Sarah O'Sullivan, Author at Tees Law

Bullying and harassment at work

Posted on 20 March 202022 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

With widely reported resignations resulting from allegations of bullying behaviours, both harassment and bullying is an increasingly common issue faced by employers.

This article sets out information for employers on the issues surrounding bullying and harassment in the workplace, what they should do and what potential liabilities they could be responsible for.

What is workplace harassment & bullying?

Harassment is when behaviour from a person or group of people is unwanted behaviour makes you feel uncomfortable, intimidated, degraded, humiliated or offended.

Bullying has no legal definition with ACAS characterising bullying as “offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse if power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient”.

These behaviours can have a negative effect on employees often resulting in increased absence from sickness, anxiety/depression, low motivation and reduced productivity in the workplace.

Social media harassment

Bullying and harassment is not just face to face, it can also happen by letter, email, phone or even via social media.

With the ever-increasing speed of technological changes, there are implications for what is classed as bullying and harassment. The Equality and Human Rights commission has issued new guidance on workplace harassment, warning that comments posted on social media could be classed as harassment. This adds a whole new dimension to the obligations that are faced by employers in this complex area of law.

Harassment guidelines could become law

There are plans for the guidelines to become statutory measures enforceable by law. Therefore it’s important for employers to be aware of what bullying and harassment is, their duties and responsibilities to their employees, as well as potential risks. What is the difference between bullying and harassment?

Bullying and harassment are similar in terms of the behaviours exhibited and how they make the victim feel.

To be protected under the Equality Act 2010 the conduct must be unwanted, have the purpose or effect of violating that individual’s dignity and be related to one of the protected characteristics, which are:

age
sex
race
sexual orientation
religion or belief
disability
gender reassignment
pregnancy and maternity.

Harassment where it is not related to a protected characteristic, could also be protected under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and civil claims can be brought by those affected.

Common types of bullying and harassment

Bullying and harassment behaviours in the workplace can include:

unwanted physical contact
workplace ‘banter’
unwanted shouting
unwanted remarks
freezing employees out and ignoring their contribution
denying someone training or promotion opportunities
spreading rumours
misuse of power or position
overbearing supervision
withholding information which can affect someone’s performance
persistent criticism or undermining someone.

What can employers do to prevent bullying and harassment?

Employers should develop and circulate policies dealing with bullying and harassment, including what standards of behaviour are expected, what working relationships should look like and how to professionally manage these and deal with any conflicts.

Where employers can show that they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent employees behaving in such a manner, then they will not be liable for acts of discrimination. However simply having a policy is unlikely to be sufficient. Taking reasonable steps might mean having well-publicised policies but also undertaking effective and regular training of staff on the issue.

Staff should therefore be given training on how to act consistently and apply the bullying and harassment policy, to ensure they are familiar with the processes and how to follow them. Employees should be encouraged to feel that they can talk to someone in authority, for example, their line manager or someone in HR, and they will be listened to and have their concerns taken seriously; also that they will not be censured for speaking out.

Training could also be given on the impact and damage that certain behaviours can have on those affected. Managers in particular must be trained about their responsibility to identify and prevent such behaviour.

How to spot bullying and harassment

Staff can suffer in silence – feeling too anxious to tell someone about it for fear of not being believed, not being taken seriously or it getting worse as a result of speaking out. Good practice for employers includes being aware that it might be happening even if the person doesn’t report it. Things to look out for include:

increased absences from work
people disappearing from their desks, to get away -for example, go to the bathroom for long periods
declining standards of work, especially if that is not typical
people asking to move their desk or other location in which they work
unexpected outbursts indicating stress
colleagues avoiding or ignoring each other

What should employers do when there is a report of bullying or harassment?

According to a report published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, a quarter of employees think their company turns a blind eye to workplace bullying and harassment; so it is vital that employers react promptly and appropriately to complaints raised.

Where there is a complaint made, ensure that there is an effective resolution procedure so that the organisation can act promptly and conduct a thorough investigation, acting in a fair, confidential and sensitive manner. This will usually be set out in the anti-bullying and harassment policy or via a grievance process.

