Fiction article it had been a challenge to work out how to tell the public of the identities without being in contempt. It was not a challenge, it was an impossibility, since doing so would be a breach of the plain terms of the order.” 

He continued: “As the court said, when refusing permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court, it was the repeated publication of material likely to lead to identification ‘in the face of a clear order of the court prohibiting that which drew the sanction’.” 

On whether the court had erred in its treatment of the petitioner’s affidavits, Lord Carloway said: “As it transpired, the court was not at all impressed by the content of the petitioner’s affidavits; describing them correctly as containing irrelevant material, hearsay, gossip and potentially defamatory statements. Rather than identifying information, the affidavits contain a one-sided view, expressing the petitioner’s beliefs, opinions and selective interpretation. The court considered the petitioner’s affidavits to be polemic; an aggressive attack on another’s view.” 

On whether the petitioner was truly a journalist, he added: “A journalist is a person who writes for or edits a newspaper or periodical; whether in hard copy or on-line. The petitioner is not such a person, nor is he an NGO or campaign group. An individual does not become a journalist merely by publishing his or her thoughts on-line, whether by operating a website, running a blog or tweeting. If it were otherwise almost everyone would be a journalist. That is not the case.”

Lord Carloway concluded: “The petitioner is an intelligent person whose actions were deliberate and calculated. They clearly showed contempt for the court’s order and for the rule of law. They created serious risks for the complainers’ mental and physical health. Even if this court were to sentence him anew, had an error in the first instance court’s analysis been detected, it would have reached the same, or a very similar, result.”

The appeals against conviction and sentence were therefore both refused.

Partners give go-ahead to £700m merger of Clyde & Co and BLM

To be known as Clyde & Co, the merged firm will have a headcount of over 5,000 and offices in over 60 cities worldwide. Both firms have offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, while Clyde & Co also has a third Scottish office in Aberdeen.

BLM is a UK and Ireland law firm focused on insurance risk and commercial law with a particular strength in casualty, personal injury, healthcare and professional liability. Clyde & Co is a global law firm, specialising in the sectors that underpin global trade and commercial activity, namely: insurance, infrastructure, aviation, energy, marine, and natural resources.

BLM will become part of Clyde & Co’s global insurance practice which provides advisory and dispute resolution services to insurers and their clients, including almost every top 20 insurer in the UK, and leading re/insurers globally.

The majority of its lawyers will join its casualty insurance practice, with other sizeable groups joining professional liability, healthcare and business advisory teams.

Carolena Gordon, Clyde & Co’s senior partner, said: “We are delighted the merger has secured approval from both sets of partners. At Clyde & Co we are always focused on growing and developing our offering for the good of our clients and our people and this merger does exactly that. BLM has highly talented people and outstanding client relationships and we are excited by the potential of this combination.”

Matthew Harrington, BLM senior partner, said: “We are looking forward to the opportunities combining both firms will bring for our people and our clients. This merger is one of aligned approaches and values, offering huge benefits to our clients in the areas that matter most.

“Combining our expertise will strengthen our market offering in the UK casualty, healthcare, and professional liability space, with true operational excellence and the agility to respond rapidly to the changing needs of the market.”

Matthew Kelsall, Clyde & Co’s CEO, added: “Our strategic objective as a firm is to build and maintain leadership positions across our core sectors. This combination bolsters our position as the leading law firm for the insurance sector in the UK by enhancing our ability to offer insurers the depth and breadth of support across business lines and regions they are looking for.”

James Cooper, Clyde & Co partner and chair of its global insurance practice group, added: “We have long sought to increase the scale of our UK casualty insurance practice though a merger so we can provide the full scope of services, technology, data analytics and innovation that clients in this dynamic part of the market require.

“Once we started speaking to BLM we quickly realised that we shared the same approach to client service, had a complementary client roster and similar ambitions in this space. This combination will also boost our regional UK presence and strengthen our healthcare and professional liability offerings too.”

Legal complaints watchdog to cut lawyers’ levy by five per cent

The proposed cut in the levy was welcomed by the Law Society of Scotland in its response to the SLCC’s statutory consultation earlier this year.

