May 2024

Coroner: Baby’s death at NHS Trust due to neglect

Posted on 22 May 202427 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A baby who died from a brain injury following a delayed labour and delivery was failed by staff at Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust, a Coroner has concluded.

Arlo River Phoenix Lambert died on 9 March 2023 at Kingsmill Hospital, Nottinghamshire, at five days old. The Coroner found that Arlo’s death was “contributed to by mismanagement of labour and multiple missed opportunities to have expedited his delivery.”

She concluded that neglect contributed to Arlo’s death, which came from “a failure to follow Trust guidance.”

Miss Lambert, Arlo’s mother, was induced at 40+2 weeks, and following spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM), she was left for 17 hours without any attempts made to progress her labour. The Coroner found that this allowed the risk of infection to materialise. During that time, staff failed to properly review Miss Lambert’s care plan and discuss modes of delivery with her when concerns were raised about the position of the baby and her labour was failing to progress.

Coroners findings on contributing factors

The Coroner concluded that neglect contributed to Arlo’s death, citing a “failure to follow Trust guidance.”

Miss Lambert, Arlo’s mother, was induced at 40+2 weeks. After a spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM), she was left for 17 hours without attempts to progress her labour. The Coroner found that this delay allowed the risk of infection to materialise. Staff also failed to properly review her care plan or discuss delivery options when concerns arose about the baby’s position and the lack of labour progression.

Missed opportunities and preventable death

The Coroner identified “multiple missed opportunities to have expedited Arlo’s delivery, which would probably have prevented his death.” A Prevention of Future Deaths Report has been issued.

Since Arlo’s death, Miss Lambert has experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Complaint against specialist registrar

Additionally, the Coroner made a complaint to the General Medical Council regarding the actions of Specialist Registrar Dr Adeyemi. In oral evidence, he stated that he would “cross [my] fingers behind my back and hope and pray the mother would go into labour” rather than implementing an appropriate care plan.

Evidence of brain injury

A post-mortem autopsy confirmed that Arlo’s brain had suffered a hypoxic-ischaemic injury, caused by a lack of adequate oxygenated blood supply. This was attributed to the delayed delivery following fetal distress.

Failings in antenatal and labour care

The Coroner found significant issues in Miss Lambert’s care between her induction of labour on 2 March 2023 and Arlo’s birth on 4 March 2023.

Antenatal failings

At 38+6 weeks gestation, Miss Lambert underwent a growth scan and was offered induction at 40+2 weeks due to concerns about fetal growth. However, the Coroner concluded that this decision was outside national guidelines, and Miss Lambert was not informed that the induction was unnecessary. The Coroner stated that she would likely have gone into spontaneous labour without complications.

Labour management failures

Upon Miss Lambert’s admission, numerous delays in commencing the induction occurred, exacerbated by poor communication and staff shortages.

At 11:33 on 3 March, a high fetal head position was noted, presenting a missed opportunity to consider a delivery plan. Additionally, the decision to discontinue CTG monitoring, against national guidance, prevented the detection of fetal distress.

By 17:00, Dr Adeyemi formulated a delivery plan without consulting Miss Lambert, reviewing her records, or considering her preferences.

The Coroner concluded that had the Trust’s induction of labour policy been followed, and delivery occurred within two hours of SROM, Arlo’s death could have been avoided.

Delayed caesarean section and birth complications

At 21:43, a further opportunity was missed when blood-stained liquor was reported. A lack of communication between the midwife and obstetric team meant that the mode of delivery was not reconsidered.

Doctors eventually opted for a category 1 caesarean section at 03:58 on 4 March, following concerns of placental abruption. At 04:26, Arlo was delivered via a difficult caesarean, with evidence of a placental abruption. Despite specialist care at the Queen’s Medical Centre, he died five days later.

Specific failings identified by the Coroner

The Coroner outlined the following key failings:

Failure to follow the Trust’s induction policy.
Inadequate monitoring of fetal distress.
Poor communication and staff shortages.
Lack of consideration for Miss Lambert’s informed consent.

Had Arlo been delivered sooner, the Coroner concluded that he “would more likely than not have survived.”

Calls for maternity care reform

Following a series of high-profile scandals, NHS Trusts face mounting pressure to improve maternity care. A recent Birth Trauma Inquiry condemned poor maternity and postnatal care as “tolerated as normal,” calling for systemic reform.

Family’s response and legal representation

Chantae Clark of Tees Law, representing the family, stated:

“These tragic events were preventable if Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust had followed the guidance and acted on the warning signs in the hours before Miss Lambert’s labour. It is hard to believe that in such an advanced healthcare system, a mother should suffer the treatment that she did and that a baby should die because of neglect.”

She emphasised the emotional toll on Arlo’s family and expressed hope that the Coroner’s findings and Prevention of Future Deaths Report will lead to meaningful changes in NHS maternity care.

Tees to sponsor new award at Eastern Echo Awards

Posted on 13 May 202429 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Tees Law is set to sponsor a brand-new award for Responsible Employer of the Year at the Eastern Echo Awards. Now in their third year, the awards will take place on the evening of Wednesday, 26 June, in Cambridge to celebrate the best of the East of England’s property industry.

The black-tie event will be attended by leaders from across the property sector and country, with our very own Commercial Property team due to attend to present the new award.

Tees is a top-tier Legal 500 commercial property firm. Our clients include national and international investors, trusts and pension funds, national retailers, trading companies, local authorities, private and public healthcare providers, schools, and colleges. Tees is also a national panel member of the NFU (covering Hertfordshire, Essex and Suffolk) – one of only 16 law firms on the panel. This is a recognition of the outstanding quality of our service and expert knowledge of both agricultural law and a broad range of legal services for families and businesses.

Partner and head of Commercial Property in Cambridge, Sarah Coates, said: “Responsible business strategy is at the heart of Tees Law and in one of the most unequal cities in the UK, where there is still so much focus on the need for growth and development, it is essential that this remains the case. Tees Law is proud to be sponsoring this award and give others a platform to showcase their efforts to ensure “good growth” in the city.”

New for 2024, the award for Responsible Employer of the Year is being sponsored by Tees and organisers asked to hear from a company/consultant/project team that can demonstrate how successful it has been in delivering a responsible business strategy. Measurables were to include how businesses incorporated innovation, adoption of social responsibility, engagement in the local community, approach to the environment and governance or feedback from clients or a supply chain on the approach taken to do responsible business.

Excitingly, the shortlisted teams and individuals have now been announced following submissions from leading professionals.

(Responsible) Employer of the Year (sponsored by Tees)

Gen Two Real Estate
KMC Transport Planning
Lanpro Services
RG Carter
Saunders Boston Architects

The Eastern Echo Awards is targeted at projects, people, and places across the East of England and will be judged by a panel with extensive experience and knowledge. The panel covers a range of property sectors, including office, industrial, retail, life science, and residential.

The design of the awards itself is responsible, considering the need to reduce carbon footprint. The event’s location is deliberately near public transport, and digital ticketing is implemented to limit the use of paper.

Managing Director Matthew Battle at the UK Property Forums, who is organising this event, said: “The quality and range of projects submitted this year have been truly impressive, and we have easily exceeded last year’s total of entrants. This has ensured that the judges had their work cut out.

“The competition is very strong. Entries have come from all corners of the East for the 12 awards which will be up for grabs at a black-tie awards night dinner on 26 June at Homerton College, Cambridge.

“One notable feature of this year’s submissions is the wide-ranging geographical locations many have come from, including Stevenage, Welwyn, Norwich, Peterborough and Cambridge.”

All shortlisted businesses and projects can be viewed online: https://ukpropertyforums.com/shortlist-unveiled-for-eastern-echo-awards/

The judges have been busy looking at submissions that cover the 12 months of 2023 and have organised site visits to assess progress. We look forward to attending Homerton College in Cambridge in June to see who is awarded on the night and network with fellow commercial property professionals.

Professional negligence time limits: The clock is ticking

Posted on 13 May 202420 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

If you have a professional negligence claim, it is crucially important that you are aware of the time limit or limitation period applicable to your claim. Once the limitation period expires, the negligent professional gains an absolute defence to the claim, and you cannot recover your losses.

Limitation periods exist because it is considered unfair for a defendant to remain exposed to potential claims in perpetuity. In addition, old, stale claims are far more difficult to run. The older the claim, the more likely it is that documents evidencing what happened will be lost or destroyed, and the memories of the people involved will fade. In the public interest, limitation periods have been applied to reduce the time period within which a claimant can advance a claim.

What are the limitation periods?

The various limitation periods are set out in the Limitation Act 1980. The main limitation periods relevant to professional negligence claims are:

Breach of contract: six years from the date the contract was breached. If you enter a contract with a professional, you have six years from the date the professional breached the contract before your claim is out of time.
Negligence: the primary limitation period is six years from the date you suffered a loss because of the negligent act or omission. There is also a secondary limitation period, which, in rough terms, runs for three years from the date that you became aware (or should have become aware) of the facts of your claim, subject to a long of 15 years from the date that the loss was suffered.
Fraud and deliberate concealment: six years from the date you discovered the fraudulent act or that something was deliberately hidden from you.
Breach of trust: six years from the date of the breach.

Can I protect a limitation period?

It is possible to protect a limitation period. If you issue proceedings (i.e., your claim to sue a professional in the Court) before the limitation period expires, it will be protected.

Once the claim is issued, you have four months to serve the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on the professional. You can use this period to investigate your claim further and prepare the Particulars of Claim. If you need more time, you can try to agree on an extension of time for service or ask the Court to stay the proceedings.

However, be warned. The cost of issuing can be high, and you will likely incur extra legal costs in progressing the claim according to the Court’s timetable.

In addition, you will face a cost risk if you decide to discontinue the claim, if the Court has cause to criticise your conduct or, at worst, if your claim is unsuccessful.

Instead of issuing the claim, you can seek to enter a Standstill Agreement with your opponent before the limitation period expires. This contractual agreement states that you both agree to suspend the limitation period applicable to the claim for a certain period. The Standstill Agreement can be extended whenever necessary.

It may seem daunting to persuade your opponent to agree on a Standstill Agreement, but defendants are often open to doing so if they think there is a risk that you will issue proceedings. A Standstill Agreement allows both parties to avoid the costs and risks of issuing a claim and gives both time to resolve the claim themselves.

Bear in mind that a Standstill Agreement is unlikely to protect limitation periods that expired before the Agreement was signed. For example, if you seek to protect secondary limitation, but it is later established that you knew or should have known about the claim earlier, then there is a risk that the Standstill Agreement will not protect your claim.

What should I do if I realise a limitation period is expiring soon?

If you become aware that the applicable limitation period for your claim will expire soon, it is strongly recommended that you seek advice from a specialist professional negligence lawyer.

There are two main reasons for this:

Firstly, calculating limitation periods can be more complicated than it appears at first sight, particularly when it comes to establishing secondary limitation periods. Remember, the secondary limitation period may run from the point that you should have become aware of the facts of your claim, not necessarily when you became aware. You may need expert advice to be sure when the limitation period began running.

Secondly, when you instruct a professional negligence lawyer to protect limitation, you pass responsibility for monitoring the limitation date and taking steps to protect it to your lawyer. The burden of making sure the date is protected is off your shoulders.

If you think you may have a claim against a professional who has acted for you and would like advice from a specialist professional negligence solicitor, don’t hesitate to contact Alice Evelegh-Taylor at Tees at alice.evelegh-taylor@teeslaw.com to discuss your claim.

Low-income trusts and estates

Posted on 10 May 202420 March 2025 by Sophie Soraf

The Spring Budget 2023 laid out several changes to income taxation for low-income trusts and estates. Read on to learn how this may affect you.

Overview of changes

Low-income trusts and estates are those in which income is treated as exempt if it is below the low-income threshold.

The Spring Budget 2023 proposed several changes to the taxation of income for low-income trusts and estates. These changes were enacted by Finance Act (No.2) 2023 and came into effect from 6 April 2024 onwards. The changes impact trusts and estates and have knock-on effects on their beneficiaries.

The intention of these changes was to simplify tax reporting obligations for personal representatives and trustees of low-income trusts and estates going forward .

Impact of Changes to Low-Income Trusts

In the tax years leading up to and including the year ending 5 April 2024, trusts were treated as low-income trusts for a tax year if their savings income was less than £500. If the trust had any non-savings or dividend income, then it would not be a low-income trust.

Starting from 6 April 2024, a trust is treated as low-income in a tax year if its total net income is less than £500. This is an all-or-nothing treatment; therefore, if the net income is above £500, then all the net income is charged to income tax.

Starting from 6 April 2024, an estate is treated as low income for a tax year if the total net income in the year is less than £500. This is an all-or-nothing treatment; therefore, if the net income is above £500, then all of the net income is charged to income tax in that year.

A restriction to the £500 low-income threshold applies for trusts subject to the trust income tax rates, which are currently 45% for savings and non-savings income and 39.35% for dividend income.

The restriction is calculated by dividing the £500 threshold by the number of trusts created by the same settlor, which are:

subject to trust income tax rates, and
that still exist in the tax year, and
have any income in the tax year.

The maximum restriction is £100 per trust.

Trustees will need to assess each year if their trust is a low-income trust. If it is, they will not need to submit a tax return for that year, assuming there is no other reason to do so. There may be years where the trust does not qualify as a low-income trust, in which case the trustees would need to submit a tax return for the year.

Trusts subject to the trust income tax rates have tax pools to record income tax paid by the trustees. When payments are made to beneficiaries, 45% tax credits are attached, reducing the amount of the tax pool.

Trustees of low-income trusts will therefore need to pay tax on distributions of ‘low’ income to make up the tax credits being taken out of the tax pool.

In addition to the changes above, the basic rate and dividend ordinary rate of tax that applied to the first £1,000 of income for trusts subject to the trust income tax rates has been removed. These changes also came into effect from 6 April 2024 onwards.

Beneficiaries of low-income trusts

Beneficiaries of low-income trusts subject to the trust income tax rates will continue to benefit from the 45% income tax credits as they did before.

Beneficiaries of other low-income trusts, such as interest in possession trusts or settlor-interested trusts, will still be liable to income tax on their entitlements to income or receipts of income distributions. In these cases, if the trust is a low-income trust for a given year, the beneficiary will need to report the gross income, since no tax will have been paid by the trust.

Impact of Changes to Low-Income Estates

In the tax years leading up to and including the year ending 5 April 2024, estates were treated as low-income estates if savings income for the whole period of administration was less than £500, and there was no other type of income. If the estate had any non-savings or dividend income, then it would not be a low-income estate.

For estates in administration before and after the changes, the old rules will apply until 5 April 2024, and the new rules will apply starting from 6 April 2024.

Personal representatives of estates can informally report estate income to HMRC by letter instead of submitting tax returns in certain circumstances. In such circumstances, if the estate is a low income estate for a tax year, the personal representatives would not need to report the income for that year to HMRC.

Beneficiaries of low-income trusts

Previously, beneficiaries would need to report any gross income received from low-income estates where tax was not paid by the estate.

From 6 April 2024, estate income treated as exempt for a given year will now be exempt in the hands of beneficiaries when the income is distributed to them.

Commercial property market review April 2024

Posted on 8 May 202424 April 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Commercial property market update

Latest research from Cluttons indicates that vacancy rates hit 4.1% at the end of 2023 – up from 3.8% in September.

This is partly due to e-commerce activity remaining strong and the demand for buildings to meet net zero standards. Vacancies are expected to keep increasing as supply continues to be released into the market.

Meanwhile, rental growth is easing across the UK; at the end of last year, the annual growth of asking rents in London was 3.5% – significantly less than the peak of 10% in Q2 of 2022. Experts hope this slowdown will cause the commercial property market in the capital to pick up. Industrial yields are more stable, rising above 4% in London and 6.9% in Manchester. Industrial equivalent yields have risen to 6.5% across the UK, which will likely bring in investors.

Retrofitting older buildings

With industry standards rising, investors and occupiers in the UK logistics market face pressure to retrofit older properties to keep up with the high quality of new builds. If older buildings are not improved, they risk being unusable in the coming years.

The report states that the ‘flight to quality of demand has, inevitably, started to weigh on the letting prospects of older, poorer-quality second-hand stock.’

With the government intent on decarbonising the economy, the focus on Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) and Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) have risen to prominence across all sectors of the commercial property market.

By 2027, the minimum EPC rating for existing commercial properties will be C, a building rating below this will be considered unsaleable and unlettable. While a few years later, in 2033, standards are likely to tighten (currently under consultation), applying to any property with an EPC rating under B. The report summarises, ‘While landlords will be wary of the tightening standards, retrofitting provides an excellent opportunity to meet these standards and future-proof warehouse assets.’

Major London skyscraper now 95% let

The flagship London office scheme of AXA IM Alts – 22 Bishopsgate – is now 95% let.

AXA IM Alts, on behalf of multiple investors, owns the state-of-the-art building near Liverpool Street. A global software company, UiPath, and a London-based service provider have both signed 10-year leases totalling 35,495 sq. ft.