Where a complaint of bullying and harassment is well founded, employers will need to consider what steps to take against those who have carried out the conduct. These would usually be to consider appropriate disciplinary action under the employer’s disciplinary procedures, after an investigation has been carried out. Remember to always act with consistency.

What can employers do to support staff?

There are many ways in which employers can support affected staff, for example offer counselling to those who have made a complaint. Some employers may also offer the benefit of an external employee assistance scheme and employees should be made aware and directed to this.

If bullying and harassment leads to sickness, this will need to be managed appropriately, with support given in their return to work. It may be that the employer should consider, alongside a medical evidence or occupational health report, a phased return to work, adjustments to workload, or the possibility of a change of job or reporting lines.

Claims for workplace bullying and harassment

Bullying and harassment can lead to liability for employers as it is possible to pursue the employer for claims which relate to workplace bullying and harassment. This is because employers are normally liable for acts of their staff, whether or not they have condoned or dealt with the behaviour.

Where the treatment is related to a protected characteristic (see above) employees can pursue claims based on discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, where compensation for acts of discrimination is uncapped. If a complaint of discrimination is upheld then it is likely a Tribunal would make an award of ‘injury to feelings’ of the recipient as well as any other financial losses that follow from the acts of discrimination.

Employees may also seek to bring a claim of constructive unfair dismissal where they may attempt to show that the employer was in breach of their contract of employment and that they resigned in response to that breach. Commonly this is on the basis that a term implied into all employment contracts, dealing with mutual trust and confidence, has been irretrievably broken. This claim is limited to employees who have been employed for two years or more. If successful, the recipient is likely to be awarded a basic award (taking account of their age, length of service and pay) and a compensatory award, which reflects the financial losses incurred (e.g. loss of earnings).

Civil claims are also possible where harassment is not related to a protected characteristic and can be brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Employment Tribunal Rules: What you need to know

Posted on 16 March 202022 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

If you’ve received an employment tribunal claim (ET1 Form) from a current or former employee, it’s important to understand the process and your responsibilities. Here are some common questions and answers to help guide you through.

What should I do after receiving an ET1 form?

You must respond using an ET3 Response Form within 28 days of receiving the claim. The specific deadline will be indicated in the tribunal’s letter. If you need help preparing your response or applying for an extension, we can assist you.

Can I dismiss a claim without merit?

Even if you believe the claim has no merit, you are still required to complete the ET3 Response Form. Additionally, you can submit an application to request a Pre-Hearing Review. During this review, the tribunal will assess the claim’s prospects of success. If the claim lacks reasonable prospects, it may be struck out. Alternatively, the tribunal may order the claimant to pay a deposit to proceed. We can represent you at this hearing if needed.

What if the claim lacks sufficient detail?

If the claimant’s submission is unclear, you have the right to request further information. You can send a formal letter with specific questions to clarify the issues. Our team can assist in drafting and sending this request.

What is ACAS and how can they help?

ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) is an independent body offering confidential conciliation services. They help resolve disputes before or after a claim is filed. Settlement discussions through ACAS are private and will not be disclosed to the tribunal. Early involvement of ACAS can often lead to a faster resolution.

Can I recover legal costs if I win?

In most cases, each party covers their own legal costs in an employment tribunal, even if you win. However, you can apply for a costs award if the claimant has acted unreasonably. While cost awards are rare and only granted in exceptional circumstances, we can advise on whether this is a viable option.

Need further assistance? Our experienced team is here to help you navigate the employment tribunal process and protect your interests.

What are my rights if my employer goes into liquidation?

Posted on 21 November 201922 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

When a business goes into liquidation resulting in large scale redundancies, employees will often be unsure on what to do and what payments they may be able to claim.

Do I get redundancy pay if the company goes into liquidation?

If your employer goes into liquidation they may not have the funds available to make redundancy payments, however you can claim certain payments from the government’s National Insurance Fund.

The National Insurance Fund is made up of National Insurance contributions which are held to be used to pay for statutory schemes such as state pensions and redundancy.

The claims you are able to make from the National Insurance fund include:

Holiday pay
Salary arrears
Statutory notice pay
Statutory redundancy pay
Pension contribution.

Those payments are however subject to certain limits, which are:

Unpaid wages – up to eight weeks pay
Statutory Notice pay – between one and 12 weeks’ pay (depending on length of service)
Holiday entitlement which has accrued but not been taken in the last 12 months
Statutory redundancy payment (which depends on age and length of service).

