Harbottle & Lewis advises Soho Studios Entertainment on its strategic investment from Asylum Entertainment

Harbottle & Lewis has advised Soho Studios Entertainment, the production company led by co-founder and chief creative officer Ian Lamarra alongside fellow co-founding directors Paul Sandler and Francis Ridley, on its strategic investment from Endeavour-backed Asylum.

Harbottle has advised Soho Studios Entertainment since it was founded in 2022. Since then it has co-produced Marcel Theroux’s two-part true-crime series The Playboy Bunny Murder for ITV and is in production on Tim’s Listening Party, a podcast featuring Tim Burgess. Asylum’s investment will enable the company to accelerate its growth on both sides of the Atlantic.

On working with Harbottle & Lewis, Ian Lamarra said “As a fledgling UK production company looking to partner with a big established US one, we needed the very best lawyers and certainly had that with Colin, Ed and the whole team at Harbottles”.

Commenting on the deal, Ed Lane said “It is wonderful to have advised Ian, Paul, Francis and the team at Soho Studios from the very beginning and through this huge milestone – that it has arrived so quickly for them is a testament to their talent and drive.”

The Harbottle team advised Soho Studios Entertainment on all aspects of the transaction and was led by Colin Howes and Managing Associate Ed Lane with support from trainee solicitor Julika Schmidt. Employment Managing Associate Sarah Verrecchia advised in relation to employment aspects of the deal.

Harbottle & Lewis ranks 7th in RollOnFriday’s Best Law Firms to Work At 2024

We are delighted to have been ranked in 7th place in RollOnFriday’s Best Law Firms to Work At 2024. It is the first time we have been featured in this list and are proud to have been recognised for the collaborative, stimulating and supportive environment we provide for our people.

The rankings, announced today, aim to provide a definitive guide to the most pleasant working environments in UK law. In order to rank the 72 featured law firms, RollOnFriday sought feedback from over eight thousand people working in private practice who rated their firm’s pay, career development, management, culture, work/life balance and office.

Please click here to see the results in full. Over the coming weeks, RollOnFriday will publish a breakdown of their results for each category.

Family Mediation Week 2024

22 to 26 January 2024 marks Family Mediation Week 2024, an annual event run by the Family Mediation Council (“FMC”) devoted to raising awareness of mediation and the ways in which it can help and benefit separating couples and their families.

Throughout the week, the FMC publishes resources and information about mediation and hosts events for the public, lawyers, other professionals working with separating families, and mediators.

Mediation is one of a number of different processes (referred to collectively as ‘Non-Court Dispute Resolution’ (“NCDR”)) which can assist separating couples with resolving financial or children-related issues arising from the breakdown of a relationship, if they wish to avoid the stress and expense of court proceedings. Mediation typically involves a trained professional – the mediator – assisting the separating couple in negotiating an agreement by exploring solutions in a structured, consensual manner. The process is ‘without prejudice’, meaning that if the separating couple cannot reach an agreement and end up embarking on court proceedings afterwards, their discussions in mediation cannot be referred to in court. Mediators are independent and impartial and do not provide legal advice. Separating couples can therefore choose to have their respective solicitors ready to advise as and when needed (or even attend the mediation with them).

The benefits of mediation 

If mediation is appropriate, it can have significant benefits:

  1. Reduced costs;
  2. Reduced conflict, which will help maintain a positive co-parenting relationship post-separation;
  3. A forum in which the separating couple can listen to one another and reach a tailor-made agreement which suits their family’s needs and has the flexibility to go beyond what a court would order; and
  4. Retaining control over the outcome, instead of giving up control to a judge.

It is important to note that mediation will be more constructive where there is trust and respect between the separating couple and a mutual willingness to engage in the process and make compromises where it is reasonable to do so. Where finances are being discussed, the first important step is for both to have a clear understanding of the financial landscape, often by agreeing a schedule of assets, liabilities and income or exchanging financial disclosure on a voluntary basis in advance of mediation. A further cost-saving benefit of mediation is that, unlike in court proceedings where both parties are required to provide ‘full and frank’ financial disclosure, in mediation, the parties are able to agree on the extent of the disclosure to be provided and the format for producing this.

Privacy and confidentiality 

One particular consideration for separating couples to have in mind, when exploring NCDR such as mediation as opposed to court proceedings, is privacy. While reporters have previously been able to attend family cases, they have been subject to rigorous restrictions on what they can report.  However, there is a new push by judges to increase transparency in the family courts – and to extend the scope of what can be publicly reported. With the extension of the Transparency Implementation Group Reporting Pilot (“the transparency pilot”) at the end of January 2024, it is anticipated that there will be increased reporting on family cases. The transparency pilot will take place in 16 courts and introduces the presumption that accredited media and legal bloggers are allowed to report on what they see and hear during family court cases, albeit this is subject to strict rules about anonymity and confidentiality.  However, parties often remained concerned that it may be possible for close friends/family members to identify them, based on what is reported.

This is likely to be a particularly significant concern for high-profile individuals, but it will also worry anyone who wants their family dispute to remain completely private. In contrast to the push for transparency in family court cases, NCDR is completely private. With NCDR, it is possible that the press will never find out any details about the family dispute.

