Advice

A Little Help Can Go A Long Way

Quisque velit nisi, pretium ut lacinia in, elementum id enim. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec velit neque, auctor sit amet aliquam vel, ullamcorper sit amet ligula.Quisque velit nisi, pretium ut lacinia in, elementum id enim. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec velit neque, auctor sit amet aliquam vel, ullamcorper sit amet.

Filter By



PROPERTY INVESTMENT NEWS

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec velit neque, auctor sit amet aliquam vel, ullamcorper sit amet ligula.

For the neighbours involved, boundary disputes can be expensive and stressful. To try and make the process easier, the Property Litigation Association has published a ‘Protocol for Disputes between Neighbours about the Location of their Boundary’, known as the ‘Boundary Disputes Protocol’.

The Protocol applies to both residential and commercial properties. It aims to encourage neighbours to exchange information in a timely manner, minimising the potential for dispute, saving time, and keeping costs to a minimum.

The Protocol is currently voluntary, although we suspect it will become a formal pre-action protocol under CPR in due course.In the meantime Judges will no doubt be critical of parties who don’t engage with it. 

As soon as a boundary dispute arises, parties can agree to adopt the Protocol.

The date in which this has been agreed is known as the ‘Start Date’.

2 weeks from the Start Date, the parties must provide each other with official copies of the Land Registry title(s) for their own property and seek to agree whether any determined boundary exists. If there is, no further action will be required. 

If there is no resolution from exchanging the official copies, the parties should exchange all of the information they have in their possession within 4 weeks from the Start Date, including: 

  • Past conveyances;
  • Conveyances referred to in the official copies; and
  • Photographs of each property showing the disputed boundary
Within 7 weeks from the Start Date, the parties need to determine whether they have the first conveyance (when the properties were split from a larger title and passed into separate ownership). If they do not have this, they should discuss their options for finding the first conveyance. The parties should then seek to agree one of the following options:
  • An adverse possession/ boundary agreement claim is made; or
  • To proceed to investigate the paper title position, the adverse possession claim/ boundary agreement or both. 

Within 8 weeks from the Start Date the parties should discuss whether they wish to enter into negotiations or mediation or proceed with the next steps of the protocol. 

If a first conveyance has been identified(this is often not the case in our experience),then each party must determine the evidence they have in terms of showing what features existed on the ground at the date when the first conveyance occurred. In addition, any proposed witnesses of fact need to be identified within 3 weeks of the first conveyance being identified. 

If the first conveyance provides accurate plans and the parties cannot reach an agreement, a an expert surveyor will need to be instructed. They may visit the property and produce a plan of the physical features existing on the ground at the date of inspection. In some instances, a joint expert may be appropriate for this. However, in certain cases (such as those involving development proposals) it may be appropriate for each party to instruct their own expert. Instructions should be given within 5 weeks of the date when the first conveyance is identified. Short reports should be exchanged within 4 weeks after instructions are provided. Following this, within 2 weeks the experts should have a discussion in order to agree a short summary, to be provided to both parties. 

Within 4 weeks of the Start Date if either party believes that they may have a claim for adverse possession, they must inform the other party, setting out the basis of their claim and the following information: 

  • Description or plan of the area claiming to be in their possession;
  • The period during which it is claimed that the land has been in possession; and
  • Whether the claim is an “old-style” claim or “new-style” claim 

If the other party wishes to oppose the claim, they must provide an explanation for the opposition within 6 weeks of the Start Date. 

Within 14 weeks of the Start Date each party should provide the other party with all relevant documentary evidence and also identify their witnesses of fact will be. Documentary evidence may include: 

  • Photographs (including aerial photographs); and
  • Receipts for work carried out to the boundary. 

Where the interpretation of plans or photographs is not agreed it may be necessary to instruct an expert, which should be done within 16 weeks of the Start Date. The experts or experts should provide a report within 4 weeks of their appointment; once reports are exchanged, both experts should have a discussion within 2 weeks to provide a short summary to both parties. 