The SLCC’s budget and planned expenditure, which will be laid before Parliament next month, are slightly up (by less than one per cent), as the SLCC invests in IT and reform which should lead to longer term savings. However, it said two years of lower complaint numbers and further work to improve efficiencies mean this shortfall can be supported from reserves.

SLCC chair Jim Martin said: “The Board was clear that savings from efficiencies should allow a reduction in the levy paid by lawyers, but that investment was also needed in those areas that could lead to greater savings in future. We’re pleased that we have been able to use reserves to support both of those aims this year.

“Otherwise, our budget is entirely focused on delivering efficient and effective complaint handling, in delivering our other statutory duties, including oversight of the professional bodies’ complaint handling and redress processes, and in the support functions that allow us to deliver that work.

“My thanks go to the Board and staff team whose hard work over the past years mean we are in this strong position.”

Mr Martin said the board would also further explore “different models for apportionment of the levy” in advance of next year’s budget.

Neil Stevenson, SLCC CEO, said: “The proposed budget is set to achieve the successful delivery of our core duties – managing complaints and awarding redress, monitoring trends and delivering guidance and best practice support to the sector.

“We noted feedback that projects such as work to reduce our property overhead, streamline IT, or implement a new statutory instrument, expected this year, which should make complaint more efficient, were seen by some as a lack of focus on our core work of complaints, statutory oversight of the professional bodies’ complaints and redress processes, publishing guidance, and trend reporting.

“However, in conversations direct with legal business owners there was greater commercial understanding that if you want savings in cost, these are areas you have to explore.

“Learning from best practice and our own experience over the past two years will help us to shape a new, more efficient and sustainable operating model, with a focus on our people, our IT and our property needs.

“We have a busy and challenging year ahead, but we are ambitious for what we can achieve in terms of improved performance, shaping a new operating model and driving much needed reform.”

Mr Martin added: “I have shared before our great disappointment that the greatest avoidable cost in our system comes from lawyers failing to meet our statutory request to provide the files we need to investigate complaints. The very strong, and supportive statement from the Law Society of Scotland on this issue, which they have described as causing ‘unacceptable delays’ to our ability to deal with complaints, is very welcome.

“We look forward to working with the Society to tackle this issue and we share their stated aim to see significant progress in this area over the year ahead. We will publish in our annual report whether actions have impacted the non-compliance rate.”

CMS hires IP and tech lawyer Cara McGlynn

Ms McGlynn, who joins from Brodies, is a specialist in resolving IP and technology-related disputes across a variety of sectors. She is the only non-partner solicitor ranked in the latest World Trade Mark review directory.

The CMS Scottish IP disputes team now has lawyers based in each of the firm’s three Scottish offices – Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh.

The team, headed up by partner Neeraj Thomas, is forecasting double-digit growth in the current financial year amid a growing client base across a range of sectors including oil and gas, consumer products, food and drink, financial services, and sport.

Mr Thomas said: “We’re delighted to welcome Cara, a highly-regarded and experienced IP specialist, to our growing team. She will be an asset to our practice with her expertise benefiting our clients across a broad range of sectors.

“Her appointment comes at a time of immense growth for our team, which is forecasting a significant increase in revenue this year. We have seen tremendous growth across a number of key sectors and I am thankful to our clients for putting their trust in us to protect and enforce some of their most valued assets.

“We are continuing to grow our contentious practice alongside our market-leading commercial practice through our experience and a commitment to delivering the highest standard of commercially driven advice to our clients.”

Sheku Bayoh inquiry: No undertakings to be given to police officers over inquiry evidence

At a preliminary hearing over the public inquiry into the death of Mr Bayoh in May 2015, lawyers warned there could be “unanswered questions and uncertainty” unless police were given certain immunity.

In a letter, Solicitor General Ruth Charteris QC said she is “not currently satisfied that it is in the public interest to grant the undertakings”, which had been requested by the inquiry.

However, she added: “I will give individual consideration to any future request for an undertaking should it become clear that the inquiry will be prevented from fulfilling its terms of reference.”

Police Scotland has separately refused to provide an undertaking that it will not rely on evidence given to the inquiry in any future disciplinary proceedings against the officers.

Lord Bracadale, chair of the Sheku Bayoh inquiry, said: “I acknowledge the decisions of the Solicitor General and Deputy Chief Constable, published today, in respect of the request for undertakings.

