Sarah O'Sullivan, Author at Tees Law

Investment in British film or a tax avoidance scheme?

Posted on 24 February 201726 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

HMRC’s crackdown on tax avoidance schemes: What you need to know

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has released a list of over 1,000 tax avoidance schemes it believes are deliberately designed to reduce tax liabilities. This move is part of a wider government effort to combat tax evasion and ensure fair contributions from all taxpayers.

Accelerated Payment Notices: What Are They?

Once granted new legal powers, expected to come into effect this week, HMRC will issue Accelerated Payment Notices (APNs). These notices require taxpayers to pay disputed taxes upfront, without waiting for a court ruling. HMRC has up to two years from the Finance Bill’s Royal Assent to issue APNs. It is estimated that approximately 33,000 individuals will receive these notices, resulting in billions of pounds in tax demands.

Recipients will have 90 days to pay, unless they formally dispute the validity of the notice. Refunds will only be issued if the court later rules in the taxpayer’s favor.

Understanding Scheme Reference Numbers (SRNs)

Each tax avoidance scheme on HMRC’s list has a designated Scheme Reference Number (SRN). Taxpayers must include the relevant SRN in their tax return. If your tax return contains an SRN, you may be subject to an accelerated payment demand.

Spotlight on Ingenious Film Partners 2

One high-profile scheme on HMRC’s list is Ingenious Film Partners 2. Marketed as a legitimate investment in British cinema, Ingenious Film Partners 2 reportedly generated excessive tax relief for its investors. While investors backed well-known films like X-Men: The Last Stand, Sunshine, and Hotel Rwanda, HMRC claims the scheme was structured primarily to reduce taxable income.

How the Scheme Worked:

Investors committed a minimum of £36,000.
Ingenious loaned an additional £64,000, increasing the total investment to £100,000.
Losses from the films were declared, resulting in approximately £90,000 in tax relief.
High-income taxpayers could offset these losses against their tax liabilities, securing quick tax refunds.

The legality of Ingenious Film Partners 2 is set to be reviewed by a tax tribunal in November.

Industry Response and Ongoing Disputes

Ingenious maintains that it genuinely supports the British film industry and claims its investment schemes have generated over £1 billion in taxable income. The company argues that the government’s actions are unfair and a blatant attempt to boost tax revenue. Investors have also expressed concerns about what they perceive as retrospective taxation.

With legal battles expected to intensify, taxpayers involved in similar schemes should seek legal advice and prepare for potential disputes with HMRC.

Final Thoughts

HMRC’s publication of tax avoidance schemes and the introduction of Accelerated Payment Notices signal a firm stance against tax evasion. Taxpayers are urged to ensure compliance and stay informed about any schemes they may be part of. For those impacted, legal guidance is recommended to navigate the complexities of tax law.

Making sense of compensation for fatal accidents

Posted on 24 February 201724 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Losing a loved one is hard but can be even harder if caused by an accident. Amid the grief and confusion, other issues can surface, such as financial worries. While it might feel awkward to seek early advice on compensation claims it could help you to manage.

The role of post-mortems

An unexpected death may trigger a post-mortem. This is a medical examination to determine the cause of the death. Families can appoint a medical professional to attend. If they are dissatisfied with the findings, they can ask the coroner to arrange an independent examination. After the post-mortem, the coroner usually issues an interim death certificate, which allows the family to deal with financial matters and to bury or cremate the deceased. A final death certificate will be issued only after the inquest has delivered a verdict.

The role of inquests

All suspicious or unexpected deaths are reported to the local coroner. In the case of an accident an inquest will usually be called. This is not to establish fault but to determine who has died, where, when and how. The coroner will invite relevant parties to give evidence. For a family this is an opportunity to understand what happened and to ask questions. Legal representation can be useful, whether you intend to claim compensation or not – but good advice will help you decide if it is appropriate. After hearing the evidence, the coroner gives a verdict. The possible verdicts at an inquest include:

death by natural causes
accidental death
suicide
unlawful killing
lawful killing
industrial disease
an open verdict where the evidence is insufficient or inconclusive.