All of the above are also subject to a cap on a week’s pay (currently £525 per week as of April 2019), which normally increases in April each year.

It is common for the appointed company liquidators to advise employees on their ability to make a claim to the National Insurance Fund for those payments outlined, but they are often far less well informed about the claims protective awards that an employee may be able to bring.

Call our specialist solicitors on 0808 231 1320

What is a protective award?

A protective award is an award of compensation where 20 or more employees are made redundant at a single workplace, and the employer fails to properly inform and engage in consultation about those redundancies.

Employers have a duty to consult with employee representatives before the redundancies are made. Where employers have breached this duty, a claim can be brought in by the Employment Tribunal and up to 90 days’ pay (per employee) can be awarded by the Employment Tribunal.

There is no minimum length of service required to bring protective award claims but such claims must be commenced within three months less a day from the date of dismissal. It is important to note that an employee must first complete the ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) early Conciliation process, which will need to be done directly with ACAS by filling out a form online; this has the effect of extending the time limit. The length of the extension will vary, depending on how long the conciliation period lasts and it is therefore important to take legal advice first.

Who grants a protective award?

An Employment Tribunal must be persuaded to grant a protective award to an employee, which will depend on the circumstances, reasons for redundancy or liquidation and the steps, if any, that the business took to inform employees or their representatives.

Can you make both a protective award and a National Insurance Fund claim?

A protective award is classified as arrears of pay for the purposes of the National Insurance Fund, which means that, yes, employees can make a protective award and a National Insurance Fund claim. However, an order from the Employment Tribunal making a protective award to an employee would be needed prior to the National Insurance Fund accepting and making any payment to a redundant employee for a protective award element.

It is also important to note that the eight-week limit on arrears of pay will still apply and therefore any other arrears of wages (excluding notice pay, holiday pay or statutory redundancy pay) will come out of the eight-week limit. Even where there are no outstanding wages due, this means that where an Employment Tribunal sees fit to award 90 days’ pay, the National Insurance Fund will only pay out a maximum of 56 days.

Whilst outstanding sums above the cap of eight weeks pay can be claimed from the insolvent employer directly, including any unpaid part of a protective award, it is unlikely in an insolvency situation that the employer or its liquidators would have the funds to pay.

Tees boss Ashton Hunt scoops prestigious Director of the Year title

Posted on 30 September 201930 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Ashton Hunt’s successful leadership at Tees Law

You could say it’s been a fairly good few years for Tees’ Group Managing Director, Ashton Hunt. Since taking the reins at the Top 200-listed law firm in 2016, he’s achieved ambitious turnover targets, increased staff numbers by over a third, been instrumental in expanding Tees’ wide range of fundraising and sponsorship pursuits, and accomplished a successful merger with Brentwood-based firm Wortley Byers at the beginning of this year. Tees incorporating Wortley Byers now boasts 30 partners, 325 staff, and an annual turnover of £22 million.

Recognition for dedication and hard work

His dedication and hard work have not gone unnoticed. On Friday, 14 June, Ashton was honoured to be awarded the prestigious title of Director of the Year in the Small-Medium Business Category by the East of England branch of the Institute of Directors (IoD), a chartered organisation that represents business leaders across the country. The awards are held each year to celebrate the very best of the region’s directors, recognising not only the key role they play in the UK’s economy, but also in job preservation and creation. They place emphasis on individual excellence and achievement.

A reflection of team effort

Collecting his award at a celebratory lunch at the historic Jockey Club Rooms in Newmarket, Ashton said: “I’m absolutely delighted to win this award, which is of course a reflection of the commitment and dedication of the entire team at Tees. When I took over in 2016, I certainly had a strong vision for the firm’s future, but I couldn’t have done it alone. Yes, it’s been a pleasure to see the business grow and develop, but I’ve also watched with pride as our people have flourished and put their whole heart into everything I set out to achieve. I’m very much looking forward to what promises to be a bright future for our business.”