There are also the additional costs to think about. The presumption that the press can report on what they see and hear in court (and that they may receive detailed documents with substantial information about the separating couple, their family and the proceedings) is likely to lead to additional work for legal teams in cases where the parties are concerned about reporting. The court will grant what is called a Transparency Order which ordinarily will permit reporting subject to restrictions to preserve anonymity and confidentiality. If a party or both parties do not agree to the court making the standard Transparency Order, they may have to make additional applications to try to further restrict reporting. Extra legal fees will be incurred where steps need to be taken to avoid or minimise what can be reported following a family court hearing.

A push for more separating couples to mediate 

Typically, couples are only able to embark on mediation if both parties agree to do so. However, whilst previously often overlooked by many, there is now a marked increase in couples opting for methods of NCDR such as mediation.

The Family Procedure (Amendments No. 2) Rules 2023/1324 will come into force in April 2024. This will contain significant updates in relation to NCDR, including a new requirement for parties in financial and children proceedings to complete a form setting out their views on using NCDR to resolve issues.

The court will also be able to adjourn (delay) the proceedings to enable NCDR to take place regardless of whether the parties have agreed to such an adjournment. This was recommended by Mr Justice Mostyn in the case of Mann v Mann [2014] 2 FLR 928: previously, the parties had to agree to such an adjournment. At present, the court can only adjourn the proceedings to enable the parties to consider using NCDR (as opposed to allowing NCDR to take place) without their agreement, as was ordered in WL v HL [2021] EWFC B10.

Recently, the Court of Appeal held in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2023] EWCA 1416 that in civil proceedings, the courts can order parties to engage in NCDR. In family proceedings, the courts are currently only able to encourage separating couples to do so, so family lawyers will have to wait to see whether Churchill will lead to the family courts being permitted to compel separating couples to engage in NCDR.

Chris Moorcroft named in 2024 eprivateclient 50 Most Influential

We are delighted to announce that Chris Moorcroft has been named as one of the 2024 eprivateclient 50 Most Influential.

This list identifies, recognises and promotes the leading UK and global offshore private client practitioners at the forefront of the profession today. Those listed are considered the leaders when it comes to providing the best possible advice and highest quality service for clients and driving innovation in the way the needs of wealthy individuals are met.

The 50 individuals listed have been selected by PAM Insight’s judges who considered the achievements, promotions and progress all potential candidates made in the past 12 months. As well as this judging process, an open call for nominations was made to eprivateclient readers and names put forward by this process were also considered.

You can see the full listing here: https://www.paminsight.com/epc/article/exclusive-2024-eprivateclient-50-most-influential-revealed 

Emma Wright scoops two awards at the Forward Ladies Leadership Summit and Awards 2023

We are thrilled to share the news that partner Emma Wright picked up two awards at the Forward Ladies Leadership Summit and Awards 2023. Emma was named Transformational Leader of the Year and overall Business Woman of the Year at the event which took place at the Londoner in Leicester Square on Friday.

The award of Transformational Leader of the Year is for women who are working in a leadership role and have driven their business forward with exceptional results, whilst mentoring those around them and engaging with the community. The Business Woman of the Year award is an additional category to recognise and celebrate exceptional achievement by one of the finalists.

The Forward Ladies Leadership Summit and Awards honours the impact of female leadership, innovation and entrepreneurism in business and showcases the achievements of women breaking barriers across the public and private sectors, giving them the recognition and visibility they deserve in order to inspire the next generation of leaders. The event looks to celebrate women who are changing lives and transforming the UK’s businesses, communities and industries.

This further recognition for Emma follows the news that she was awarded the Global Goals Impact Award at the CogX Awards 2023 and was once again listed in Computer Weekly’s Top 20 Most Influential Women in UK Tech 2023.

Yvonne Gallagher’s comments on Supreme Court’s decision on Deliveroo riders receives widespread coverage

Following the news today that the Supreme Court has upheld the earlier decision of the High Court and Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal by the Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) in its legal battle against Deliveroo, partner Yvonne Gallagher’s comments on the case and its wider implications have received widespread coverage in a number of publications.

Yvonne said: “The decision would seem to bring to an end any argument that Deliveroo riders are “workers” for the purposes of any UK employment protection legislation, since the term is defined in a broadly consistent way across a number of statutory provisions.

The Supreme Court took into account the fact that the substitution clause was in fact used by riders and this meant that they could not be regarded as workers. It’s important to note that simply including such a clause will not always preclude worker status. The courts can ignore terms which they consider to be shams which do not reflect the reality of the working relationship. It won’t always be possible to provide for an unfettered right to substitute another person to do the work – for example where DBS or other regulatory checks are needed by riders.

IWGB’s aim had been to compel Deliveroo to negotiate collectively on its basic terms such as pay, hours and holiday entitlement and this right would have undoubtedly given riders far greater negotiating power.

It would have also considerably enhanced IWGB’s power and reach within the so called “gig economy” where individuals are treated as self-employed and will typically work independently, many for relatively short periods of time, and so in practice lack negotiating strength and organisation against a big company. Deliveroo will doubtless be pleased with this outcome.  

More broadly, the case upholds the fact that national governments have considerable flexibility in defining the groups of employees and workers to whom statutory protections apply, and in many cases, the use of substitution clauses means that gig workers will not attract such rights.

This is a fundamentally important ruling for the gig economy, not just for Deliveroo. In establishing that the substitution clause works as a proof that riders cannot be considered workers, the Supreme Court ruling may give rise to other gig economy companies following the Deliveroo employment approach – where it fits their commercial model.”

Yvonne’s commentary has been quoted in numerous publications including the Evening Standard, the FT, Bloomberg, Personnel Today, The Guardian, Business Matters, Yahoo Finance, MSN and The Irish Times.