Completed in 2020, 22 Bishopsgate has not appeared to suffer from the shift to flexible working, as AXA IM Alts say they are heading towards full occupancy. The investment managers reported that ‘leasing momentum at the building has remained robust’ – in the past year, around 112,000 sq. ft. of space has been leased, and there is strong interest in the 70,000 sq. ft. that remains vacant.

Hilton enters luxury lifestyle market

Hilton has made their first move into the luxury lifestyle market by acquiring a majority controlling interest in Sydell Group, owner of NoMad hotels.

Hilton reportedly aims to develop up to 100 NoMad hotels internationally, with 10 sites already in advanced discussion stages with Sydell. Hilton will lead the development of NoMad hotels, while Sydell will remain responsible for branding, design and management.

As part of the deal, Hilton will take control of the NoMad’s flagship hotel in London, situated in London’s Bow Street Magistrates Court building.

Chris Silcock, President of global Brands and Commercial Services for Hilton, commented, “By pairing an already proven brand concept that’s ready for expansion with the power of Hilton’s commercial engine, we are accelerating our ability to drive growth in the luxury lifestyle segment.”

This acquisition is part of Hilton’s plans to expand globally; earlier this year, the firm partnered with Small Luxury Hotels of the World (SLH), an association that inspects and verifies a curated collection of boutique accommodations. Hilton said they expect to increase their portfolio of luxury properties to 600-700 over the next few years.

All details are correct at the time of writing (17 April 2024)

It is important to take professional advice before making any decision relating to your personal finances. Information within this document is based on our current understanding and can be subject to change without notice and the accuracy and completeness of the information cannot be guaranteed. It does not provide individual tailored investment advice and is for guidance only. Some rules may vary in different parts of the UK. We cannot assume legal liability for any errors or omissions it might contain. Levels and bases of, and reliefs from, taxation are those currently applying or proposed and are subject to change; their value depends on the individual circumstances of the investor. No part of this document may be reproduced in any manner without prior permission.

Solar farm development

Posted on 7 May 202427 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Tees provides legal support to a landowner

Solar farms have become popular for landowners to generate income from their land and are part of the growing renewable energy sector. However, the process of setting up a solar farm can be complex. This case study highlights the importance of seeking legal support when developing renewable energy infrastructure to ensure that all necessary legal and regulatory requirements are met and to mitigate the risk of any disputes arising during the term of the lease.

If you are considering starting a renewable energy project on your land or have been approached about renewable energy development, it’s vital that you seek expert legal advice to ensure you protect your interests.

Alex Waples, senior associate lawyer, and the Tees renewable energy team acted for a landowner who wanted to install a solar farm on their land. Tees undertook due diligence to identify potential issues with the proposed site, negotiated and completed the lease and any necessary easements, and provided ongoing advice throughout the term of the lease.

Due diligence

Alex and the renewable energy team undertook a detailed review of the title documents, as well as a detailed review of various searches commissioned against the proposed solar farm site.

The purpose of the review is to identify any potential issues. For example, a parcel of land may be burdened with a historic covenant preventing the building of a structure in, over, or under the parcel of land in question. Any such covenant could significantly affect the site’s efficacy, and various design changes may need to be made to accommodate it.

Option agreements and lease negotiation

Alongside due diligence, the early stages of a transaction involve negotiating and exchanging an option for the lease and for any required easements.

Alex provided legal assistance in drafting the option agreement that granted the solar farm company the right to lease the land to install solar panels. He and the renewable energy team also negotiated the lease terms on behalf of the landowner, reviewing and drafting the lease agreement to ensure that it complied with relevant laws and regulations and represented the client’s best interests.

Once the funding is secured and the site is satisfactorily viable, the options are triggered, and the transaction can proceed to installation. The lease must afford sufficient solar farm installation rights, including access to neighbouring land.

Completion of the lease and easements

With funding, Alex arranged for the options to be triggered and completed the lease and the necessary easements. With the lease and easements in place, the installation of the solar farm could start.

Ongoing advice

During the lease term, The Tees legal team was available to provide ongoing legal advice. Tees’ dispute and resolution team provided tailored advice on exercising the tenant’s rights. They can advise on triggering any option to renew the lease or, alternatively, deal with any transaction whereby the tenant wishes to dispose of their interest in the solar farm, that is, by way of assignment.

If any disputes arise during the lease term, the dispute resolution team will provide expert advice to achieve the most commercially practical outcome.

If you are considering or if you have been approached about renewable energy development, contact our expert legal specialist today.