Delayed bowel cancer diagnosis: Tessa’s ongoing fight for answers and justice

Tessa* reached out to Natalie Pibworth at Tees when she thought she might have been the victim of medical negligence.

She had suffered from symptoms of worsening abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhoea and bloating for a period of over 1 ½ years before finally being diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer.

Tessa wanted to know whether the cancer should have been diagnosed sooner and, if so, when. She also wanted to know whether spread of the cancer beyond her bowel could have been avoided by appropriate treatment and earlier intervention.

Tessa’ story

Tessa is married and was in her thirties when her symptoms began. Prior to the symptoms of bowel cancer, Tessa was fit and well.

In the 1 ½ years preceding Tessa’ diagnosis, she was incorrectly diagnosed and treated for multiple abdominal conditions and had multiple scans and other investigations at Hospital.

Tessa also had multiple hospital admissions due to her worsening symptoms.

Tessa was eventually taken into emergency surgery after being admitted to the Hospital with severe agonising abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and distress.

A few weeks later, she was given the heart-breaking news that she had stage 4 bowel cancer.

Tessa subsequently underwent chemotherapy but the cancer sadly recurred, resulting in the need for further major surgery which has left her infertile, immunotherapy and further major surgery to as the cancer had spread to the liver.

Tessa suffers with ongoing debilitating symptoms from the cancer and the treatment she has had to undergo, some of which will unfortunately be permanent and which impact on her quality of life.

How our medical negligence specialists helped

Natalie Pibworth spoke with Tessa, listened to her story and asked questions to understand what Tessa wanted to achieve.

Having understood that Tessa wanted to find out whether the delay in diagnosis made any difference to the treatment she has needed, her current condition and her prognosis, Natalie obtained reports from independent radiology, colorectal surgery, oncology and psychiatric experts.

The experts’ conclusions were that Tessa should have been diagnosed over a year and a half earlier than she was, that the cancer would have been at an early stage and that Tessa would have been able to have surgery before the cancer had spread. Tessa would not have needed chemotherapy or further surgeries and would have had an otherwise normal life expectancy with a normal quality of life.

Achieving justice

Natalie’s work on the claim to secure the justice and compensation that Tessa deserves is continuing.

Natalie has already been able to secure some answers and explanations for Tessa, and the Defendant Hospital has admitted some errors. Natalie is supporting Tessa through the claims process.

 

*Tessa has been anonymised to protect her identity

Delayed bowel cancer diagnosis: How Tees secured justice after hospital failures

Christine’s* partner reached out to Natalie Pibworth at Tees after she was diagnosed with advanced bowel cancer.

Christine had suffered delay in diagnosis and treatment of her bowel cancer after her local Hospital failed to appropriately deal with an urgent referral by her GP. By the time she was diagnosed, Christine had Stage 4 bowel cancer that had spread (‘metastasised’) to her lung.

Christine wanted to know if the delay had made a difference to her prognosis, wanted compensation for the delay in diagnosis and treatment, and wanted to try and reach a conclusion to her claim as quickly as possible, given that her cancer was found to be incurable.

Natalie worked with Christine to settle the case within 12 months.

Christine’s story

Christine was in her 20s, lived with her partner and had two young children when the symptoms began. 

Christine underwent chemotherapy and major surgery following her diagnosis but was sadly thereafter advised that further surgery to remove the lung metastases was not an option and that chemotherapy was the only option to try to prolong her life. Her cancer was terminal.

Failures in Christine’s diagnosis and treatment

Christine had consulted her GP with symptoms including altered bowel function and blood in her stools. The GP arranged initial investigations and then made an urgent referral to the local Hospital.

However, despite the urgent referral, the Hospital did not arrange a colonoscopy and gastroscopy until almost 6 months later. During this time, Christine suffered from enduring stomach pains and unexplained bowel symptoms. She was concerned throughout this period of delay, as she knew that the referral had been urgent and worried that there was something wrong with her. The worry and physical symptoms caused Christine to suffer from a persistent low mood for which she was prescribed antidepressants.

After Christine’s colonoscopy, she was advised that there was a possibility of cancer. A month later she was seen with her partner and the diagnosis was confirmed. Following further investigations, it was confirmed that Christine’s cancer was Stage 4 and had unfortunately spread to her lung. Treatment did not start until 3 months after the diagnosis.

Unfortunately, Christine did not tolerate chemotherapy well and was admitted to hospital many times during her treatment. She suffered from chemotherapy induced diarrhoea and abdominal pain. When she switched treatment, Christine spent 2 days in hospital because of the abdominal pain and had to have a blood transfusion. She also underwent surgery to remove her rectum and put in a stoma.

Christine received an apology from a consultant gastroenterologist at the Hospital for the delays from receiving the GP referral to her first telephone appointment and to her cancer diagnosis. The consultant admitted that this was far too long. As a result of this incident, changes were made to the service and the level of impact of the incident was graded as ‘major – up to 6 month delay in diagnosis of colorectal cancer’.

How our medical negligence specialists helped

Natalie spoke to Christine and her partner, listened to their story and asked questions to understand what Christine wanted to achieve. Having understood that one of the things that Christine wanted was to understand whether the delay in diagnosis made any difference, Natalie obtained an opinion from a colorectal expert. Natalie was able to provide Christine with some clarity in this regard as the expert concluded that the delay in diagnosis did not make a difference to Christine’s condition.

Based on a detailed review of the medical records and evidence provided by independent medical experts, Natalie was able to identify various failures that amounted to breaches in the Hospital’s duty of care to Christine, both in arranging the investigations which led to the diagnosis of cancer and thereafter beginning treatment. Natalie wrote to the Defendant Hospital and the alleged failures were put to them in a Letter of Claim.

Natalie emphasised the consequences Christine suffered as a result of the delay. She described Christine’s low mood from being left in the dark during those months, worsened by the stomach pain and altered bowel symptoms she was still dealing with.

The Defendant Hospital initially denied liability, but Natalie persevered and thereafter secured some admissions for Christine, most notably that she should have been diagnosed 2-3 months after her first GP appointment and that she should have commenced treatment less than 2 months after that.

Achieving justice

Christine achieved justice in her case through these admissions, financial compensation and a speedy conclusion to her case given her shortened life expectancy. Natalie also achieved answers and explanations for Christine which had not previously been provided to her by the Defendant Hospital. Christine can use the additional financial support to improve her quality of life.

*Christine has been anonymised to protect her identity

Tees advises Price Bailey on acquisition of Oliver Clive & Co

Tees is pleased to have advised Price Bailey LLP (Price Bailey) on its acquisition of Oliver Clive & Co Limited (Oliver Clive & Co).

Established in 1938, Price Bailey is an award-winning accountancy and business advisory firm, providing expert financial, tax, and strategic support to individuals and companies across a range of industries. Tees has a longstanding professional relationship with Price Bailey and its management team.

Founded by Steven Davidson and operating from its London office, Oliver Clive & Co demonstrates expertise across various industry sectors and boasts a distinctive client network. Steven Davidson will join the Price Bailey partnership as part of the transaction.

Martin Clapson, Managing Partner at Price Bailey, commented:

“I am thrilled to welcome Oliver Clive & Co to the Price Bailey team. As we continue to expand and strengthen our presence and expertise, the valuable experience and client relationships, cultivated by Oliver Clive & Co, will be invaluable. Together, I have no doubt, we share a bright future.”

Lucy Folley (Partner), with assistance from Charlie Neal (Solicitor), negotiated the terms of the purchase agreement and guided Price Bailey’s management team through the legal aspects of the transaction. Anjalie Bala (Associate) advised Price Bailey on the commercial property aspects.

Lucy Folley, Partner and Head of Corporate & Commercial at Tees, said:

“Having worked with the team at Price Bailey for many years, we are delighted to have been able to support them with this strategic acquisition. Partnering with Oliver Clive & Co represents a further step forward in Price Bailey’s growth plans following its acquisition of Peterborough-based Stephenson Smart in late-2023 and undoubtedly strengthens Price Bailey’s service offerings to its clients. We wish the Price Bailey team the very best in this next chapter.”

Lets talk directors duties: What SME directors should not ignore

Becoming an SME (Small and Medium-sized Enterprise) in today’s world can be incredibly exciting! The idea of starting a business and watching it blossom into something successful, knowing you’ve curated the business you want is fulfilling. But with success comes great responsibility.
Why Directors duties matter

One of the most important yet often overlooked responsibilities when operating as a UK limited company, is understanding directors’ duties. While the term might sound like a corporate “buzzword”, it is far from it. Running a small or medium-sized enterprise at times can be overwhelming particularly having to wear so many different hats -which is generally the life of an SME business owner, and so understanding your directors’ duties is crucial to running a healthy and sustainable business.

Whether you’re an individual business owner or a team of directors, once you step into the role of directorship you owe legal and fiduciary duties to your company which are set out in law under the Companies Act 2006.

The 7 general (formally referred to as statutory duties) duties of a director
  1. Duty to act within powers: a director must act in accordance with its company’s constitution and governance documents and only exercise powers for the purposes for which they are conferred.
  2. Duty to promote the success of the company: a director must act in a way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, but they are also obliged to pay attention to the interests of the company’s employees, the need to foster business relations, the long-term consequences of the company’s actions, the impact on the community and the environment, the desirability for maintaining a reputation for high standards and in certain circumstances the interests of its creditors.
  3. Duty to exercise independent judgment: a director must make decisions independently, without subordinating their powers or being influenced by others.
  4. Duty to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence: a director must perform their role to the standard of a reasonably diligent person with the same level of skill and knowledge of that expected from the role.
  5. Duty to avoid conflicts of interest: a director must not place themselves in a position where there is a conflict between the duties they owe to the company, and either their personal interest or third-party interests (unless the company consents).
  6. Duty to declare interest in a proposed transaction: a director must declare to the board if they have any personal interest in a company transaction.
  7. Duty not to accept benefits from third parties: a director must not accept gifts or personal benefits that could compromise their impartiality.

In addition to the above:

  • The duty to promote the success of the company is subject to any enactment or rule of law which requires directors to consider or act in the interests of its creditors (“creditor duty”) which is important to consider in the context of insolvency. If a company becomes insolvent a director has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of its creditors.
  • Directors have other administrative statutory duties to the company such as the obligation to keep the statutory books updated and to file accounts and annual returns. A company’s constitutional document can go further to extend certain obligations and also modify certain rules, therefore it is important that a director understands these and how they influence their duties.
What is the impact of not complying?
  1. Legal: directors can be held personally liable and despite being a small company and even under resourced this is no exception. Unlike larger corporates, SMEs most likely do not have dedicated departments such as HR, legal, or compliance to prevent poor decision-making, making it even more critical for the business owner to be mindful of their legal responsibilities.
  2. Growth: director’s fiduciary duties to the company are fundamental to ensuring that the company operates properly. Investors and banks will want assurance that their investments are being managed with good governance that contribute to long-term success.
  3. Reputation: upholding directors duties sets a standard to its employees, clients and stakeholders which demonstrates that the business is reliable, trustworthy and a company that carries out its business with ethical decision-making.
Consequences for breaching?
  • Personal liability: a director could be held personally liable for any losses suffered by the company.
  • Disqualification: a breach could result in a director being disqualified from acting.
  • Criminal charges: a breach involving fraud, dishonesty, or trading while insolvent could lead to a director facing criminal prosecution.
  • Reputational damage: a breach could damage a director’s professional reputation and the company reputation that they have spent time to build.
Can you be protected against liability?

Generally, there is no exemption for a director from liability for negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company, neither can a director be indemnified for such claims. Insurance on the other hand is permitted to be taken out to help cover legal costs and potential damages arising from certain claims related to their role.

What can you do now?

It is important for directors to have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities as this is fundamental to the operation and longevity of a company. Typically, directors of SME’s are often the key decision makers and do not have the large corporate structure to mitigate poor decision-making, therefore making it essential that directors have a thorough understanding of their duties.

A good starting point is understanding the company’s constitutional documents, including the articles of association, and being fully aware of both legal and financial obligations. Additionally, maintaining detailed records of decision-making including board meetings and resolutions, helps demonstrate governance practices and provides accountability. Directors must also ensure that personal and company interests remain separate, maintaining transparency at all times. In areas of uncertainty we would always recommend seeking legal advice.

 

Parklands Nursing Home sold to Springfield Holdings Limited: Tees advises on strategic sale

Tees recently advised the shareholders of Canaryford Limited on the successful sale of their shares to Springfield Holdings Limited, marking a key milestone in the continued growth of the residential care sector in Essex.

Founded by Bharat and Urvashi Patel over 30 years ago, Canaryford has long operated Parklands Nursing Home, a highly regarded 54-bed care facility in South Benfleet. Parklands is known for delivering high-quality care and nursing services and boasts an impressive 9.5 rating on carehome.co.uk, reflecting its excellent reputation among residents and families.

A strong future for Parklands under Springfield

The acquisition by Springfield Holdings ensures that Parklands will remain under the stewardship of an experienced and reputable provider of residential care services. This strategic purchase allows Springfield to expand its existing portfolio while establishing a presence in south Essex. The transition guarantees continuity of care for residents and job security for dedicated staff.

