December 2018

Wortley Byers has a proud heritage, with its origins tracing back over 50 years to Stamp Wortley, a well-established law firm that merged in 1967 to form Wortley Byers. Similarly, Tees has a long-standing legacy, founded in 1913 by Herbert Stanley Tee in Bishop’s Stortford. For over a century, Tees has remained committed to serving the local community with exceptional legal services.

Now, in a strategic move to enhance client offerings, Tees and Wortley Byers have announced their merger. This union combines the strengths of both firms, expanding expertise, resources, and geographic reach. Tees’ Group Managing Director, Ashton Hunt, shared his enthusiasm for this next chapter:

“I am delighted to announce this merger. Thousands of clients rely on our services, and this partnership allows us to further enhance the range and quality of our legal support.

Tees has earned recognition as a leading regional law firm, with many of our services ranked in the top two tiers by Legal 500. Wortley Byers shares our commitment to excellence, boasting a similarly strong reputation for outstanding legal services. Together, we are even better positioned to serve our clients.”

A Stronger Future for Clients

Lucy Folley, Managing Partner at Wortley Byers, will join the Tees board in the newly merged firm. She is excited about the expanded opportunities the merger brings:

“Both firms have long been known for offering comprehensive legal solutions across a range of practice areas. By joining forces, we significantly increase our depth of expertise and resources. We are also expanding our geographical footprint, ensuring even more clients have access to our legal support.

What makes this merger particularly special is our shared dedication to client care. Both Tees and Wortley Byers prioritize clear communication, practical advice, and delivering excellent results. Our clients can expect the same high-quality service they have come to rely on, with even greater capabilities.”

Committed to Excellence

This merger represents a natural evolution for both firms, uniting two organizations that have long admired each other’s commitment to legal excellence and client service. Moving forward, the newly combined firm will continue to provide friendly, expert legal guidance to individuals, families, and businesses across the region.

Whether you require support with personal legal matters or complex business transactions, the expanded team at Tees is here to help. Contact us today to learn how our enhanced legal services can benefit you.

For more information, visit our website or get in touch with one of our expert solicitors.

Contractors may be surprised to learn that they do not have the right to return to remedy a defect unless a contract exists between the contractor and the employer which expressly confers the right.

A properly drawn up building contract should contain a defects liability provision which specifies a period during which the contractor is obliged to return to site and remedy any defects that may emerge after practical completion. A typical defects liability period is normally between 6 to 12 months. This affords the contractor a right to receive notice of defects in the stipulated period and to have the opportunity of correcting them at his own expense.

Without an express right to return, the contractor does not have the right to return to the site to rectify defects and the employer is entitled to engage the services of a third party to rectify any defects that emerge after practical completion. However, it is worth noting that an employer who engages a third party to remedy any defects may be criticised for acting unreasonably and failing to mitigate his loss. This is because under common law the employer has a general duty to mitigate its losses before making a claim against the contractor by taking reasonable steps to avoid or reduce them. Therefore, where an employer fails to allow a contractor to return and remedy a defect, any subsequent claim by the employer against the contractor may be limited to amount that it would have cost the contractor to remedy the defect; the costs often being significantly less than that of bringing in new contractors to do so.

The relevant test is whether the employer has failed to act reasonably by refusing the contractor the right to return and remedy the defect. If the contractor’s original work was of a low standard then the employer can argue that it was reasonable to refuse to let the same contractor return to the site.

The position is different where a defect arises and the employer notifies the contractor but contractor fails to rectify it. In this situation the employer may recover the costs of engaging a third party to rectify the defect.

If you have any queries on this article or would like advice on your company’s contractual documentation please contact us.