“It is a matter entirely for the Solicitor General and Deputy Chief Constable whether or not to give the undertakings sought. I note that the Solicitor General has left open the possibility of revisiting the issue of whether to give undertakings on an individual basis to officers involved.

“Consequently, I will now seek statements from each of the officers to ascertain how much information they are willing to provide to the Inquiry without undertakings from the Solicitor General. Once those statements have been obtained by my team, I will assess how best to proceed.

“The inquiry is fully committed to ascertaining the truth of how Sheku Bayoh died on 3 May 2015 and will keep all options open with a view to retrieving the fullest possible evidence in relation to events that day. The inquiry has already obtained statements previously provided by the officers as part of more than 30,000 pieces of evidence currently being considered.”

Sir Howard Morrison QC appointed to advise Ukraine on war crimes investigations

Sir Howard had an extensive judicial career in the UK and internationally, including serving as a judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for over 12 years.

In this time, he served as a judge in a number of trials involving the most serious crimes of international concern, such as the case of Radovan Karadzic.

His appointment by Attorney General Suella Braverman QC MP comes after she signed a joint statement of support with Ukraine’s prosecutor general which reiterated the UK’s commitment to helping with the gathering of evidence of crimes which could include crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Ms Braverman said: “It has been a privilege to work with Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova, my admiration for her courage and determination grows with every meeting.

“The UK is committed to showing that the atrocities we see being committed day after day in Ukraine will not be forgotten and that those giving or following illegal orders will be tracked down and held to account.

“I am pleased to offer Sir Howard’s expert help and I will continue to do all I can as Attorney General to support Ukraine’s journey to justice against Russia.”

Ukrainian prosecutor general Iryna Venediktova added: “We are honoured to have Sir Howard Morrison’s help and I am grateful to the Attorney General for offering his assistance. Sir Howard’s experience and knowledge of international criminal law speaks louder than words and his help will be taken up immediately on a number of issues.”

EU agrees on landmark new rules for Big Tech companies

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) will blacklist certain practices used by large platforms acting as “gatekeepers” and enable the European Commission to carry out market investigations and sanction non-compliant behaviour.

A text provisionally agreed by negotiators for the European Parliament and the European Council targets large companies providing so-called “core platform services” most prone to unfair business practices, such as social networks or search engines, with a market capitalisation of at least €75 billion or an annual turnover of €7.5 billion.

To be designated as “gatekeepers”, these companies must also provide certain services such as browsers, messengers or social media, which have at least 45 million monthly end users in the EU and 10,000 annual business users.

The text also stipulates that the largest messaging services (such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger or iMessage) will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms, if they so request. Users of small or big platforms would then be able to exchange messages, send files or make video calls across messaging apps.

The EU has also agreed to assess the prospects of a similar interoperability obligation for social networks at a future date.

Margrethe Vestager, the executive vice-president of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age, said: “For companies that play a role as gatekeepers, now the Digital Markets Act will set the rules of the game.

“This is similar to what has been done a long time ago in sectors such as banking, telecoms, energy, transport where regulation and competition rules work hand in hand. At long last, we establish the same reality here.

“These are all markets in which some firms play a special role that requires greater regulatory oversight. And this is something that many jurisdictions around the world have come to realise.”

Law Society conference to mark 90 years since Donoghue v Stevenson

The conference will welcome speakers from across the world in recognition of the global significance of the case, which laid the foundations of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions by establishing the general principles of the duty of care.

The confirmed list of speakers includes senior judges and lawyers from jurisdictions for which the case is significant, including India, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Ireland.

The six-hour online conference will take place on 26 May 2022.

England: Barrister fined £1,500 after mocking opposing counsel

Althea Sonia Brown was found to have “improperly undermined, insulted, humiliated and/or annoyed” the opposing barrister, named NC, and/or “was in the circumstances unprofessional and likely to diminish the trust and confidence that the public places in her in the profession”.

The regulator said Ms Brown had “displayed a pattern of behaviour that undermined NC and/or distracted the tribunal from matters relevant to the hearing”.