The rules on who can claim compensation after a fatal accident

The law of compensation following a fatal accident is complicated and includes rules on who can claim and what they can claim. First it has to be established that the accident was caused by some other party’s negligence. The estate of the deceased person can then claim for funeral expenses, pain and suffering if death was not immediate, and more. Everybody who dies leaves an estate even if they had no assets or will. Any compensation is distributed to the beneficiaries of the will or those identified by the intestacy rules.

Certain family members can claim bereavement damages, fixed at £12,980 where the deceased died before 1 May 2020 and at £15,120 where the death occurred on or after that date. The family members who can claim are:

a spouse
civil partner
the mother of a child who was under 18 and had never married or, if they were married, both parents of a child who was under 18 and had never married
If the death occurred on or after 6 October 2020, a cohabiting partner of the deceased will also be entitled to claim the fixed bereavement damages award provided they were living with the deceased for at least 2 years prior to their death.

Other people, including spouses, former civil partners, grandparents and siblings can also bring a claim if they can prove they were dependent on the deceased or could reasonably have expected to benefit in future. Their claims might include loss of income or free services such as childcare and domestic help.

All claims have strict time limits, so it is always best to seek specialist legal advice as soon as possible. At Tees we have an experienced team of experts who specialise in fatal accidents and are able to advise on Wills, probate, and financial worries; as well as supporting families with specialist advice through the inquest process and fatal accident compensation claims.

Call us on 080o 015 1165 for a free initial chat, at no obligation, or fill out our enquiry form and a solicitor will get in touch.

Tees settles three birth injury cases, winning £400k for clients

Posted on 24 February 201718 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

In the last twelve months, Janine Collier, Partner at Tees in Cambridge has settled three medical negligence cases concerning a failure to identify and repair perineal tears resulting in injuries to the anal sphincter complex following childbirth.

What is a perineal tear?

It is not uncommon to sustain a tear between the vagina and the anus during childbirth. First degree tears are so small and superficial (involving just the skin and the tissue surrounding the vagina) that few, if any, stitches are required. Sometimes, the tear extends further, into the muscles beneath the skin (a second degree tear) and this will need to be stitched and closed layer by layer. Around 4% of women suffer a more serious tear which extends to or through the rectum (third and fourth degree tears).

Why should perineal tears be repaired at the time of delivery?

Healthcare professionals generally accept that tears are most important to be identified and repaired at the time of delivery to reduce the risk of infection, recto-vaginal fistulae and various rectal symptomology, including faecal and flatus incontinence.

Obstetricians now undergo a rigorous training programme to minimise the chances of clinicians missing these tears after delivery; to ensure a good quality repair; and to maximise the chances of good continence following primary repair.

What are the consequences of missing a third or fourth degree tear at delivery?

Unfortunately, however, sometimes, these tears are still missed and notwithstanding a delayed repair (sometimes primary, sometimes secondary), the women suffer persistent and debilitating rectal symptomology which may include incontinence of flatus, faecal incontinence, passive soiling etc. Understandably, this has a significant effect on their lifestyle, their relationships with friends, family and Partners and, in some cases, their ability to work.

These women may be entitled to compensation to help them adapt to their situation; to fund future treatment; and to compensate them for any financial losses arising from their injuries.

How can we help you?

If you suffered a third or fourth degree tear; if this was not identified and repaired at the time of delivery; and if you suffer continuing problems as a consequence, please contact our Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury expert, Janine Collier, for some initial advice. Janine is an expert in this field of medical negligence law. For an initial chat, you can call Janine on 01223 702303 or email janine.collier@teeslaw.com

Tees is proud to support The MASIC Foundation – a charity formed to support mothers with 3rd and 4th degree tears. Visit their website to find resources for support.

Free, confidential advice on medical negligence

£750,000 settlement after negligent knee replacement surgery

Posted on 26 January 201718 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Tees secured a £750,000 settlement for a client whose knee replacement surgery was performed negligently.

The incident

Our client [E] underwent total knee replacement (TKR) surgery in March 2011. Unfortunately, a surgical error resulted in his knee and foot becoming misaligned. As a result of the surgery, E could turn his right foot 180 degrees so that it pointed directly behind him.