Tees advises on corporate and property aspects of the transaction

Tees’ multidisciplinary team advised on both the corporate and commercial property aspects of the deal.

  • Lucy Folley and Baljeet Kaur, Partners in the Corporate & Commercial team, led the corporate advisory, supported by solicitors Nana Maisuradze and Alex Haines.

  • Jane Winfield, Partner in the Commercial Property team, was supported by Amy Woodacre, trainee solicitor, in advising on the property-related elements.

Client testimonials and reflections

Lucy Folley, Head of the Tees Corporate Team, commented:

“Having known Bharat and Urvashi for almost 30 years, it has been fantastic to support them through the sale of their family-run business. It’s incredibly rewarding to see their legacy continue under Springfield, a provider well-positioned to uphold and grow Parklands’ excellent reputation.”

Bharat Patel, co-founder of Canaryford, said:

“Over the last three decades, we’ve built Parklands into a highly reputable regional care home. By joining Springfield Holdings, we’re confident that our vision for high-quality, compassionate care will continue – ensuring stability for residents and staff alike.”

Baljeet Kaur, Corporate & Commercial Partner, added:

“We were delighted to advise the shareholders on this important transaction. It’s always a pleasure to support entrepreneurial clients, and we look forward to assisting Bharat and Urvashi with their future ventures.”

About Tees

Tees is a full-service legal and financial advisory firm with over 110 years of experience supporting individuals, families, and businesses across the UK. Our Corporate & Commercial team provides tailored advice on:

  • Mergers and acquisitions

  • Company reorganisations

  • Shareholder agreements

  • Commercial contracts

  • Business property transactions

We work closely with our clients to help them adapt to changing markets, protect their interests, and achieve sustainable growth.

Get in Touch

To find out how Tees can support your business sale, acquisition, or restructure, get in touch with our Corporate & Commercial team today.

What company directors need to know about the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA)

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (“ECCTA”) gives Companies House new powers to ensure that the information it holds is accurate and not being used to support criminal activity. The Act introduces a range of reforms, with a focus on three key areas:
Key changes introduced by ECCTA

1. Identity Verification
Directors and persons with significant control (PSCs – those holding more than 25% of the shares or voting rights in a company) must verify their identity with Companies House or through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP), such as a solicitor or accountant.

2. Information Sharing
The Act encourages greater collaboration between regulated firms, allowing them to share client data more easily where there is a suspicion of economic crime.

3. New Criminal Offences
A new corporate offence of “failure to prevent fraud” will apply to large businesses, not-for-profits, and public bodies. These organisations will be required to put in place measures to prevent fraud being committed by employees or others connected to the business.

Timeline of reforms

While many of the details and timings are still being confirmed, the following key milestones have been announced:

From 25 February 2025

  • Companies House can now speed up the process of striking off companies formed on a false basis.

  • Checks can now be carried out on ACSPs authorised to verify identities.

From 8 April 2025

  • Individuals can voluntarily verify their identity either directly with Companies House or through an ACSP.

By Summer 2025

  • Individuals will be able to apply to suppress their residential address from public view in certain cases.

By Autumn 2025

  • Identity verification will become mandatory for all new directors and PSCs when appointed.

  • A 12-month transition period will begin for existing directors and PSCs to complete their verification.

From 1 September 2025

  • The new offence of “failure to prevent fraud” takes effect.

    • Large companies should assess whether they have appropriate anti-fraud procedures in place.

    • A business can be held criminally liable even if management was unaware of the fraud – unless reasonable preventative measures were in place.

By Spring 2026

  • Identity verification will be required for anyone filing documents at Companies House.

  • Third-party agents filing on behalf of companies must be registered as ACSPs.

  • Companies House will be able to reject documents filed by disqualified directors unless submitted through an ACSP.

By End of 2026

  • All limited partnerships will be required to submit more detailed information for improved transparency.

  • Companies House will begin enforcement action against directors, PSCs, and RLEs who have failed to verify their identity.

Identity verification – what you need to know

How to Verify Your Identity

From 8 April 2025, individuals can verify their identity:

1. Directly with Companies House
Using the GOV.UK One Login system, individuals can complete the process:

  • Through the GOV.UK ID Check app,

  • By answering security questions online, or

  • In person at a Post Office.

Each method requires photo ID and answering a series of security questions.

2. Through an ACSP
Alternatively, an authorised intermediary (such as a solicitor or accountant) can verify the individual’s identity and confirm the information to Companies House.

What is an ACSP?

An Authorised Corporate Service Provider is:

  • Registered with a supervisory body for anti-money laundering (AML) purposes; and

  • Authorised to file documents on behalf of clients whose identities have been verified.

ACSPs must keep records of every identity verification they carry out and may be suspended or removed from the register if they fail to meet their obligations.

Who must verify their identity?

From autumn 2025, identity verification will be mandatory for:

  • New directors, PSCs and registrable legal entities (RLEs);

  • Existing directors, PSCs and RLEs (within the 12-month transition period).

failure to comply may result in:

  • A fine and criminal offence for acting without verified ID;

  • Directors being prohibited from acting;

  • The company and its officers committing an offence if they allow unverified individuals to act as directors.

Note: The director’s appointment will still be legally valid, even if they have not verified their identity – but they must not act in the role until verification is complete.

Looking ahead

By spring 2026, Companies House also intends to require identity verification for anyone making filings on behalf of a company.

This summary is based on guidance available as of April 2025. We are monitoring updates from Companies House and will provide further guidance when more information becomes available.

If you have any questions or concerns about how these changes may affect your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Economic review March 2025

Key takeaways
  • The Chancellor cut welfare and departmental spending to restore a fiscal buffer, but risks to forecasts remain high
  • Inflation dipped unexpectedly but is expected to rise again due to higher energy, taxes and wage costs
  • Business and retail activity showed resilience, but weak manufacturing and trade tensions cloud economic prospects
Chancellor trims spending plans

Rachel Reeves delivered her Spring Statement on 26 March, unveiling welfare cuts and spending reductions in order to balance the government’s books in the face of a worsening fiscal outlook.

The new spending plans were required to ensure the Chancellor stays on track to meet her two self-imposed fiscal rules, which she confirmed remain “non-negotiable.” An updated forecast produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had more than wiped out the Chancellor’s previous £9.9bn fiscal buffer announced in last October’s Budget due to a combination of higher debt interest costs and lower economic growth.

Several policy changes announced in the Spring Statement, including welfare reforms and day-to-day departmental spending reductions, restored the buffer back to its October level. The OBR did, however, note that its size remains historically low and that the buffer therefore provides only a small margin of error against the risk of future economic shocks.

Speaking after Ms Reeves delivered her statement, OBR Chair Richard Hughes also acknowledged the precarious nature of economic forecasting and admitted there were many factors that could once again “wipe out” the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom; these include an escalating trade war, a small downgrade to growth forecasts or a rise in interest rates.

This vulnerability was vividly highlighted just hours after the Chancellor finished her speech, with President Trump’s announcement of a new 25% tariff on cars and car parts coming into the US – a move which is widely expected to hit global growth prospects.

Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) also concluded that the Chancellor’s headroom is ‘very small.’ IFS Director Paul Johnson added there was a “good chance” economic forecasts would deteriorate significantly before the Autumn Budget which could leave the government facing months of damaging speculation about what taxes might need to be increased.

Inflation dips but fresh climb predicted

While the latest batch of inflation statistics did reveal a larger than expected monthly decline in the headline rate, economists continue to warn that price rises are likely to accelerate again soon.

Figures published last month by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) 12-month rate – which compares prices in the current month with the same period a year earlier – dropped to 2.8% in February from 3.0% the previous month. This rate was just below economists’ expectations, with a Reuters poll predicting a reading of 2.9%.

ONS said February’s decline was primarily driven by lower clothing and footwear prices which fell for the first time in over three years, partly due to an unusually high number of sales during the month. This unseasonal clothes discounting offset small price increases from a number of other categories, including alcoholic drinks.

Despite the monthly dip, economists still expect a fresh pick-up in the CPI rate over the coming months. Indeed, a number of near-term price rises, such as energy, Council Tax and water bill increases, are already baked in, while surveys suggest many businesses will look to raise prices in response to April’s National Insurance and Living Wage increases.

Last month also saw interest rates remain on hold, following the latest meeting of the Bank of England’s interest-rate setting committee. At its 19 March meeting, the Bank’s nine-member Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) voted by an 8-1 majority to leave Bank Rate unchanged at 4.5%; the one dissenting voice preferred a 0.25 percentage point reduction.