This behaviour during an Employment Tribunal hearing on 12 and 13 September 2019 included that Ms Brown:

Ms Brown was reprimanded and fined in the sum of £750 for each charge, for a total sum of £1,500. She was also ordered to pay costs of £5,820.

There is a 21-day period following the ruling in which it can be appealed.

Why New Business Teams are catching on

Jose Mourinho famously said, “Good teams win titles, but great teams retain them”. Makes sense. And acquisition and retention, albeit in the form of clients, is definitely something we are seeing more law firms focusing on in 2022.

If it’s not broken, don’t fix it…?

It is far more complicated for champions to strengthen their side than it is for their rivals. Winning the league is a veil; it means that even a flawed team has a legitimacy, that even those players whom a manager believes might be improved upon most easily have a right to keep their place. Football has always believed that you do not change a winning formula, that if something is not broken, you do not fix it, even when actually it might be rather more broken than it first appears.

The same can be said for law firms. Firms sometimes don’t know there are better ways to work. They do quite well, they’re bringing in fees, so all is well. But not adapting to a changing environment can be costly. And as much as many lawyers and law firms have formed great relationships and in many cases friendships, the desire of your rivals is to win, to do better, to catch and overhaul the firm that did better than them the previous year. That is a powerful emotional impulse, particularly when combined with a freedom to change their working practices to address their problems.

A taste for success

Great football managers often talk about a hunger for trophies. Brian Clough always said that the most important triumph in his time at Nottingham Forest was not the league title or the European Cup, but the 1977 Anglo-Scottish Cup, because that was the one that set the team on the way to further glory, which included two European Cups. That first gave them a taste for success. This is called the “Champagne Effect.”

For law firms to change and succeed can be difficult. Mainly because as friendly as you might be with the firm at the opposite end of the High St, you really don’t know what they’re up to internally. You don’t know what they’re planning, the trends they are following or the work the backroom staff are doing to get their team ready to not just compete, but to potentially take the title! But what you can do is create small wins to give you that taste for success.

Structured success

Many of the law firms we speak to are gearing up and restructuring their business for a busy year. One even used the term, “Its Game On!”, hence the title of this article. The trend we’re seeing is that the introduction and/or expansion of ‘New Business Teams’ (NBTs) are going to be business critical for law firms.

We’ve heard so many law firms talking about this, and many are now adopting a dedicated New Business Team to enhance and structure their sales processes. Primarily because the importance of tracking the marketing spend and conversion values can’t be underestimated in today’s market. Firms are becoming laser focused on not only driving new business but improving comms and analysing their client data to ensure they retain them.

Change your tactics

The general rule that successful firms are following is that if the cost of client acquisition is too expensive for the work the client is paying you for then it’s time to change tactics.

The trouble with law firms is they are normally hired for a one off piece of work for a client and struggle to sell other services to enhance the income stream they worked hard to sign up. The enthusiasm to try and structure this process and retain business weans because most firms are busy and believe they don’t have the time. This may be true, but the amount of money being lost and the likelihood of you falling way down the law firm league table because you don’t focus on this growth area is going to make our break the long term success of your business.

Here are 3 key areas you need to consider to succeed in the NBT challenge:

1. Methodology and Process – how to do it within the context of your work types, legal knowledge and customers.
2. People and Organisation – are you structured in the right way for success, with the right people owning the right things?
3. Systems and Resources – using the right tech and resources is critical, and ensuring your software includes a dedicated way to Intake, Track & Convert enquires easily.

Denovo’s “Champagne Effect”

It’s a law firm leaders’ job to teach their team to be hungry for success. It’s Denovo’s job to give your team the “The Champaign Effect”. In other words, we’ll show you how using the right technology to manage new business and retain existing clients will help your law firm be successful. Coupled with great people and a structured process we’ll give you the efficiency and data you need to see success. We’ll give you some wins.

If you’re ready to change your tactics, visit denovobi.com, call us on 0141 331 5290, or if you would prefer to write to us our email is info@denovobi.com.

An Act of Economic Warfare? What to expect from the Economic Crime Act

Having been hailed by David Davis as an “economic warfare bill”, the Act is intended to provide the UK with tools to “better identify, investigate and sanction the illicit wealth of those who wish to abuse our open economy”. Expedited to assist worldwide attempts to target Russian wealth, it is of no surprise that the bill was quickly passed with cross party support. One could therefore be forgiven for thinking the proposed powers are newly conceived. However, for much of the Act, that is not the case.