To correct the malrotation, E went through two painful revision knee replacement operations. He now suffers from chronic pain in his back and leg, and cannot walk long distances. The pain left him unable to work, forcing him to retire from a much-loved career operating military drones.

Seeking legal support

E contacted Tees Law about making a claim against the NHS Trust responsible for his knee surgery. Our expert team of Medical Negligence solicitors took his case on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis.

Building the case

Between 2012 and 2016, our team reviewed E’s medical records, obtained evidence from an expert Orthopaedic Surgeon, and drafted various witness statements from E’s friends and family to support his claim.

The Trust declined to send any statements or expert evidence in return and refused to admit responsibility for E’s injuries until April 2016. Even after admitting responsibility, the Trust continued to dispute the value of the claim.

Settlement achieved

In September 2016, just two weeks before trial, the Trust accepted our settlement offer. The £750,000 settlement will allow E to buy and adapt a bungalow. Due to the chronic pain in his leg, it is difficult for him to climb stairs, and we are confident that the move to a single-storey property will have a very positive impact on his quality of life.

Our specialist financial advisers provided E with independent financial advice to ensure that the substantial settlement will continue to support him.

Reflections on the case

“This was hard-fought and complex litigation in which the Trust accepted responsibility for the damage extremely late,” said the Tees lawyer in charge of the case. “In the end, the defence proved to be without foundation, and I was delighted that E received full compensation for his injuries with the opportunity to come back to court if he requires further surgery, such as an amputation or fusion, in the future.”

Client feedback

“We can’t thank you enough for your efforts in this marathon operation. The meeting went very well with Tees financial adviser, and we want to pursue some of the suggestions proposed, so we are going to be with Tees for some time to come,” said E, following the news that the settlement was accepted.

Free, confidential advice on medical negligence

If you believe you have suffered as a result of medical negligence, contact Tees Law for free, confidential advice. Our experienced solicitors are here to help you understand your options and seek the compensation you deserve.

Using Collaboration to achieve a ‘clean-break’ divorce

Posted on 24 January 201718 May 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Collaboration is a route to resolution which, in the right circumstances, can help couples find an amicable solution when a relationship breaks down.

Background

Sue and James had been married for 23 years and have a 22 year old daughter and a 20 year old son.

For several years prior to instructing solicitors they had not been getting along and been living more and more separate lives under the same roof. They decided to separate and sell their jointly owned house which was too large for either of them with a view to going their separate ways.

Problems Faced

The overall assets, including pensions and James’ company interests totalled approximately £2 million. Sue had worked part-time during the marriage in an administrative position but had no recent skills.

Our Solution

Sue also went to see a collaborative lawyer and both were assessed as being suitable to be accepted as collaborative clients. They held a good deal of mutual respect for one another despite no longer wishing to remain together. Neither had an ‘axe to grind’ but they needed clarity and legal guidance and advice due to the complexity of the situation.

Over a series of 6 meetings (4-way meetings), we assisted Sue and James identify their assets and financial circumstances and needs. This included:

An independent company valuation was obtained early on through agreement and an expert jointly appointed
A full report as to pension sharing and how equality of income might be achieved
Looking at monthly budgets and needs
Looking at James’ and Sue’s housing requirements

Outcome

To conclude, a mutually agreed settlement was arrived at which took into account James’ wish to maintain autonomy over the significant company assets without claim from Sue. Sue took a higher amount from the non-company assets (house and savings) to provide her with enough to buy a new home with a fund sufficient to enable the clean-break on income which both wanted.

Sue and James agreed a ‘pension sharing order’ which was based on both having broadly similar income at retirement.

During the process, the ‘reason’ for the divorce was also agreed within the face to face sessions and papers drafted in between sessions. The two collaborative lawyers were also mindful throughout as to the potential need for counselling and this was discussed with Sue and James, who separately agreed this may assist them. By adopting this approach, it assisted them to stay focussed on the issues and facts, rather than the meetings becoming emotionally too charged.

If you want a lawyer to take a closer look at your situation, our family and divorce lawyers are based in: