The main battle, in England especially, was between the Conservatives and Labour, with the Scottish National Party fighting for more seats in Scotland.

With the Tories wanting to ‘get Brexit done’ and Labour fighting for another referendum, each parties’ manifesto tore voters apart, leaving many more confused and others itching to just, well, get Brexit done.

Nonetheless, 12 December saw the polling stations open and as the opinion and the exit poll predicted, the election resulted in a Conservative win with a landslide majority of 80 seats (their largest majority since 1987), with the party making a net gain of 48 seats and winning 43.6% of the vote (the highest percentage by any party since 1979).^[2] The Labour Party, much to their disappointment, performed poorly, making a net loss of 60 seats while winning 32.1% of the vote.^[

So, the results are in…what next? What are people’s main concern now the decision has been made and what changes should we expect in 2020? Below, we speak to a variety of experts in different industries that outline what could change and what concerns them about the Tories’ manifesto.

First things first: Brexit & Trade

Speaking to Niels Turfboer, Managing Director at Spotcap, he says: “The Conservative majority general election outcome raises expectations for political and economic uncertainty to come to an end. The new government now have what they need to pivot from stalemate to action and move forward with giving the UK some much needed momentum.”

At least some postponed investment decisions in areas where political risk was high (e.g. infrastructure) will now go ahead.

“First in line is the Brexit question, and there are several options on the table: exiting on the existing deal, exiting on no deal or renegotiation in some way. In all scenarios continued support of the business community should be a priority. The UK is one of the best places in the world to start, run and grow a business. This status should be protected as it benefits all through economic growth, job creation and prosperity."

Touching on trade, Ivan Sedgwick, Investment Director at LGB & Co said that, “The relief rally on the back of the election result may last through to early next year, the test will come when trade talks with the EU restart. We can assume that at least some of the underweight in the UK taken by international funds will reverse, which will create follow through demand. However these decisions don't happen overnight, but again until the trade situation is resolved they will remain wary, and it won't be a 180° reversal. At least some postponed investment decisions in areas where political risk was high (e.g. infrastructure) will now go ahead. So overall a positive save for pure foreign currency earners with sterling cost bases.”

We do now need greater clarity from the newly elected Conservative Party on the UK’s immigration policy.

‘Greater clarity on the UK’s immigration policy is now needed’

Boris Johnson’s proposed points-based immigration system has come under considerable scrutiny from business lobby groups for lacking detail and overlooking issues of worker shortage. With many businesses feeling left in the dark, some believe that a new points-based system would probably be met with some contention within UK businesses who do utilise foreign nationals. It is commonly overlooked that the Home Office began reducing the previous Points Based Systems due to its complexity. Sponsors and licence holders had quite an undertaking previously to ensure they complied with the system.

We heard from Jonathan Beech, Managing Director of immigration law firm Migrate UK, when it was confirmed that the Conservative Party has won the UK General Election and what this now means for the UK immigration system.

“We do now need greater clarity from the newly elected Conservative Party on the UK’s immigration policy. Back in September, the Conservative home secretary asked the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to review how an Australian-style points-based (PBS) immigration system could be introduced in Britain to strengthen the UK labour market. But we’re still no clearer on how this new system would work in practice in the UK, and how this fits with the MAC’s much anticipated white paper review into minimum salary thresholds.”

There may be a manor of implications for many employers, especially in sectors employing a high portion of EU nationals, such as hospitality, healthcare, food production, retail and construction and that if the migration restrictions are poorly implemented without due understanding of the needs of unskilled or low-skilled industries they could have a negative impact on the country’s economy.

“The new immigration system is also meant to be ‘fairer and more compassionate’, although the Conservative’s election manifesto stated that the immigration health surcharge will increase to as much as £800 per person per year, implying further increases from the £625 previously announced”, says Jonathan.

The proposed changes will have an effect on the working relationship and should be kept in mind by workforce planners and HR strategists.

He expands by explaining how EU nationals’ access to benefits and housing will also be limited in line with non-EU migrants, while there has been much criticism of the new EU Settlement Scheme which was ignored by the Conservative Party’s election manifesto.  The settlement application system will turn legally residing EU citizens into “illegal immigrants” if they do not apply successfully by the 31^st December 2020 deadline.

“The new Conservative Government should look to introduce a declaratory registration system through an Act of Parliament which would confer automatic rights to EU citizens currently residing in the UK to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit. Hopefully this is something the Conservative Party will now consider so we don’t see scenarios similar to those with the Windrush scandal.”

A spokesperson at Excello Law stated that as a “transitional measure “people from “low-risk countries” in Europe and further afield will be able to come to the UK, without a job offer, and seek work for up to a year. But will the government’s introduction of migration restrictions negatively impact employers seeking lower-skilled migrants, as they will no longer be able to come to the UK and settle permanently? This is concerning some, as the UK labour market is already tight and facing challenges with its ageing population.

What's next for Employers, Employees and Workers after the General Election Result?

Whilst not as “radical” as the Labour manifesto, there were plenty of promises contained within the Conservative Manifesto. The proposed changes will have an effect on the working relationship and should be kept in mind by workforce planners and HR strategists. Speaking to David Bradley, Chairman and Head of Employment Law at Ramsdens Solicitors, he lists out a range of points which may impact employers:

• Immigration – as we touched on above, the introduction of a points-based system is likely to cause anxiety for any employer seeking to recruit. There is a general view that the market may tighten but we will have to wait and see.
• IR35 – there is a promise to review the status of self-employed people with a desire to close further what many see as a loophole in the tax system. A general move towards recognisable employment will go on arguably bringing greater stability to work relationship but more importantly for government more predictable tax receipts.
• The right for employees to request a more predictable contract – this is an extension of the Good Work review and clearly aimed at the gig economy – it will be interesting to see how this manifests itself and how the law will deal with competing interests where some workers enjoy flexibility and how those seeking greater predictability will be protected particularly when compared to the more “flexible” grouping particularly when it comes to recruitment choices.
• Promises of greater flexibility in working patterns and time off in particular situations. There is a suggestion that flexible working may be set as a default right in certain circumstances. This is likely to stretch those with resourcing and workforce planning but as with every progressive introduction on the flexibility agenda employers will cope. There is more than a hint that employees working fewer hours are more productive in those reduced hours generating cost savings for employers.
• The creation of a single enforcement body in relation to the enforcement of employment and worker related rights – this would be welcomed by many. Our current system with jurisdiction spanning Employment Tribunals, County Court, High Court and the Central Arbitration Committee can be confusing and on occasions multiplies the number of contested actions. It will be interesting to see the scope of this.
• Some restriction on Industrial action – as part of the transport policy it is promised that during Strikes there will be a minimum service requirement on the railways bringing this sector closer to the rules relating to emergency services. Expect some tension and contested court cases in this area.

“There is more change that one might have expected and as ever it will be the detail that will have to be examined to assess the impact”, warns David.

The destination countries that saw the biggest increase in job searches between Friday the 6th and Friday the 13th were: Canada (111%), Ireland (44%), Italy (32%), Germany (28%), Australia (20%) and Poland (20%).

Searches for jobs abroad surge 25% after general election

The election results had a more direct impact on employment too. Searches for foreign jobs surged 25% immediately after the exit poll was published, according to job site, Indeed.

On Friday, 13th December, as jobseekers digested the final election results, searches for jobs outside the UK were 25% higher than on the prior Friday, calculated as a share of all searches by Indeed users with a UK IP address.

The destination countries that saw the biggest increase in job searches between Friday the 6th and Friday the 13th were: Canada (111%), Ireland (44%), Italy (32%), Germany (28%), Australia (20%) and Poland (20%). Searches for jobs abroad peaked at approximately 4am when the Conservatives were on course to secure their overall majority.

The findings suggest jobseeker behaviour can be quickly influenced by political events. A previous study by Indeed showed UK-based jobseekers immediately looked for work abroad after the EU referendum result in 2016. Searches from the UK to the rest of the world were 73% higher at their peak on 24 June - the day after the vote - than the average in the days before the results were announced.

Pawel Adrjan, an economist at global job site Indeed, said: "It seems UK-based jobseekers were paying close attention to the election result not just for news about their local candidates but to help inform career choices, too.

While the UK was defined by a year of political and economic instability due to Brexit, the hiring market performed better than anticipated.

“The surge in searches for jobs abroad is a significant one and follows a pattern of jumps in jobseeker interest in working abroad after political events. Our data also showed elevated searches for jobs abroad following the referendum result, triggering Article 50 and now seemingly edging closer to leaving the European Union.

“Interestingly, the countries that saw the biggest increases were Canada and Ireland, English-speaking countries with strong ties to the UK. However, there were also large rises in searches for jobs in other European countries which suggests foreign workers in the UK could be looking to work on the continent or could be returning home.

“These non-UK citizens could also be concerned about their immigration status after the Brexit transition period due to end in December 2020. Overall, these trends are concerning for public and private-sector employers struggling to find hires in today’s tight labour market."

Job vacancies on the rise as business confidence returns

Chris Hickey, UK CEO at Robert Walters summarised and commented on all that occurred in 2019:

“While the UK was defined by a year of political and economic instability due to Brexit, the hiring market performed better than anticipated.

“There were pockets of hiring activity within sectors that received notable VC funding such as technology and FinTech. Other areas of positive recruitment in 2019 were property, professional services and specific areas within banking such as hedge funds performed better than anticipated.”

According to Robert Walters data, professional job vacancies increased by 17% in 2019 when compared with the previous year – with the most notable hiring activity taking place in Birmingham (+26%), Belfast (25%), Manchester (+24%), Glasgow (+23%), and Nottingham (+23%).

What the data in the Robert Walters salary survey highlights is that the UK will continue to be a global hub for professional services

In most cases, regions outside of London had almost double the job growth than the capital.

Chris comments: “The nearshoring of roles – in particular back-office and operations – to other regions in the UK (namely the Midlands and North West) is something that has been on the agenda for some time and in fact, is not Brexit related, but is a decision based on cost-saving. From a London perspective, nearshoring has had more of a significant impact on hiring activity than Brexit.

“What the data in the Robert Walters salary survey highlights is that the UK will continue to be a global hub for professional services – from legal, HR, accounting, marketing, tech and business support – the UK continues to have some of the best-skilled talent in the world.”

On the future of Banking & Financial Services in London, Chris comments:

“The big banks notably had some hiring freezes in 2018 through to 2019. Whilst Brexit and job relocation no doubt played its part in the decline in job vacancies, the impact of restructuring and technical automation should be taken into account when building a true picture of the UK as the leading contender as the global financial services hub.

“London represented over a third (37%) of job vacancies in the banking sector for the first half of 2019 – the highest in Europe above Warsaw (22%), Zurich (19%), Paris (12%), Dublin (5%), and Frankfurt (4%).

“Futureproofing is key and nowhere is this more apparent than in the UK financial services sector where technology is now the fastest growing function – in fact job growth in IT banking roles has increased by 150% in the last five years.”

Industries to watch in 2020

With the outcome of the General Election now declared and Brexit at the centre of plans for 2020, we anticipate that there will be greater opportunities amongst emerging industries, disruptors and SMEs. Those sectors receiving notable VC funding will be ones to watch.

“It’s businesses in these categories that will drive the hiring agenda by recruiting agile, tech-proficient and commercially savvy professionals who have their finger on the pulse of developing markets”, explains Chris.

A number of startups in the UK have emerged at the forefront of agricultural technology – with the industry accounting for £14.3 billion in turnover and more than half a million jobs in the UK right now.

1. EdTech

Education technology - EdTech - is one of the UK's fastest growing sectors, growing at 22% year-on-year and worth an estimated £170 million to the UK economy in exports alone.

The UK EdTech market is expected to reach £3.4bn by 2021 (out of a total of £100bn UK education market) and is home to more than 1,200 EdTech companies - approximately a quarter of the total number in Europe.

With spending and funding rife, the industry shows no signs of slowing down. In the UK alone schools are spending close to £900 million on EdTech each year to leverage learning, and the education secretary has pledged a further £10million to support innovation. Coupled with this, the UK ranks number one in EdTech venture capital funding in Europe – receiving more than a third (34%) of total investment to the continent.

Tom Chambers, Senior Manager - Technology at Robert Walters comments: “For the last few years the FinTech sector has been making significant noise in the recruitment market – with a 61% increase in job creation in 2019. What’s interesting is that EdTech has now reached the same number of digital companies as financial technology (FinTech) and so I will expect to see a lot of competition between companies for top talent in 2020, which will naturally boost salaries and workplace benefits for anyone working in these sectors.”

2. Agritech

A number of startups in the UK have emerged at the forefront of agricultural technology – with the industry accounting for £14.3 billion in turnover and more than half a million jobs in the UK right now.

The value is not surprising given over 70% of land in the UK is used for agriculture - representing over 7% of Europe’s total agriculture market.

The UK government has placed an emphasis on the development and adoption of agriculture technologies to increase the productivity of agriculture globally against a backdrop of decreasing land availability and available labour. At the centre of the government’s Agri-Tech strategy is a £90m investment into four Agri-Tech centres in the UK.

Even though Boris Johnson will now push on with his plans to ‘get Brexit done’, the Government’s proposed ‘Green Brexit’ is an aspect Ward Hadaway’s planning team is advising developers to start preparing for.

Tom states: “The UK is no stranger to Agritech and is home to many farmers who already integrate technology into their work with excellent results.

“Therefore it is not surprising to see the UK fast becoming a destination for tech companies to establish their businesses, not least because of our history of being a world leader in plant and animal science and being home to some of the most established agricultural research institutions in the world – 20% of the UK workforce is in science and so talent is not an issue.

“Secondly, the UK proves an ideal environment for start-ups with access to one of the world’s leading venture capital industries and a major global financial centre. Venture capital investment in the UK is booming, with British tech firms attracting more venture capital funding than any other European country.”

3.FinTech

According to the Robert Waters report: The UK FinTech Revolution – in 2020 London will be home to just as many FinTech ‘unicorns’ (companies worth more than $1bn) as current global leader San Francisco. Of the 29 FinTech unicorns worldwide - nine are in San Francisco, while seven are housed in the UK.

E-money firms (as defined by the FCA) grew by 51% last year, and it is predicted that by 2020 over half of payment service providers in the UK will be digital-only.

Over a third (39%) of European venture capital funding goes to London FinTechs - almost double any other city in Europe; Berlin (21%), Paris (18%), Stockholm (5%), Barcelona (4%), Amsterdam (4%), Zurich (3%), Copenhagen (2%) and Dublin (2%).

Chris adds: “When spotlighting the UK’s leading FinTech unicorns, the income growth they have achieved over the past twelve months is phenomenal - increasing from a combined £77.1m to £177.6m revenue. That’s a revenue growth of 130% in just one year.”

Such is the growth of the industry, that in 2019 job creation within the FinTech space increased by 61% - making it the fastest growing sector in the London economy.

And the benefits were not just felt in the capital, last year the FinTech boom created an 18% uplift in job creation in regions outside of London.  To download a copy of the Robert Walters UK Salary Survey 2020 click here.

Developers advised to prepare for Green Brexit

Like Brexit, there is a still a lot of uncertainty and until more legislation is available, we are unsure exactly how this will unfold but developers, landowners and local authorities can’t ignore these proposals.

Even though Boris Johnson will now push on with his plans to ‘get Brexit done’, the Government’s proposed ‘Green Brexit’ is an aspect Ward Hadaway’s planning team is advising developers to start preparing for.

Although the Environment Bill is still a while off becoming law, developers up and down the country should already be thinking about the implications the proposed mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of 10% will have on future developments.

That’s the advice given to clients of Ward Hadaway after the Government announced plans that it will make BNG mandatory for every site and currently, every type of planning permission to incentivise the enhancement of habitats on-site or locally.

Although the proposals require a 10% BNG, the Government has talked about introducing some exemptions for permitted developments and householder applications as well as an exemption for certain brownfield and small sites, but those exemptions will be included in the secondary legislation that is not yet available. The Government has been clear that BNG will not apply in the same way to nationally significant infrastructure projects although other proposals for net gain are being explored.

Long-term protection of habitats is encouraged as any works a developer proposes to undertake to increase the biodiversity value may only be taken into account if maintenance for a minimum of 30 years has been secured. If 10% of BNG can’t be achieved by on-site improvements, there are opportunities for off-site improvements through financial contributions in a section 106 Agreement or the purchasing of ‘biodiversity credits.’

As is currently the position, changes to biodiversity are to be measured by The Defra Biodiversity Metric which considers habitat type, condition and size of habitat, strategic significance and connectivity and is translated by the metric into a number of biodiversity units. Interpretation of the updated Biodiversity Metric is likely to require the involvement of a specialist ecologist.

[ymal]

For most, the concept of BNG will not be new, however, its application has generally been confined to sites with high biodiversity value. The revised approach may be seen by developers and landowners as another constraint to development and there may be concerns within the industry that these plans may further delay the start of projects on site.

The implications for developers are more so for those sites with marginal viability while the impact for landowners may be greater as they are likely to receive a diminished land value due to increased planning/section 106 costs.

There are also resource implications for local planning authorities as Section 88 and schedule 15 of the draft Bill states that ‘development may not begin unless’, the developer has submitted a biodiversity gain plan and the local planning authority has approved the plan.

Melissa Flynn, an associate in Ward Hadaway’s Built Environment team, said: “There is expected to be a two-year transition period before the mandatory BNG comes into effect but we are already advising our developer clients to start factoring in the potential impact and costs of the biodiversity net gain moving forward, particularly where long term options are being negotiated.

“Consultation earlier this year also stated that although 10% will be mandatory, the Government encourages developers to voluntarily, wherever possible, go further to meet the needs of local planning policies.

“Like Brexit, there is a still a lot of uncertainty and until more legislation is available, we are unsure exactly how this will unfold but developers, landowners and local authorities can’t ignore these proposals.”

It seems there is a lot we are anticipating for in 2020 and Boris Johnson has a lot to be working on. What the Government will change in the next year and throughout the five years of Boris’ reign as Prime Minister, is something we can only sit and wait for.

Largely an act of self-preservation during what was considered an unstable minority government, this legislation was designed to prevent the random collapse of government.

But it seems as the days of a majority government are behind us, so is the effectiveness of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. The result? Three elections in four years.  

With all these elections you would be forgiven for thinking that we are a shining beacon of democracy. But is that actually true? Below Stuart Snape, Managing Partner at Graham Coffey & Co. Solicitors, provides some insight into the future prospects of UK democracy.

For democracy to be effective you have to accept that the words of Abraham Lincoln, “a government of the people, by the people and for the people”, still hold true. That when the people vote for their government, they in return, will represent them. There is no question that during the lead up to an election the various political parties are forced to beg the people for their vote. But once they are elected, are the policies that follow truly those “for the people”?

The easiest way to assess the value and effectiveness of any democracy is to exclude the possibility that anybody other than “the people” can influence government policy. And here is where our democracy begins to crumble into a 'shamocracy'.

There are two huge influences on policy that simply cannot be ignored.  How political parties are funded and how and why there exists a platform for “lobbyists”.

When the wealth of a party dictates the power of their campaigns it is inevitable that those who willingly donate huge sums of money will have influence over policy. It’s just common sense.

Sure the rules require donations to be declared, but is this really anything other than attempting to hide the influence in plain sight?

[ymal]

Spotlight on the legal sector

Let’s look at the legal sector, which has been subject to aggressive reforms over the last nine years of this current government.  With widespread reform as recently as 2013, there are yet more reforms  underway aiming to ensure that an injured motorist who suffers an injury from which they may not recover for years will not be entitled to recover any legal fees, should they chose to seek help from a lawyer. The insurer, of course, will be free to instruct their legal team creating an immediate imbalance in power between the injured party and the insurer.  This particular element of the reform stands alongside others which will have the effect of denying injured motorists the right to fair compensation.

So what has driven the reform? Let's look at who stands to benefit. The government has said that by reducing the payments of compensation by insurers we will all enjoy reduced insurance premiums. Sadly, the very same declaration was made after each and every prior reform and I for one have not seen any drop in my insurance premium. In fact, there is no obligation on the insurer to pass on these savings.

The last major reform took place in 2013 and it will not come as a surprise to find that subsequently insurers have announced record pre-tax profits.

So can we join the dots?  Well, prior to the 2013 reforms the conservative party saw a huge increase in donations from insurance firms to the tune of almost £5million.

The architect of those 2103 reforms was the Secretary of State, Mr Chris Grayling. You may not be surprised to hear that the founder of Direct Line gave Mr Grayling a huge £71k to run his office.

Look to Brexit

And let us consider Brexit. Nobody really wants to, but it is impossible to ignore and in truth will probably herald one of the most wide-ranging upheavals of our legal system in a generation.

Boris Johnson’s campaign manager for the leadership election, James Wharton, was an employee of the lobbying giant Hume Brophy. His client’s including the hedge fund industry, sugar giant Tate and Lyle and others all stand to benefit from a deregulated Britain.

This is the lobbying firm with whom another pro-Brexit cabinet minister Esther McVey  was employed as a senior consultant.

Our current Home Secretary Priti Patel was herself a former lobbyist for Weber Shandwick, whose client’s included British American Tobacco.

Of course, the lobbyists will never overtly drive policy, but they will combine their ability to fund huge media campaigns and their ability to reach into the very depths of government to achieve their aims.

Now there will be many reading this who will claim that such assertions are nothing more that conspiracy theories, but are we really suggesting that in a world where wealth and power go hand in hand a democracy can truly exist  “of the people, by the people and for the people”?

The truth is that it doesn’t matter whether it happens or not. The very fact that it is possible is enough to damage our fragile hold on democracy.

Can it be fixed? Of course but to get there it may require the turkeys voting for Christmas.

• Taxpayer funded elections – no outside donations or funding;
• A ban on lobbying;
• Greater restriction on additional roles held by MP’s outside politics;
• Proportional representation – almost all of the scope for influence comes from our current voting system which craves deliverance of a majority government. Under proportional representation minority governments will be forced to work across the party divide and will be less able to deliver or direct policy at the behest of outside interests.

Your IP is your business. Here Karen Holden, Founder, and Christine Zembrzuski, IP specialist at A City Law Firm, suggest being proactive, not reactive.

EU REGISTERED TRADE MARKS AND COMMUNITY DESIGNS

EU registered trade marks and designs will remain valid in the remaining 27 EU member states. All EU registered trade marks or registered community designs will have a new UK equivalent trade mark or design granted when Brexit is implemented.   The new UK trade mark or design will have the same effect as if the trade mark or design was registered under UK law.  Therefore, the new UK trade mark or design will be subject to a separate UK renewal date and renewal fee and, as a new distinct IP right, it may be assigned and licensed separately from the current EU trade mark or community design.

On the date that we exit the EU, if your business has a pending EU trade mark application or community design application, for 9 months (from the date of exit) you will be able to refile a UK trade mark  or design application, retaining the original date from when you filed the EU application.  The UKIPO will acknowledge the EU filing date and any claim to earlier priority.  However, you would need to pay the applicable UKIPO fees for the refiled UK trade mark or design.  Please note, you will still be able to apply for an EU trade mark or community design after Brexit.

ACTION REQUIRED – Ensure that your UK trade mark or design is refiled within 9 months of the exit date.

UNREGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGNS

The protection afforded to unregistered design rights, which arises automatically once the design has been recorded or an article has been produced, differs between the UK and EU.

In the UK, the unregistered design protects the shape or configuration of the whole/part of an article, whereas, the EU unregistered design extends the protection to encompass the appearance (surface decoration) of the whole/part of the product.  Whilst the EU unregistered design protection is wider in its application, the scope of the protection is limited to 3 years after the design was first made available to the public within the EEA. In the UK, the design protection does not encompass surface decoration, however, protection is granted for up to 15 years.

The UK government has stated that they will ensure that all unregistered community designs in place at the time of Brexit will continue to be protected within the UK for the remainder of the design right.  The UK will also create a new unregistered design right in the UK to mirror the rights afforded by unregistered community designs, known as the supplementary unregistered design right.

[ymal]

COPYRIGHT

Within the UK, copyright and related rights are governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the CDPA). Copyright subsists in literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, films, sound recordings, broadcasts and published editions, encompassing, databases, computer programs (source code), drawings, photographs and works of artistic craftsmanship.  Copyright arises automatically (subject to certain conditions) with no registration or fees to pay and is a national right which is harmonised internationally by numerous treaties. Therefore, after Brexit any UK and EU copyright protected works will remain protected due to the international treaties that govern copyright, which are not dependent on our membership of the EU.

DATABASES

‘Sui Generis’ (unique) database rights were introduced by the EU and implemented into UK law (via the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997), which protects your database in the same way as the CDPA, however, the scope of protection is broader as protection arises if you have qualitatively or quantitatively made a substantial investment to obtain, verify or present your database (created by a national of the EEA).  However, the sui generis database protection is limited to a period of 15 years.

Post Brexit the sui generis rights currently recognised will continue to be recognised in the UK, however, the creation of any new databases with not be protected by this right.   You may wish to seek alternative legal protection via amendment of your current licensing agreements.

ACTION REQUIRED – Review current licence agreements.

PATENTS

Patents encompassing the UK are granted by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the European Patent Office (EPO).  The EPO is subject to the European Patent Convention, not the UK’s membership of the EU.  It will remain possible to file patents at the EPO, designating applicable territories. Therefore, Brexit will have no effect regarding an ‘EU’ patent (application or registration).

The UK government has confirmed that all EU legislation relevant to patents and supplementary protection certificates (where the EU provides an additional period of protection or patents relating to pharmaceutical and agrochemicals) will remain in UK law.

However, it is highly likely that Brexit will impact on the implementation of the proposed (EU) unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court in London.

EXHAUSTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS – PARALLEL GOODS

Parallel goods are genuine goods manufactured or held under a licence by the rights holder, which are sold by the rights holder. At present, you exhaust your intellectual property rights once your IP protected goods are placed on the market within the EEA.

Post Brexit, UK IP rights holders will not be able to prevent the import of parallel goods from the EEA.  Whereas, EEA IP rights holders will be able to prevent the import of parallel goods from the UK into the EEA. Even though the goods would have been placed on the market in the UK, thus exhausted, post Brexit this will not be considered exhaustion in the EEA.

EU APPLICATION FOR ACTION

EU regulation 608/2013 establishes the rules and procedures allowing EU customs authorities to enforce IP rights at the EU border, via an Application for Action (AFA).   The AFA would allow the applicable customs authorities to seize, and if authorised, destroy counterfeit goods at the EU border.  If you have a national UK right (UK registered trade mark), you would file a national AFA, if you have a union right, for example an EU registered trade mark, you would file a union AFA.  Post Brexit, it will no longer be possible to submit either a national or union AFA to UK customs.  In addition, any previously UK filed AFA’s will no longer be valid within the EU.  For a union AFA to remain valid post Brexit, you would need to refile the AFA in one of the remaining 27 member states.

ACTION REQUIRED – If you currently rely on a Union AFA, you need to refile this in one of the remaining EU 27 member states.

WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING RIGHT NOW

• Review the current status of your EU trade mark and design applications;
• Review your licence agreements;
• Review all your current agreements to ensure they are Brexit proof;
• Refile a Union AFA.

WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING POST-BREXIT

• Refile your UK trade mark and design applications;
• Ensure you are not breaching any licensing agreements regarding parallel imports.

With Brexit currently in its final stages, employees in legal firms are more concerned than those in any other industry about the impact that Brexit will have on their firm, according to new research from Tiger Recruitment.

Of those who are worried, job insecurity is the overriding concern, specifically stagnating wages (74%), the potential of job losses (57%), and decreasing workloads (34%).

The research, carried out by YouGov, questioned 1,000 GB employees on their experiences and concerns around Brexit in the workplace. As the 31^st October deadline looms and there is still no clarity over what kind of Brexit UK businesses can expect, the findings indicate that many employees, particularly in the legal sector, are concerned about their future.

“With the two Brexit factions both resolute in their positions and unable to compromise without losing face, it seems inevitable that the current limbo will go down to the wire,” says David Morel, CEO and Founder of Tiger Recruitment. “While I’m confident that businesses will remain resilient whatever the outcome, it is understandable that employees are feeling worried and insecure about the future. Employers must address this issue head on by placing extra focus on employee communication and motivation, to help allay these fears and keep employees engaged throughout the uncertainty.”

The study also reveals that nearly a third (37%) of legal employees say Brexit has already had a negative impact on their business – again, higher than the UK average (33%). Of those negatively affected, the biggest issues are being unable to start new projects (42%), make decisions about the direction of the business (30%), or take risks (20%). Two fifths (41%) also say that staff have become more stressed and anxious as a result of the uncertainty.

“It’s more than three years since the EU referendum, and while businesses have shown incredible resilience, they are crying out for certainty and stability in the political landscape,” continues Morel. “Businesses and their employees have to be able to make big decisions, take risks, and experiment in order to grow. Yet, as things stand, Brexit is stopping them from doing this. We’ve reached a state of limbo, which is stifling innovation and growth.”

The prorogation of parliament was justified by Boris Johnson as space that would allow a Queen’s Speech to outline the new PM’s policies moving forward. However, with the Brexit deadline (31 October) on the horizon, the Supreme Court says the decision to prorogue parliament and cease current duties leading up to Brexit was unlawful.

The Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale said: "The effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.”

"The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification," she added, according to the BBC.

Hale concluded that the PM’s advice to Her Majesty was “unlawful, void and of no effect.”

"Boris Johnson's position is untenable and he should have the guts to resign" says SNP spokesperson Joanna Cherry.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Prime Minister's suspension of parliament was unlawful.

Follow live reaction here: https://t.co/aY7Nzaa1tQ pic.twitter.com/TA8PnLIIK8

— Sky News (@SkyNews) September 24, 2019

Lawyer Monthly has since heard from Elaine Motion, Executive Chairman of Balfour+Manson, the firm that represents Joanna Cherry MP and all other petitioners in the case initially brought at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

She said: “The unanimous decision of the UK Supreme Court today, to cut down the prorogation, essentially reconfirms the position taken by the Court of Session Inner House. That means that the clock is rewound to 27 August and Parliament is not suspended. It is as if the suspension never occurred.

"It is a huge vindication for the Parliamentarians who led the way with the challenge in Scotland and an even more significant reinforcement of the critical importance of the Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of Parliament. Hopefully Parliament can now get back to its essential work."

Last week, he showed his displeasure with the direction of the government by crossing the floor of the house to join the Lib Dems while Boris Johnson was speaking in the Commons.

Damian Green is staying put with the Conservatives but has written to the Prime Minister as the head of the centre ground 'One Nation' group of MPs - objecting to the purge of 21 Tories thrown out of the party last week for voting against no deal.

We met in a shut down House of Commons in Phillip Lee's parliamentary office.

However, here Syedur Rahman, of business crime solicitors Rahman Ravelli, warns that concerns about money laundering and other financial crime must be considered.

New Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “do or die’’ approach to taking Britain out of the European Union by October 31 has been much discussed. But there is one detail of his post-Brexit approach that requires as much, if not more, scrutiny if the UK is not to become a magnet for more economic crime.

The PM has been quoted as saying that he favours creating about six tax-free zones in ports. This attempt to create free ports – which are government-designated areas of little or no tax – are arguably a logical idea at a time when the UK is looking to boost trade with other countries. Free ports can spark economic activity as the benefits of reduced, deferred or even no tax are clear to companies.

Yet free ports have been identified as a money laundering risk. And, ironically, it is the European Commission that has been most vocal on this subject. In a report, the Commission states that it is looking to tackle the financial risks of free port zones, which it sees as a developing threat to its attempts to combat money laundering.

According to the Commission, free ports help with the movement of counterfeit goods. This is because a ship’s load can be landed and the goods and associated paperwork can then be tampered with without the usual stringent checks. The goods can then be re-exported with little or no safeguards regarding the legitimacy of the cargo. In most cases the registered value of the goods depends solely on self-declaration, which leaves significant room for over or under valuing.

The Commission’s report states that at most free ports “precise information on the beneficial owners is not available.” This can only make them more attractive to those looking to facilitate money laundering – a point not lost on the Commission, whose report talks of the EU having a structural problem when it comes to preventing the financial system being abused. Free ports give those who are looking to commit wrongdoing the secrecy that they are seeking.

While the UK has not had any free ports since 2012, there are around 80 in European Union countries and their dependencies. The Commission has called on countries to conduct regular independent audits of the zones. Just how that request goes down remains to be seen.

The Commission’s concerns over free ports come after it has blamed banks for not complying with basic EU anti-money laundering rules and has lambasted national regulators for not intervening until rules have been repeatedly broken or the problems are glaringly obvious. Its view on free ports is equally damning, which is not encouraging for UK PLC.

Such an approach from the Commission to free ports and the banks can hardly be called alarmist. The EU has faced a number of major money laundering scandals recently. In the past 12 months, Denmark’s largest bank Danske Bank has been the subject of revelations that its Estonian branch was at the heart of Europe’s largest money laundering scandal; with 15,000 customers involved in suspicious transactions totalling 200 billion euros. Sweden’s Swedbank has also had to manage the fall-out from allegations of money laundering on a massive scale at its Estonian banking operation. And Germany’s Deutsche Bank is bracing itself for possible fines, legal action and even the prosecution of senior management over its role in a $20 billion Russian money-laundering scheme dubbed the “Global Laundromat’’.

The Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive will broaden the scope of its predecessor. And it explicitly includes free port operators; making them subject to the same customer due diligence requirements as, for example, real estate agents or notaries. This may go some way to removing the Commission’s concerns about free ports. It may also have a significant effect on the success of current or future free ports.

But for now there are many who do not share the PM’s enthusiasm for free ports. And it is hard to argue with their criticisms.

The construction sector was disproportionately affected since the recession of 2008 and with the industry being easily impacted by surrounding events, we speak to Ian Reid, Partner in the Construction Department at Trowers & Hamlins Solicitors LLP about the challenges which remain.

From urban regeneration schemes, to the impact of Brexit and adjudication, Ian shares how the housing market is constantly changing, and how this affects his clients and those in the construction industry.

Can you share more about your experience working on the major urban regeneration schemes in London's Docklands?  What challenges did you come across?

A common feature of these major urban regeneration schemes is the procurement model often used, namely "Construction Management".  This form of procurement does present some challenges.

Under this form of procurement, the developer client, rather than engaging one "Main Contractor", instead engages a "Construction Manager" who is something of hybrid between a consultant and a contractor.  The Construction Manager's role is to divide the work on the project into a series of "Trade Contract Packages" and then to manage a number of "Trade Contractors" who bid for each package.  Each Trade Contractor then enters into a "Trade Contract" directly with the client (and not with the Construction Manager).

During a boom, contractors can be choosy about the work they want to do, and they are often reluctant to undertake major projects on procurement models which involve them in assuming a lot of risk.

A significant feature of Construction Management procurement is that the Construction Manager is not usually responsible for the defective design or construction of the Trade Contractors.  This is in marked contrast to the way a Main Contractor is responsible for the design and construction of its sub-contractors.

This procurement route certainly does have a number of advantages attached to it which I go on to discuss below, however, during the boom years in the British construction sector when many of these major urban regeneration projects began, developers could often find themselves forced down the Construction Management route by market conditions.

During a boom, contractors can be choosy about the work they want to do, and they are often reluctant to undertake major projects on procurement models which involve them in assuming a lot of risk.  This is a feature of "Design and Build" procurement involving one Main Contractor.  During the boom some developers were experiencing difficulty in getting contractors to even respond to tenders which were based on Design and Build contracts, or if tender responses were received, then the prices offered by the Main Contractor for assuming the intended risks could be so inflated as to make the project unviable from the developer's point of view.  As a consequence, to take forward these large urban regeneration schemes, clients had to look at alternative procurement routes such as Construction Management which were more appealing to contractors.

The typical advantages of Construction Management as a procurement route include:

• a very early start on site is possible because the design and construction phases can overlap and the Trade Contract Package for the groundwork can be tendered and let before the roof package is even designed;
• individually tendered Trade Contract Packages may achieve cost savings because each package may be competitively tendered and more competitively priced;
• the independent design advice for the client from the directly engaged consultants (akin to traditional contracting) is maintained;
• the Construction Manager's exposure to risk is limited, given he is not directly responsible for the design and construction of the Trade Contractors. This can lead to a lower cost for the client because whereas a Main Contractor would have priced for the risk of carrying out the job under say a Design and Build Contract that risk and that price may no longer be a consideration for the Construction Manager.

The typical challenges posed by Construction Management include:

• since there is no single Main Contract, the overall cost for carrying out the project cannot really be known with any certainty at the outset. The cost can only really be known when the last of the Trade Contracts is let, which is often well into the project;
• design and construction liability is very diffuse, it is the very opposite of the "one-point responsibility" that is often achieved under a Design and Build contract. In Construction Management, design responsibility is split between several consultants and then further divided between Trade Contractors who may have design portions and design responsibility within their respective Trade Contracts.  As a consequence, there is no one person who assumes overall responsibility for everything;
• by contrast to a Design and Build procurement where the client is in one contract with one Main Contractor, under Construction Management the client finds itself in direct contract with many Trade Contractors. Look at it this way:  Instead of receiving one Adjudication Notice on Christmas Eve from one disgruntled Main Contractor, there is the potential for the client to receive 30 Adjudication Notices on Christmas Eve from 30 disgruntled Trade Contractors.  (I discuss Adjudication in more detail below).

So downstream in Construction Management, the client is faced with a myriad of contractual relationships with Trade Contractors and this, in turn, gets reflected in the client's upstream relationships with the project's stakeholders.

The tenants, purchasers and funders of any construction project will invariably require "collateral warranties" or "third party rights" from those consultants and contractors who design and build the projects they have an interest in.  These are the means by which these stakeholders can pursue remedies against consultants and contractors should they need to.  Without the benefit of collateral warranties or third party rights, the stakeholder's ability to recover any loss they might incur in the event of subsequent building defects is limited under English law.

Construction Management is not really a procurement route for the uninitiated client embarking upon its first project

Under a Design and Build project, one collateral warranty from the Main Contractor (who is fully liable for all his sub-contractors) may go a long way to covering off most of the risk.  In contrast, under Construction Management, those tenants, purchasers and funders are going to need collateral warranties or third party rights from every single Trade Contractor no matter how big or small his Trade Contract, given that the buck no longer stops with one Main Contractor who is responsible for everything.  That leaves everyone in the position of trying to extract numerous collateral warranties or third party rights from a Trade Contractor under a modest Trade Contract for say, £100,000 worth of signage work.  You can bet that the signage Trade Contractor has little appreciation that the delivery of his collateral warranties may be a pre-condition to the drawdown of the client's funding under an upstream facility agreement with the bank.

If the tenants, purchasers and funders of a construction project cannot get their hands on sufficient collateral warranties or third party rights from all the numerous Trade Contractors involved in a project then they will perceive there to be a "liability gap".

The average house price in London is now about twice the average house price in the UK.

Their usual response to try and close this liability gap is to press the developer for an indemnity under which the developer himself effectively guarantees the work of all those Trade Contractors and makes himself liable for any defective design or workmanship on the project.  This is clearly something experienced developers try to avoid.

So, Construction Management is not really a procurement route for the uninitiated client embarking upon its first project and this form of procurement often requires a considerable effort in managing the expectations of the upstream stakeholders.

How would you say the issues you may face in construction today, differ from when you first began to practice?

Without a doubt, the biggest change relates to the dispute resolution procedure of "adjudication".

When I first began to practice construction law, it was not uncommon for the more hard-nosed developer, when faced with a claim from a contractor (or equally a contractor faced with a claim from a sub-contractor), to simply delay dealing with the claim or delay making payment.

As a procedure, adjudication is at the other end of the spectrum to litigation and has often been described as a "rough and ready" form of justice because the Adjudicator is obliged to deliver his decision within 28 days of the process starting.

The aggrieved claimant would be faced with having to pursue its claim through the courts using the process of "litigation" which invariably is very lengthy and very expensive (A feature of construction litigation when I was a young lawyer was that the costs of the action could often exceed the sums in dispute by the time the matter got to court).  With this in mind, it was well understood that if the defendant could drag out that process for as long as possible or adopt tactics to make it as expensive as possible for the claimant to pursue the claim, then there was some chance that the claimant (usually already struggling with cash flow in any event) would become insolvent before it could ever see its day in court and as a consequence that claim might just 'go away'.

In response to these practices Parliament in this country introduced the "Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act" (often colloquially referred to as the Construction Act) which implied into all construction contracts in England and Wales the dispute resolution process of "adjudication".

As a procedure, adjudication is at the other end of the spectrum to litigation and has often been described as a "rough and ready" form of justice because the Adjudicator is obliged to deliver his decision within 28 days of the process starting.  It offers a very quick and very cheap alternative to litigation, however, the justice that may be achieved within such a brief 28 day period (by Adjudicators who are not from the Judiciary) is sometimes said to be of a variable quality.

An ambush typically occurs when a claimant spends several months secretly crafting a claim and substantiating it with voluminous (but not always relevant) documentation.

To offset this, an Adjudicator's decision is what the law in the UK refers to as "temporarily binding".  This means that despite having engaged in adjudication, the parties are still at liberty to refer their dispute to the Courts through litigation where the time can be taken to arrive at a more considered verdict, however in the interim they must comply with the Adjudicator's decision.

There is no doubt the process of adjudication has seen the demise of the abusive stalling tactics that were once so widespread within the construction industry.  At the same time, it has on occasion led to its own forms of abuse as some of those who were once on the receiving end of these unsavoury practices have learnt to manipulate the system and highly speculative Adjudication claims are not unknown.  These are sometimes referred to as "ambush" or "smash and grab" adjudications.

An ambush typically occurs when a claimant spends several months secretly crafting a claim and substantiating it with voluminous (but not always relevant) documentation.  Then, at a time of its choosing, the claimant launches an adjudication in the knowledge that the adjudicator has only 28 days in which to conclude the process and deliver a decision.  To meet that timetable the Adjudicator may direct that the unfortunate defendant is only be allowed seven days in which to prepare and deliver a defence.  Keep in mind that the claim may comprise 20 lever arch files of documentation and be for many millions of pounds.  In such circumstances, both the defendant and the Adjudicator are seriously up against it.

Unfortunately, despite the Housing Grants Act having been with us for a number of years now, the capacity of paying parties to fail to serve Pay Less Notices within the required time limits never ceases to amaze construction lawyers.

A smash and grab adjudication arises out of another feature that was implied into construction contracts by the Construction Act and that is the use of the "Pay Less Notice".  It is now a requirement of the law in England and Wales that if the paying party under a construction contract wishes to pay less than the amount claimed in say a contractor's monthly interim payment application, then that paying party must serve a Pay Less Notice stipulating what it intends to deduct and why from the money the contractor has claimed in payment.  In the absence of a Pay Less Notice served within the stipulated time limit, the claimant contractor is entitled to be paid all sums he has claimed in his interim application regardless of the underlying merit of that application.  (The logic runs that having possibly overpaid the contractor in one month the paying party can recover or deduct in subsequent months any overpayment previously made).  Unfortunately, despite the Housing Grants Act having been with us for a number of years now, the capacity of paying parties to fail to serve Pay Less Notices within the required time limits never ceases to amaze construction lawyers.

A feature of some payment applications made towards the end of projects is the inclusion of very large and very unsubstantiated sums of additional money.  Such sums might be included, one might speculate, in the hope that the Pay Less Notice disputing the sums is missed or is late, thus rendering those sums payable.

In the absence of a Pay Less Notice the claimant is in a position to quickly launch (and usually win) an adjudication to be paid on the basis that no Pay Less Notice has been issued, regardless of the underlying merit of the claim for payment.

The paying party retains the ability to try and recover the sums paid out in subsequent actions but there is no guarantee that the money will be recovered.

So irrespective of Brexit, much has happened that has contributed to a cooling down of the property market and the construction sector.

Brexit uncertainty has somewhat triggered a slump in the construction sector in the UK; why is this the case, in your opinion?

The performance of the property market (which is intrinsically linked to the construction sector) has long been regarded as a key economic indicator of the overall health of the UK economy.  Prior to the Brexit referendum in the summer of 2016 house prices were rising.  Since the referendum the property market and by association the construction sector has certainly cooled, but what we have not seen is the "meltdown" of the market that many were predicting following the referendum.  This probably says much about the underlying strength of the UK economy.

Experience tells us that the development industry tends to be cyclical and there are some commentators who are of the view that the UK was due for a downturn in any event regardless of any impact Brexit may have had.

A further consideration in all this is that here in the UK we now have something of a two‑speed economy especially in relation to the property and construction sectors.  We have: i) what happens in London and its surroundings; and ii) what happens in the rest of the country.  The average house price in London is now about twice the average house price in the UK.

Prior to the referendum in 2016, the increase in property prices was very much a feature of the London property market and was driven by foreign investment into that part of the country.  It seemed that anyone with money anywhere in the world was choosing to invest it in London property and as a result, the locals were being priced out.

What Brexit has prompted is a fall in the value of the British pound.  As a consequence (and leaving aside the tax disadvantages referred to above) UK property now represents a more attractive investment to foreign investors who can get much more "bang for their buck".

Between about 2015 and 2017 the UK Government introduced a number of changes to the tax regime applicable to foreign investment in UK property and these intentionally contributed to a cooling down of that London market:

Stamp Duty Land Tax (the tax paid by a purchaser of property over a certain price) had a 3% surcharge applied to it in relation to the purchase of second homes (i.e. property being bought for investment purposes).

Capital Gains Tax was made applicable to non-residents (i.e. foreign investors) on residential property in the UK.

Inheritance Tax was made applicable to all UK property regardless of how the ownership of that property was held.

So irrespective of Brexit, much has happened that has contributed to a cooling down of the property market and the construction sector.

Turning now to Brexit:

What Brexit has prompted is a fall in the value of the British pound.  As a consequence (and leaving aside the tax disadvantages referred to above) UK property now represents a more attractive investment to foreign investors who can get much more "bang for their buck".

Without the fall in the value of the pound acting to continue to draw in foreign investment, we may have seen a much bigger slump in the property market and construction sector, particularly around London.

As a consequence, in some sectors of the industry, you will certainly hear people (albeit people with access to plenty of funding already) telling you that now is the best time to buy.

There is a view in some quarters that Brexit, once (or if) it finally happens, may lead to a dramatic fall in the price of a UK property.  This is not a view shared by everyone, however, if you are of this view then no-one wants to be the one to have to explain to the Board why the development site you bought in the lead up to Brexit is now worth half what you paid for it in the week after Brexit.

So inevitably Brexit has led to a "wait and see" attitude among some developers and purchasers.

At the same time, there is another view that there is a lot of foreign money now sitting out there just waiting for that Brexit induced fall in the price of property at which point it will pounce and gobble up as much UK property as it can get its hands on.

As a consequence, in some sectors of the industry, you will certainly hear people (albeit people with access to plenty of funding already) telling you that now is the best time to buy.

On the 18 July "The Times" newspaper ran an article on page 9 headed "London house prices fall as the rest of the country takes off".  Despite house prices in the capital experiencing their biggest fall in a decade, it appears across the rest of the country prices are rising.

Many developers in this part of the world will tell you that if they could do one thing to stimulate development in the UK it would be to overhaul the rather cumbersome planning system we have in this country

On the same day "The Times" carried another article on page 45 reporting that despite the political uncertainty over Brexit, activity in the construction sector rose in the second quarter of the year.  The article went on to comment that the market was losing patience with the Government's lack of clarity over Brexit and developers were beginning to push ahead with projects in any event.

Can the UK construction sector overcome this?

In many parts of the country, we still have the same underlying problem we have had for a very long time, namely there is not enough housing for everyone to live in, particularly affordable housing.

Brexit is not going to change that, there will still be the same chronic need for more housing.

A candidate in London's next mayoral election was recently quoted as saying "unaffordable housing is the defining problem of our generation... compared to London's housing situation Brexit is a cakewalk."

Within the UK construction sector there is certainly a drive towards more modern methods of construction to increase the efficiency of production.

In the 1950s the UK Government built some 3000,000 homes a year across the country.  Various economic commentators estimate that there is now a need for a similar volume of house building yet current production is nowhere near this level.

Within the UK construction sector there is certainly a drive towards more modern methods of construction to increase the efficiency of production.  Modular building systems are catching the headlines and I have recently drafted a number of contracts for pods.  However, such measures on their own are not going to solve the housing crisis.  That is likely to require a major initiative from Central Government.  This is not something the construction sector can solve on its own.

Many developers in this part of the world will tell you that if they could do one thing to stimulate development in the UK it would be to overhaul the rather cumbersome planning system we have in this country and the ability of local interests to stymie much needed development.  The system's critics will tell you that it seems to pay too much attention to the "haves" who are generally opposed to any further development at all in their backyards and not enough attention to the "have nots" who are desperately trying to get onto the housing ladder.

I have two boys who are eight and eleven years old.  With the price of property in the South East of England being what it is and at the current rate of house building, I have a nagging suspicion that they may still be living at home with me when they are 30 years old.

That said, it seems likely that we can expect an increase in the cost of construction post Brexit.

What do you think will be the immediate consequences of Brexit for the UK construction sector?

"Uncertainty" has been the defining characteristic of the run up to Brexit and we are all really just speculating about what the real consequences will be once the UK leaves the EU.  A cynic might add that no-one in Central Government is managing to convey the impression that they have got a proper handle on all of this.

That said, it seems likely that we can expect an increase in the cost of construction post Brexit.  For example:

The manufacturing industry in this country has long since passed its heyday and many components of our buildings are imported from Europe.  Those products, we hope, will still be available to us but the question will be how much is the price going to increase to get them into this country and how much longer will it take?  The short answer seems to be that it is likely to cost more and take longer.  How much more and how much longer, who knows.

Some developers are stockpiling components in anticipation of difficulties ahead.  Storing these components for many months all adds to the cost of construction.

For a long time, the UK construction industry has been heavily dependent on immigrant labour.  Once we have left the EU that labour may simply not be available to us which means the cost of domestic labour is going to increase and the cost of construction will go up.

About Ian

How do you go about developing innovative solutions that meet the commercial needs of the clients you work with in construction?

In the development and construction industry the range of clients I deal with is extremely wide and their understanding of the contracts they are dealing with ranges from the very sophisticated, to those who have never even seen a construction contract before.  Providing them with solutions is really about getting them to tell you what they really need and listening carefully to this.  What they think they've got and what they've actually got or what they want and what they actually need are often very different things.

I spend a lot of my time simply translating from commercial speak into legal speak and then back again.

The developer types I work with are hugely commercial people and it is in their nature to negotiate and strike a deal over everything.  They have no interest in spending any time in a courtroom.

I am relatively unusual in that I practice both contentious and non-contentious construction law and my job very much involves keeping clients out of formal disputes, albeit being ready for that when it is needed.

In your opinion, what makes a lawyer ideal for the construction field?

The ability to be highly analytical and both highly commercial at the same time.  Getting any deal over the line will involve both tenacity and compromise.  We have all heard the old adage "both sides thought they had a deal until they got their lawyers involved".  Lawyers can always point out no end of things that might be wrong with a deal which the clients had not thought about.  However, having made the client aware of the risks, the deal still needs to get done.

Why did you pick construction law?

Before I studied law, I spent five years training as an architect which included spending time working in an architectural practice in Vancouver in Canada.  It is testimony to how difficult it is to make a decent living in that game that a number of the more world weary architects in the office would tell me, "It's not too late to get out of this profession...you are still young enough... you don't have a mortgage... you don't have a family to support... try something else".

I had a number of friends from school who had gone on to become lawyers whilst I was studying architecture and once the difference in our earning capacity became clear to me, I decided a move into law might be the better long term option.

Having got into postgraduate Law College it then became apparent that I could specialise in construction law.  With five years of architectural training behind me, I was quickly offered a training contract with a specialist construction litigation practice, at a time when some of my legal contemporaries were struggling to find work after graduation.

Do you have a mantra or motto you live by when it comes to helping your clients?

"Deliver".  Let's face it, in this game if you don't deliver you don't have clients for very long do you?

What has been your biggest achievement in the past 12 months?

Working out how to persuade my eight-year-old to do his homework every day.  It is pointless trying to get him to do it sitting at a table.  We now recite our times tables whilst he fires penalties at me in the garden.  This is more fun...  I just don't want him to still be put there knocking them past me when he is 30 years old.  I want him to have moved out by then and have his own place.

Ian Reid
Partner

Trowers & Hamlins LLP
3 Bunhill Row
London
EC1Y 8YZ
DX 774 Lon/City

d  +44 (0)207 423 8512
m +44 (0)7484 006235
t   +44 (0)20 7423 8000
f   +44 (0)20 7423 8001
www.trowers.com

About Ian and the Firm

I am Ian Reid, a Partner in the Construction Department at Trowers & Hamlins Solicitors LLP.

I practice both contentious (front end) and non-contentious (back end) construction law.

Trowers & Hamlins is an international law firm with approximately 145 partners and nearly 800 staff located across the UK, Middle East and Far East.  Our headquarters is in the City of London with other offices in Birmingham, Exeter, Manchester, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Dubai, Oman and Kuala Lumpur.

Trowers provides the full range of legal services and we have a particular focus on regeneration and development work.  Trowers has over 50 specialist construction lawyers and is one of the UK's leading construction practices, acting for some of the UK's leading developers.

I have worked around the world on a wide variety of construction projects including major urban regeneration schemes in London's Docklands, city centre office blocks, luxury residential schemes, rail infrastructure projects, one of the world's largest liquefied national gas projects, mining projects in the Australian outback, north sea oil rigs and resort developments in the South Pacific.

I have organised and chaired numerous conferences on construction law both in the UK and Australia.

Neil Williams, of business crime solicitors Rahman Ravelli, is concerned for the cross-border policing of business crime if and when Brexit becomes reality.

Statistics recently released and publicised show that a record number of European criminals are believed to be on the run in Britain.

Analysis of figures produced by the National Crime Agency (NCA) reveals that the UK received 17,256 European arrest warrants last year for suspects wanted by police in other European Union countries.

This figure includes 619 people who are sought in connection with murders or manslaughters, 229 who are suspected of rape and 265 suspected paedophiles. And although there was a record number of warrants, the number of arrests from April 2017 to April 2018 as a result of such warrants was 1,027: a five-year low and a 35% drop on the figure for 2016-17.

Such statistics do little to raise the mood. But the situation is perhaps more serious than the figures suggest. That is due largely, of course, to the prospect of Brexit. Last year the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, said that a no-deal Brexit would result in delays in suspects being extradited if the UK was to leave the European arrest warrant system.

This is an issue that goes beyond those alleged to have committed the most horrific crimes. It highlights the problems that Brexit can bring for the investigation and prosecution of business crime.

Business is more multinational than ever before. As a result, business crime and the investigations it prompts are more likely than ever to cross borders and involve law enforcement agencies from a number of countries. The UK’s enforcement agencies regularly liaise with their foreign counterparts on complex and multijurisdictional cases; often working together and sharing information and expertise. Extradition has been a relatively routine procedure. Whether that will continue remains to be seen.

Business is more multinational than ever before. As a result, business crime and the investigations it prompts are more likely than ever to cross borders and involve law enforcement agencies from a number of countries.

The lack of a post-Brexit security agreement has already cast doubt on the UK’s ability to extradite suspects or convicted individuals from EU countries under the European arrest warrant scheme. Post-Brexit extraditions could still be sought under the 1957 Council of Europe treaty but these will be more complex and expensive for the government than a standard European arrest warrant extradition.

In February 2018, Ireland’s Supreme Court declined a request to extradite an Irish company director to London, who had fled the UK after a tax fraud conviction. The court did this on the grounds that by the time he finished his prison sentence, the UK would have left the EU.  February 2018 also saw a German court refuse to extradite four former Deutsche Bank traders to the UK to face trial for Euribor rigging. The following month, Monaco refused to extradite Unaoil executive Saman Ahsani to the UK to face corruption charges following an “adverse opinion’’ from Monaco’s Court of Appeal. A court official stated that the allegations against Ahsani were not liable for criminal prosecution, under Monaco’s laws, at the time they were alleged to have occurred.

Extradition appears to be in a state of flux. But it is a far from the only business-related problem. The National Crime Agency has stated that money laundering opportunities may rise after Brexit. While critics of the European Union (EU) could claim with some justification that it has not been exemplary when it comes to tackling money laundering it has at least introduced a series of directives to stop the proceeds of crime flowing into member states.

Membership of the EU has been no guarantee of protection against laundering. But it has led to progress in this area. It can be argued that the UK enforcement agencies’ prowess in tackling money laundering and other forms of business crime is unrivalled by those nations staying in the EU. This may mean individuals EU members missing the UK’s expertise. But from a UK point of view, it is hard to see such prowess remaining at its existing level if its enforcement agencies can no longer rely on the relationships that currently exist between them and their European counterparts.

EU withdrawal means a UK exit from the EU’s law enforcement agency, Europol, whose centralised intelligence is a massively valuable asset in tackling cross-border crime. Even though the UK has tough anti-money laundering and corruption legislation and its agencies have recently been given enhanced powers to identify and seize the proceeds of crime, its likely loss of valuable cross-border cooperation could prove costly.