Looking ahead to national awards

Also coming up in Ashton’s near future will be the national Director of the Year Awards ceremony, where the regional winners will compete for the top accolade in each category. Ashton will join the best and brightest of the UK’s business leaders at The Brewery in London on Friday, 18 October, in the hope of scooping a coveted national award. Whatever the outcome, though, one thing remains true: Ashton has firmly cemented his place as a talent to watch.

Electronic Communications Code

Posted on 25 September 201919 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

What do landowners need to know?

The old Electronic Communications Code was replaced on 28 December 2017. The intention was to simplify the planning procedures for network operators to install and maintain apparatus such as phone masts, exchanges and cabinets on public and private land. Landowners are now facing various practical challenges and are finding that the new code benefits the operator rather than the landowner.

The new code was designed to make it easier for operators to roll out or upgrade their services, such as the current focus on the rollout of 5G. Operators can now apply to Ofcom to obtain certain rights, allowing them to execute works for which they would have previously needed landlord’s prior consent. As a result, landowners have reported a noticeable loss of control over building works, poorer security, reduced access and difficulty in removing the operators from their property.

What’s changed?

If you are a landowner with a telecommunications agreement in place or are thinking about entering into a telecommunications agreement, there are several things to consider:-

Assignment – operators can now automatically assign their code rights to another operator without the need to obtain a landowner’s consent or provide payment.

Upgrading and Sharing – operators can upgrade or share their apparatus without the landowner’s consent and without having to pay additional rent.

Security of Tenure – under the old code, operators were able to rely on protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, meaning that the operator had a right to keep its apparatus on the land at the end of the agreement and the right to a new agreement. However, under the new code, the security of tenure provisions under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 have been excluded and the new procedures regarding termination should be followed.

Termination – landowners must now give at least 18 months’ notice to an operator in order to terminate an agreement.

There are now four statutory grounds for termination:-

substantial breaches by the operator of its obligations
persistent delays by the operator in making payment;
landowner’s intention to redevelop all or part of the land or any neighbouring land;
the test under paragraph 21 of the code has not been met by the operator, whereby, the operator must meet the two following conditions:-
that the prejudice caused to the landowner can be adequately compensated by money;
that the public benefit that is likely to be derived from the making of the order outweighs the prejudice to the landowner, bearing in mind the public interest in access to a choice of high quality electronic communications services.

In a leading case, landowners tried to bypass the grounds for termination under the new code. They claimed that they had an intention to redevelop the land by replacing operators’ existing masts with masts of their own. At the First Tier Tribunal, they were asked: ‘Would the landowner intend to carry out its redevelopment project if the operator was not seeking code rights?’

The tribunal decided that even though there was a reasonable prospect of bringing about the redevelopment proposal, the intention to bring it about was not genuine and the project was simply devised in order to prevent rights from being imposed by the operators. An intention of the landowner to redevelop must be something that is ‘firm and settled’.

Removal – a reasonable amount of time must now be given to an operator to remove apparatus. Issues arise when a landowner wishes to exercise a break option, as under the new code, the operator has to allocate both time and money for removal. Developers should consider the extended timescales when it comes to making plans for redevelopment and incorporate the new timescales into the development timetable.

Rental – landowners should be aware that the level of rental paid and any compensation payable by telecoms operators must now be calculated in accordance with the open market value of the land, without the benefit of the telecoms site. Ultimately, this is likely to reduce the achievable rent.

Tees are here to help

We have many specialist lawyers who are based in:

Cambridgeshire: Cambridge
Essex: Brentwood, Chelmsford, and Saffron Walden
Hertfordshire: Bishop’s Stortford and Royston

But we can help you wherever you are in England and Wales.

Landlord and Tenant 1954 Act

Posted on 25 September 201919 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A brief overview of the Landlord and Tenant 1954 Act and its practical implications for landlords and tenants.

What is the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 gives commercial tenants the right to a lease renewal at the end of the contractual term of a lease and the ability to remain in occupation at the property. This provides the tenant with security of tenure. It should be noted that the 1954 Act applies to written and oral tenancy agreements.

What is security of tenure?

Security of tenure benefits the business tenant by securing business continuity. This is because the tenancy will not automatically come to an end and will continue on the same terms under the tenancy until renewed or terminated in accordance with the Act.

Does the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act cover residential houses?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 only applies to commercial business tenancies, it does not apply to residential tenancies.

How can I get my tenant out of my commercial property?

If you are a landlord, you will only be able to oppose a tenant’s request for a lease renewal on certain grounds which carry strict criteria which must be satisfied.

One of the most frequently used grounds for opposing a lease renewal is Section 30(1)(f) (Ground (f)) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, where the landlord must provide substantial evidence of an intention to redevelop or reconstruct the property. This must be a firm and settled intention, rather than merely an idea. In a leading case the Court said that the landlord must prove its genuine intention to carry out works at the date of the trial, showing evidence such as plans and drawings for the development, financing and a building contract. Each case turns on its own facts.

How can I avoid giving a tenant security of tenure?

It is possible for a lease to be “contracted outside” the 1954 Act, meaning that the tenant will have no right to remain in occupation or renew the lease at the end of the contractual term. The tenant will therefore need to vacate the property or have completed a new lease by the end of the contractual term.

The 1954 Act status of a commercial tenant’s occupation of a property has significate repercussions on both a tenant’s and landlord’s rights at the end of the term of a lease. This status should be carefully considered in terms of business planning, repair obligations and the level of rental applied to any tenancy.

Tees are here to help

We have many specialist lawyers who are based in:

Cambridgeshire: Cambridge
Essex: Brentwood, Chelmsford, and Saffron Walden
Hertfordshire: Bishop’s Stortford and Royston

But we can help you wherever you are in England and Wales.

Six-figure settlement for delayed diagnosis of breast cancer claim

Posted on 24 April 201928 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Tees has successfully settled a delayed diagnosis of breast cancer claim against Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge for a six-figure sum. The case involved Claire Radcliffe, who faced a devastating delay in receiving a correct diagnosis, significantly impacting her treatment and prognosis.

Initial misdiagnosis and delayed treatment

In 2012, at the age of 22, Claire Radcliffe discovered a breast lump. Living in Cambridge, she was referred by her GP to Addenbrooke’s Hospital. Unfortunately, her ultrasound scan was misreported, diagnosing a benign 10mm lump. Claire was reassured and subsequently discharged.

In April 2014, Claire experienced concerning symptoms, including fatigue and a newly inverted nipple. After another referral to Addenbrooke’s, she was diagnosed with a 10cm invasive cancer that had spread to her lymph nodes. She underwent radiotherapy, chemotherapy, a double mastectomy, and immediate reconstruction, followed by hormone treatment.

The impact of a delayed diagnosis

Had Claire been correctly diagnosed in 2012, the cancer could have been treated with a less invasive procedure, removing only the lump. A timely diagnosis would have prevented the need for extensive surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Claire’s likelihood of a complete cure at that point was approximately 95%.

The 17-month delay, however, has significantly increased her risk of recurrence. Despite her resilience, Claire now faces ongoing uncertainty regarding her health and the potential for future treatment.

Legal action and settlement

Following a four-year legal battle against Addenbrooke’s, Tees successfully secured a six-figure settlement for Claire. Importantly, if her cancer recurs, Claire will have the right to pursue further compensation. The settlement also provides financial security for her and her family, particularly as Claire hopes to have children in the future.

Raising awareness: The importance of breast checks

Now 29 years old, Claire lives in Newmarket with her long-term partner, Timothy. After returning from a round-the-world trip, she is passionate about sharing her story to encourage other young women to prioritise their health.

Claire emphasises the importance of regular breast checks and trusting personal instincts:

“I was very young, just 22, when I developed cancer. It’s really important that women in their 20s realise that just because you’re young it doesn’t mean that you can’t get breast cancer.” “If you find any changes, seek help straight away. Trust your gut instinct. You know your own body – if something feels wrong, don’t hesitate to challenge your doctors.”

Legal perspective

Janine Collier, Claire’s lawyer at Tees, praised Claire’s courage:

“Claire is an incredibly brave young woman. It has been a privilege to help her seek justice and secure a fair financial settlement for the significant impact of her delayed diagnosis.”

Collier further commented on the case:

“The Trust Protocol limited the investigations due to Claire’s young age, relying solely on a physical examination and ultrasound scan. The scan was misreported, leading to the failure to perform a biopsy. The Trust has admitted that a biopsy would have identified the cancer earlier. They have apologized for this error and reviewed the case to prevent similar mistakes in the future.”

Looking forward

While the NHS continues to provide essential care, Claire’s case highlights the importance of vigilance in diagnostic processes. Medical professionals are encouraged to learn from these incidents to ensure better outcomes for patients.

To learn more about Claire’s journey, visit the BBC website where her story is featured.

Tees and Wortley Byers celebrate successful merger

Posted on 1 April 201930 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Drinks reception marks successful merger of tees and wortley byers

The stunning Garden Room at Stock Brook Country Club was filled with a celebratory atmosphere on Thursday as it hosted a drinks reception to mark the occasion of the recent merger of two highly successful regional law firms.

Tees, with offices across Hertfordshire, Essex, and Cambridgeshire, merged with Brentwood-based Wortley Byers in January 2019. Thursday’s drinks reception was the first event to be held by the merged business.

Staff and clients gather for celebration

Staff from the firm’s Brentwood and Chelmsford offices mingled with key clients and professional contacts, enjoying drinks, canapés, and the evening’s entertainment. The highlight of the night was a captivating performance by the hugely talented Jess Folley, winner of The Voice Kids UK and daughter of Wortley Byers’ managing partner, Lucy Folley.

Reflections on the event

Ashton Hunt, group managing director at Tees, expressed his delight at the event’s success: “It was an absolute pleasure to be present at our first joint event since the merger,” he said. “Seeing everybody come together in celebration of our achievements marked the culmination of months of hard work on the part of all involved, and left everyone in attendance feeling proud and extremely optimistic about our future.”

Lucy Folley, who now sits on the Tees board in the merged firm, shared her thoughts: “We all thoroughly enjoyed our evening, and in such beautiful surroundings as well! The event allowed staff, clients, and contacts to meet, network, and look ahead to what is certain to be an exciting year of growth and opportunities for Tees incorporating Wortley Byers.”

Merger announcement – Wortley Byers merges with Tees

Posted on 22 December 201830 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

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.

Defects and rectification: Do contractors have an automatic right to return and remedy defects?

Posted on 20 December 201820 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

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.

Coroner calls for changes after suicide verdict in Matthew Arkle inquest

Posted on 2 November 201828 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A coroner’s inquest has concluded with a verdict of suicide in the case of Matthew Arkle, 37, who died in April 2017 at Wedgwood House in Bury St Edmunds. The mental health unit is operated by Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.

Family’s concerns and missed warnings

Matthew was admitted to Wedgwood House in February 2017 after an overdose. His family and care coordinator reported a decline in his mental health, with worsening auditory hallucinations and increased smoking, which impacted his medication’s effectiveness.

Despite concerns expressed by his family and care coordinator, Matthew was granted an hour of unescorted leave on April 4th. His family had explicitly requested that he not be allowed unsupervised leave as they were away in London and feared he might feel abandoned. However, the inquest revealed that the nurse who approved the leave was unaware of these concerns.

Tragic discovery

When Matthew failed to return from his leave, the police were alerted. His mother was informed only after his absence had been reported. By the following day, the police upgraded his risk level to high. Tragically, on the morning of April 6th, Matthew’s body was discovered within the grounds of Wedgwood House, near the car park.

Questions remain unanswered

Tim Deeming, a Partner at Tees Law, represented Matthew’s family during the inquest. He highlighted the family’s concerns regarding several unanswered questions and systemic failures at the hospital.

“The Court heard about repeated failures, including poor record-keeping, inadequate communication, and the disregard of the family’s explicit requests. Matthew’s care coordinator, who had known him for years, had warned that his mood was at its lowest. Yet this vital information was not acted upon,” Deeming said.

He further criticised the hospital’s delayed response, noting that earlier police involvement may have increased the chances of finding Matthew alive.

Family’s heartfelt response

Matthew’s mother, Sheila, expressed her grief:

“We thought Matty was safe because he was in the hospital. He was let down by those entrusted with his care. If changes are made to prevent another family from going through this pain, Matty’s life will have left a legacy.”

Coroner’s recommendations

The coroner will submit a Prevention of Future Deaths report to ensure lessons are learned. The jury highlighted the following critical failures:

Inadequate record-keeping
Poor verbal and written communication
High stress levels and activity on the ward
Delayed response to Matthew’s disappearance
Inappropriate timing of his unescorted leave

Support and contact

Matthew’s family has requested privacy and asked that all media inquiries be directed to Tim Deeming at Tees Law: tim.deeming@teeslaw.com.

For free, confidential support regarding medical negligence, please reach out to legal or mental health professionals.

Delayed sepsis diagnosis in children: A Portsmouth family’s heartbreaking experience

Posted on 16 October 201828 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

The dangers of delayed sepsis diagnosis and treatment in children were tragically highlighted in the case of 19-month-old Lilly Reynolds from Portsmouth. In November 2017, Lilly’s family endured a harrowing three-day ordeal as her condition worsened, leading to a critical sepsis diagnosis that could have been prevented with earlier intervention.

The early signs and missed opportunities

Lilly, a previously healthy child with no history of medical issues, first developed a fever and showed signs of erratic breathing and low fluid intake. Her parents sought medical advice by calling 111 on November 4, 2017. The advice given was to visit an out-of-hours surgery, where a GP diagnosed a mild upper respiratory tract infection. Lilly was prescribed paracetamol and ibuprofen, with instructions to seek further medical help if her condition deteriorated.

Though there was slight improvement initially, Lilly’s condition quickly worsened by the following day. She developed a rash on her face, torso, and behind her ears, became lethargic, refused fluids, and had dry nappies. Concerned, her parents took her to the St Mary’s Hospital Walk-in Centre, where she was diagnosed with tonsillitis and prescribed antibiotics. The doctor, however, also consulted Portsmouth’s Queen Alexandra Hospital (QAH), where Lilly was advised to attend for further examination.

At QAH, a consultant ruled out the need for antibiotics, believing the infection was viral. Lilly was discharged later that evening with an open-access 72-hour follow-up, just in case her condition worsened.

The deterioration of Lilly’s condition

Unfortunately, within 24 hours, Lilly’s condition significantly deteriorated. Her parents returned to QAH, where after an initial examination, Lilly was left unattended in her pushchair for several hours. Despite her visible distress, there was little communication from the medical team. At around 2 a.m., a doctor administered a throat spray in an attempt to ease her discomfort, but shortly thereafter, Lilly was sent home with no clear diagnosis.

By midday, Lilly’s condition had worsened further. Her lips turned blue, and her oxygen levels dropped. This prompted a rapid intervention, and Lilly was rushed to the resuscitation room. Broad-spectrum antibiotics were administered, and an x-ray revealed pneumonia and a large buildup of fluid in her lungs. The specialist at Southampton General Hospital (SGH) advised immediate transfer.

A life-threatening situation

Upon arriving at SGH, Lilly’s condition was dire. Her parents were informed that Lilly may lose her leg due to the arterial line placed during her transfer, which had impaired blood flow to her foot. Lilly was later diagnosed with sepsis and pneumonia, and 650ml of fluid was drained from her lungs. The medical team acted swiftly to save her life.

The long-term impact

Though Lilly survived the ordeal, she has been left with lasting health concerns. Her mother, Danielle Barter, expressed the family’s distress: “The whole experience was extremely frightening, and we wouldn’t want any parents to go through what we did. Thankfully, Lilly has recovered from pneumonia and sepsis, but the prognosis for her foot and leg remains uncertain.”

The importance of early sepsis diagnosis

Lilly’s case underscores the importance of early diagnosis and treatment for sepsis. Sepsis, a life-threatening condition caused by infection, is responsible for more deaths in the UK than breast, bowel, and prostate cancer combined. Experts, including Janine Collier, Executive Partner and Head of the Medical Negligence Department at Tees, emphasise the importance of adhering to guidelines issued by the Sepsis Trust and NICE to help healthcare professionals recognise the signs of sepsis early and initiate the correct treatment.

Janine Collier added: “Sepsis is a medical emergency, and early recognition can make all the difference in preventing long-term complications or even death. We will be closely reviewing the facts of Lilly’s case to determine if her treatment was delayed unnecessarily.”

This case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of failing to act on early signs of sepsis, especially in vulnerable children. Early intervention not only saves lives but also maximises the chances of a full recovery without lasting complications.