Commenting after announcing the decision, Bank Governor Andrew Bailey said he still believed rates were on a “gradually declining path” but noted that increasing geopolitical and global trade uncertainties meant the Bank would have to be “careful” when considering future cuts. The next MPC announcement is scheduled for 8 May.

Markets

At the end of March, concerns weighed on financial markets, days before Donald Trump’s tariff plans are due to take effect. Investors are braced for a broad set of tariffs, set to be unveiled on April 2 – described as ‘Liberation Day’ by the President.

In the UK, the FTSE 100 index closed the month on 8,582.81, a loss of 2.58%. The mid-cap focused FTSE 250 closed the month down 4.19% on 19,475.48, while the FTSE AIM closed on 681.99, a loss of 3.10%.

Across the pond, the Dow closed March down 4.20% on 42,001.76, while the tech-orientated NASDAQ closed the month down 8.21% on 17,299.29. On the continent, the Euro Stoxx 50 closed March 3.94% lower on 5,248.39. In Japan, the Nikkei 225 ended the month on 35,617.56, a monthly loss of 4.14%.

On the foreign exchanges, the euro closed the month at €1.19 against sterling. The US dollar closed at $1.29 against sterling and at $1.08 against the euro.

Brent Crude closed March trading at around $74 a barrel, a monthly gain of just over 7.0%. Oil moved higher after Donald Trump suggested that the US could impose secondary tariffs on Russia, a major exporter. The OPEC+ producer’s crude exports hit a five-month high in March. Gold closed the month trading around $3,149 a troy ounce, a monthly gain of almost 10.00%. The gold price reached a trading high on 31 March as concerns intensified over an escalating trade war, prompting investors to flock to the safe-haven asset.

Index
Value (31/03/25)
Movement since 28/02/25
FTSE 100 8,582.81 -2.58%
FTSE 250 19,475.48 -4.19%
FTSE AIM 681.99 -3.10%
Euro Stoxx 50 5,248.39 -3.94%
NASDAQ Composite 17,299.29 -8.21%
Dow Jones 42,001.76 -4.20%
Nikkei 225 35,617.56 -4.14%
Survey reports uptick in business activity

Although the latest monthly economic growth statistics did reveal an unexpected contraction at the start of the year, more recent survey evidence points to a “modest expansion” in March.

Figures published last month by ONS showed the UK economy shrank by 0.1% in January, driven by a sharp decline in manufacturing output; in contrast, a Reuters poll had predicted a monthly growth rate of 0.1%, following December’s 0.4% expansion. While ONS said the economy was still estimated to have grown by 0.2% across the three months to January, it also noted the overall picture was one of ‘weak growth.’

Data from the recently released S&P Global/CIPS UK Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) does point to a subsequent pick-up in activity, with March’s preliminary headline growth indicator hitting a six-month high of 52.0. This upturn, though, was driven by only small pockets of growth, most notably in financial services, with manufacturers continuing to struggle.

S&P Global Market Intelligence’s Chief Business Economist Chris Williamson said, “The signal from the flash PMI is an economy eking out a modest expansion in March, consistent with quarterly GDP growth of just 0.1%. However, just as one swallow does not a summer make, one good PMI doesn’t signal a recovery.”

Retail sales unexpectedly rise

The latest official retail sales statistics showed that sales volumes defied analysts’ expectations by rising in February, while survey evidence points to a continuing modest pick-up in consumer sentiment.

Figures released last month by ONS revealed that retail sales volumes grew by 1.0% in February, with broad-based strength reported across all major categories except food stores sales. This loosening of consumer purse-strings came as a surprise to most analysts, with a Reuters poll of economists actually predicting a 0.4% monthly contraction.

Data from GfK’s most recent consumer confidence survey also reported further modest improvement in the overall level of consumer sentiment. While March’s headline figure remained below the survey’s long-run average of -10, consumer morale was buoyed by greater optimism in economic prospects and ticked up to a three-month high of -19.

Evidence from the latest CBI Distributive Trades Survey, however, shows the retail environment remains challenging. According to the survey, annual sales volumes fell ‘markedly’ in March with retailers predicting a further decline, albeit at a slower pace, in April too. Firms across the retail and wholesale sectors suggested ‘global trade tensions,’ as well as last Autumn’s Budget decisions, were weighing on confidence and leading to a reduction in demand.

All details are correct at the time of writing (01 April 2025)

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.

This material is intended to be for information purposes only and is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. Tees is a trading name of Tees Financial Limited which is regulated and authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority—registered number 211314.

Tees Financial Limited is registered in England and Wales—registered number 4342506.

Autism support: Workplace and school adjustments guide

Understanding the behaviours associated with Autism, as well as implementing reasonable adjustments, is essential for helping those with Autism thrive in the workplace and in education. By improving awareness and accessibility, we can help neurodivergent individuals thrive and reduce stigma around Autism in professional and academic settings.

What is autism?

Autism is a lifelong neurodivergence that affects how individuals experience and interact with the world. According to the National Autistic Society, “Autism influences how people experience and interact with the world. It is a lifelong neurodivergence and disability. Autistic people are different from each other, but for a diagnosis they must share differences from non-Autistic people in how they think, feel, and communicate.”
As a spectrum condition, Autism affects those differently. While Autistic individuals share certain characteristics some may have difficulty with social interactions, others may struggle with sensory sensitivities, such as sensitivity to noise, light, or touch.

Is autism a disability?

While Autistic people differ in terms of how they prefer to be described (some may prefer the term ‘neurodiverse’, for example), for legal purposes Autism is classed as a disability under the Equality Act 2010. This means that employers are required to make reasonable adjustments to support Autistic employees. Providing equal opportunities for Autistic individuals ensures that they are treated fairly in the workplace and beyond.

How does Autism affect work?

Autistic employees may experience challenges in workplace interactions and adapting to changes Sensory sensitivities like light and noise can make busy office environments overwhelming, while some may react strongly to being touched by others or smells in the office. This can lead to being stressed or overwhelmed when confronting a difficult or unfamiliar situation.

Can Autistic people work?

With the right support in place, people with Autism are able to enter the workplace and thrive.

Many Autistic individuals thrive in structured environments with clear expectations. Employers can build inclusive work environments by understanding and recognising the behaviors associated with Autism and consider what reasonable adjustments could be made to help.

Reasonable adjustments for Autistic employees?

Employers can introduce simple yet effective adjustments to support Autistic employees. In return, you could be rewarded with a diligent, highly effective worker who is an asset and really has something to contribute to your business.

Common reasonable adjustments may include:

  • Structured Induction Process – Carrying out a highly detailed induction process outlining exactly what they will be doing day-to-day and what their responsibilities will be.
  • Routine and Predictability – Offering a weekly schedule, detailing what they will be doing in the mornings and afternoons, what time lunch is, when they may leave, and any scheduled meetings. This will help them settle into a routine and reduce their anxiety.
  • Sensory Adjustments – Providing noise-canceling headphones, separate quiet workspaces, or adjustable lighting.
  • Training – Educating staff on neurodiversity including how to interact and support Autistic individuals in the workplace.
  • Flexible Working Arrangements – Allowing remote work or flexible hours to accommodate sensory sensitivities (for example, allowing your employee to start work later to avoid travelling during rush-hour, or permitting them to work from home on days they may be feeling particularly anxious).
  • Mentorship Programs – Assigning a mentor to provide guidance and support.

This list is by no means exhaustive, not all Autistic employees will require the same adjustments, as Autism presents differently in each individual.

How does Autism affect learning?

In education, Autistic students may face challenges with communication, social interactions, and sensory sensitivities.

Some may have delayed speech development and difficulty communicating with teachers and fellow pupils, while others may have advanced verbal skills but struggle with non-verbal communication.

Many also struggle to follow directions and understand what they are being asked to do, while some will find it difficult to understand their teachers’ and peers’ body language and facial expressions. They may also be very reluctant to try new things, or have fixed, narrow interests that make it difficult for them to branch out and enjoy new learning experiences.

School is also a highly social environment and Autistic children can become distressed and anxious when put in situations where they have to communicate with their classmates. They may struggle with group activities, particularly those involving imaginative or creative play. Pupils with sensory processing difficulties may struggle in a noisy classroom or playground environment, while others may dislike other children touching them. If they become overwhelmed, they may develop symptoms such as headaches, anxiety, panic attacks or aggression.

How can teachers support Autistic students?

Teachers play a crucial role in creating an inclusive learning environment. Good communication is key when supporting an Autistic pupil, and you may have to communicate differently with an Autistic child than you would a neurotypical child.  Strategies include:

  • Clear Instructions – Instead of general instructions like “tidy the classroom,” provide specific tasks such as “put the pencils in their pots and come back when finished.”
  • Visual Aids – Using visual schedules, sign language, or other non-verbal cues to support communication.
  • Routine and Structure – Establishing a consistent daily routine to reduce anxiety.
  • Flexible School Policies – Allowing uniform modifications or noise-canceling headphones for sensory-sensitive students.
  • Quiet Spaces – Providing a designated area where students can retreat if overwhelmed.
  • Adjustments to Class Schedules – Allowing staggered start times or early class exits to avoid crowded hallways.

If a teacher requires upskilling to enable them to more effectively support a child with Autism, it could be extremely useful to find out about opportunities for training on how to support and communicate with Autistic children.

Sensitive and caring Employment and Education Law legal advisers

No two Autistic individuals are the same. Employers and educators should work closely with Autistic employees, students, and their families to tailor adjustments that best meet their needs.

If you are an employer, employee, student, or parent seeking guidance on neurodiversity accommodations, our Employment and Education Law specialists are here to provide expert advice. We are committed to ensuring fair treatment and accessibility in workplaces and schools for Autistic individuals as well as those with ADHD, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia and more.

By adopting an inclusive environment through awareness and adjustments, we can help push neurodivergent individuals to succeed in their careers and education.

Speak with one of our employment law or education solicitors today to discuss how we can support you.

Workplace stress: A legal and ethical imperative for employers

April marks Stress Awareness Month, a timely reminder for employers to address workplace stress, not just as a productivity concern but as a legal and ethical responsibility. Stress in the workplace can lead to burnout, reduced efficiency, and increased absenteeism. However, beyond these operational challenges, failing to address workplace stress may expose employers to legal risks too.
The legal implications of workplace stress

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers have a duty of care to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their employees. This includes taking reasonable steps to mitigate workplace stress.

Additionally, the Equality Act 2010 protects employees from discrimination related to mental health conditions that may, depending on the circumstances, qualify as disabilities. Failing to make reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities could result in claims alongside allegations of unlawful discrimination, constructive dismissal, or personal injury. Doing the right thing, in compliance with the rules, and documenting this, are key to being able to defend any claims or complaints that may be asserted against a business.

Common workplace stressors and employer responsibilities

Stress in the workplace can arise from multiple factors, including:

  • Excessive workload and unrealistic deadlines
  • Poor management and lack of support
  • Unclear job roles and expectations
  • Workplace bullying or harassment
  • Job insecurity and organisational change

Employers should proactively identify and mitigate these possibilities. Risk assessments under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 should include stress-related factors and ensure appropriate measures are in place.

Mitigating stress: Best practices for employers

To comply with employment law and foster a productive work environment, we recommend employers consider implementing the following amongst the range of steps that they may follow:

Conduct regular stress audits – Employers should assess workplace stress levels through employee surveys, one-on-one meetings, and risk assessments. Early identification helps prevent escalation.

Establish clear policies and procedures – Having a stress management policy ensures employees know their rights and where to seek support. A zero-tolerance policy on workplace bullying is also crucial.

Support employee well-being – Provide mental health training for managers to recognise signs of stress. Encourage a work-life balance, offering flexible work arrangements where possible. Implement Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) for confidential mental health support.

Support employee well-being – Ensure reasonable adjustments are made where applicable and appropriate. For employees experiencing stress-related health conditions, employers should make reasonable adjustments where appropriate such as reduced workloads, additional breaks, or changes in responsibilities. Note that the duty under the Equality Act, where applicable, is to make “reasonable” as opposed to all/any changes and what is reasonable will depend on factors such as the size and resources of the organisation in question.

Foster a positive work culture – Encourage open communication about mental health without stigma. Recognise and reward employees for their efforts to reduce undue pressure. Promote team-building activities to enhance morale and collaboration.

Conclusion

Workplace stress is more than an HR challenge—it is a legal and ethical responsibility. Employers who fail to manage stress effectively risk not only employee dissatisfaction and turnover but also legal repercussions under UK employment law. By taking proactive steps, businesses can create a supportive work environment, reduce absenteeism, and enhance overall productivity—ensuring compliance while prioritising employee well-being.

At Tees, our Employment Law team can conduct a comprehensive audit of your HR systems to ensure they are fair, reasonable, and compliant with legal obligations. By reviewing workplace policies, risk assessments, and stress management procedures, we help safeguard employee well-being while protecting your business from potential legal risks. Our expert team can identify areas for improvement, implement best practices, and ensure your policies align with employment law standards—creating a healthier, more resilient workplace.

This Stress Awareness Month, take action to safeguard your workforce. A healthier workplace is a legally sound and more successful one.