The Act, split into three parts, covers:

1. the creation of a new register of overseas entities;
2. reform of unexplained wealth orders (“UWOs”); and
3. the streamlining of the Sanctions Act

Part One – register of overseas entities

Creation of a new register of overseas entities, requiring overseas companies owning or buying property in the UK to disclose their true owners to Companies House.

It is estimated that approximately £170 billion of UK property is held by overseas entities, however, foreign entities owning such property are not subject to the UK’s Persons with Significant Control (PSC) Register, which came into force for UK companies in 2016. The Act aims to remedy this. Any foreign company selling properties between 28 February 2021 and the full implementation of the register will be required to declare true ownership at the point of sale. For existing ownership, those that acquired land since (a) 1 January 1999 in England and Wales, and (b) since 8 December 2014 in Scotland will also be required to comply. Backed by restrictions on registering or disposing the title of the land until registration has occurred, and sanctions for non-compliance, including fines and custodial sentences of up to five years, the register is intended to assist law enforcement agencies identify and investigate those using UK property to launder money.

Origins

Although appearing to be in direct response to the war in Ukraine and a concerted attack on disguised Russian investment in the UK property market, this proposed register is not a new concept. The Overseas Entities Register was first announced in March 2016, around the same time the PSC Register was introduced. After consultation, a draft Bill was tabled in 2018, but slow progress ensued. Recent events have clearly forced the Government to expedite the legislation.

Early concerns and amendments

Although a welcome move, early concerns have been raised (and in some cases, partially addressed). The bill initially called for daily fines of £500 for non-compliance.   Considering the financial means of the individuals the legislation is intended to target, this was considered by many to be weak. The daily amount has now been set at £500, increasing to a maximum £2,500 per day.  

As the Register will be based on existing PSC requirements, there remains the possibility that companies will be able to hide their true owner by claiming that they have no beneficial owner. This is already a problem with the existing PSC register.

The transitional provisions initially proposed allowed a grace period of 18 months to comply (for existing property ownership), which was reduced to six months after concerns were raised. This continues to allow a reasonable timeframe for disposal, however, the Act now requires sales from 28 February 2021 to be registered at the point of sale. This is a positive move, but will require Companies House to be sufficiently resourced from the get go. As further widespread reform of Companies House is imminent, there are questions over its current capability and capacity to deal with the new register.  

Another change to the bill is the closing of a loophole which would have allowed the Secretary of State the right to exempt individuals from registration on the basis of “the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom”. Seen as a widely termed “oligarch loophole”, the removal of the exemption has been widely welcomed.

Outlook

Whilst there are questions over the ability of the register to assist in the waging of economic warfare in the short term, the proposed register is likely to make a significant longer term impact.

Part Two - reform of UWOs

Reform aimed at improving the effectiveness of UWOs, particularly in relation to situations involving complex ownership structures.

Changes include the following:

• the definition of property being expanded to include homes held in trust or by shell companies;
• more time is to be made available to law enforcement to carry out investigations;
• reforms to the cost rules meaning agencies will no longer be liable for respondents’ costs unless they act dishonestly, unreasonably or improperly

Why were reforms needed?

UWOs have been around since January 2018 but have been used only nine times in relation to four cases. The early hopes of a strong weapon to improve civil recovery just haven’t materialised.   This is largely attributable to the costs (and public embarrassment) associated with failed attempts. In one case, the NCA was left with a bill of £1.5m after a UWO used to seize property assets was successfully challenged. Identifying ownership of assets has also often proved difficult.

Another obstacle has been the requirement that an agency proves the respondent did not have legitimate means with which to acquire the asset. When legitimate wealth is also held by a suspect (which it often is), it is difficult to point to a specific asset and categorically state that it was obtained via illegitimate means.  

Outlook

There is a clear political will to make better use of UWOs, and the Act will undoubtedly move some way towards this.

Part three – streamlining of the Sanctions Act

Reform to expedite sanctioning of oligarchs and businesses associated with the Russian Government and strengthen powers to impose monetary penalties on those who violate sanctions.

The Act introduces an urgent designation process to allow the UK to quickly impose sanctions in respect of entities already subject to sanctions by other specified countries (including the US and EU). This process includes the removal of the statutory test of appropriateness for making such designations. There does, however, remain a requirement to show reasonable grounds to suspect that the person to be designated is “an involved person”.

At present the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”) can only impose civil monetary penalties for contravention if the individual/institution knew or had reasonable cause to believe that they were breaching sanctions. This requirement has been removed, bringing the UK more in line with civil enforcement powers in the US.  

Potential concerns

Some commentators have expressed concern that the new rules will capture those who make honest mistakes. One industry capable of falling foul is the Fintech banking industry, with many newly established institutions not having sanctions monitoring capabilities in place to meet the new strict liability test.

Outlook

The sanctions proposals are considered significant and a welcome change to what has historically been perceived as a weak record of UK Sanctions enforcement. The Act will make it far easier to impose civil fines for non-compliance with obligations by applying strict liability. It is hoped that this will add teeth to the existing regime which has seen OFSI issue only six fines in the six years since it was created.

Shortly following the Act’s Royal Assent on 15 March, the UK Government announced a further 370 sanctions against Russian and Belarusian entities; 51 of which are believed to be oligarchs and their family members, with an estimated worth of £100bn.

Next Steps

The Act sets out the first set of measures in a wider package of legislative proposals intended to tackle illicit finance. Next to be addressed by Government in the coming months is the long overdue reforming of Companies House and the introduction of powers to seize crypto assets more easily.

Steps taken to tackle and reduce economic crime are certainly welcome, and the effectiveness of the Act will become clearer in due course. We eagerly await the next set of proposals and are interested to see whether these are delivered at such pace.

Emma Webster is a manager in the Forensic Accounting and Investigations team at Quantuma Advisory Limited

emma.webster@quantuma.com

Property Market – A Perfect Storm for Fraudsters?

A report on money laundering activity showed these fears to be well founded, as property fraud was a key theme with £200 Million of criminal activity in 2020.

Many of these cases relate to transactions where a criminal purports to sell a property without the knowledge or consent of the proper legal owner. Where they are successful, a legitimate buyer and their lender can face enormous losses.

Protection against this type of loss is provided by Stewart Title’s Fraud Solution Policy. This policy offers safeguards against losses arising from fraud for buyers and their lenders where a criminal successfully impersonates the owner of a property. Cover of up to £1,000,000 is available for residential properties in England, Wales and Scotland with premiums starting at £28 (inclusive of IPT).

Solicitors acting for buyers are also protected as all rights of subrogation are expressly waived so their Professional Indemnity Insurance is protected.

Policies can be ordered online at: www.stewartsolution.com. Where cover is required for all of a firm’s buyer and lender clients, it is also available as a Block Policy.

For more details, please contact:

John Logan
Country Manager
01698 833308
john.logan@stewart.com

Elizabeth Birrell
Business Development Executive
07940 513681
elizabeth.birrell@stewart.com

Your trusted partner for title indemnities

We can provide the following:

Online Ordering

Our Stewart Solution application enables you to get a quote for more than 150 title risks in three easy steps. Our technology can reduce time, costs and the risk of errors, streamlining your practice.

Bespoke Solutions

Our knowledgeable Underwriting Team is available for more complex matters or where you need to discuss your transaction.

Dedicated Service

We approach working with our clients as a partnership – responding quickly to your needs, understanding the problems you face and providing prompt solutions to help resolve potential issues.

Contact us to discuss your transaction. We would be pleased to assist you.

Elizabeth Birrell

07940513681

elizabeth.birrell@stewart.com

www.stewartsolution.com

And finally… shark bait

Oxford City Council spent years seeking to remove the 1986 sculpture by Bill Heine, an American who came to the UK to study law at the University of Oxford.

The house, including the sculpture, is now owned by his son, Mangus Hanson-Heine, who objected to the council’s designation of the landmark, The Guardian reports.

“Using the planning apparatus to preserve a historical symbol of planning law defiance is absurd on the face of it,” he said of the decision.

The fibreglass sculpture was made with an anti-war and anti-nuclear weapons message, which Mr Hanson-Heine said is relevant today in light of events in Ukraine.