The parties should meet again within 2 weeks of the date on which the last steps set out above is taken. Ideally, the meeting should take place at the location of the disputed boundary with the expert(s). The discussions should be carried out “without prejudice” so they cannot be relied upon should legal proceedings arise. 

If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they may consider alternative dispute resolution before proceeding with litigation. Alternative options include:

  • Arbitration;
  • Expert determination by an independent third party; or
  • Mediation 

If the parties reach an agreement with reference to a line on the ground, the line needs to be marked out by stakes. It is also important to mark the side of the stake on which the boundary lies. If the parties reach an agreement by reference to a plan, experts should be instructed to transfer the line on the plan onto the ground and place stakes to clearly outline the boundary. 

A written document setting out what has been agreed will need to be drafted, ideally by a solicitor, with a plan attached. Each party should then apply to the Land Registry to record the agreement against their titles. 

 

2018 49 07
Matt Pugh
The recent case of Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch) has provided clarity for landowners suffering from repeat trespass on their property, have no idea who the trespassers are and fear further trespass.

The Claimant was the owner of the former Tetley Brewery site in Leeds. There had been a series of incidents of trespass between 2011 and 2018. On the most recent occasion in 2018, the trespassers triggered alarms and held a number of illegal raves in empty buildings on the site. The Claimant spent £25,000 cleaning up the mess.

Given the risk of fly-tipping (well known with such sites) as well as further illegal raves, the Claimant wanted to take steps to take decisive steps to prevent further trespass. Despite having fenced the site, installing alarms and paying for a weekly security patrol, determined trespassers were still gaining access. The Claimant applied for an injunction against unknown future trespassers so that they could call upon High Court Enforcement Officers and, if necessary, the police to quickly remove trespassers should there be a any further trespass.

It is not unusual not to know the identity of trespassers. The CPR provides for 3 scenarios where an unknown persons or persons could become a party in trespass proceedings:
  • Where a particular person was identified (e.g. in a photograph) but their name is not known.
  • Where a person was part of a fluctuating class or group or persons some of which were known.
  • Where the identity of the Defendant is defined by a likely prospective acts of infringement of the order the court is being invited to make
The Tetley Brewery case fell within the final category, the prospective acts including further illegal raves and fly-tipping.

The court gave useful guidance as what is required to obtain such an injunction and applied a two stage test:
  1. Is there a strong probability that, unless restrained by an injunctions, the Defendant will act on breach of the Claimant's right?
  2. If the Defendant has acted in breach of the Claimant's rights, whether the harm would be so grave that damages are no an adequate remedy
The test was made and the court granted the injunction taking into account the following;
  • The steps taken by the Claimant to secure the land
  • The brazen attitude of the trespasser and anticipated future trespassers
  • That there had been incidents of trespass of 2011, 2016, 2017, 2018
  • The timeframe between the application and the threatened further trespass
  • The risk to the lives of the trespassers given the unsafe site
  • The cost to the Claimant of removing the trespassers
The case shows that the courts will be very open to granting broad and extensive injunctions binding unknown future trespassers. This is good news for landowners.
 
2018 26 07
Matt Pugh
A multi-disciplinary team of lawyers at law firm Legal Studio, led by property litigation specialist Matt Pugh and supported by leading silk Tim Ward QC of Monckton Chambers and the highly rated junior Andy Creer of Hardwicke, recently acted for Red & White Services Ltd  in the widely reported case Red and White Services Ltd v Phil Anslow Ltd and Anor [2018] EWHC 1699 (Ch).  

The case concerned a dispute over the use of bus bays at Cwmbran Bus Station, which has since been resolved, and involved complex and novel issues of competition law and property law.

The reported decision concerns the setting of cost budgets by Mr Justice Birss at a Costs and Case Management Conference in May 2018.  Directions had been agreed between the parties prior to the CCMC, but the issue of costs budgets was contentious.  The case was expected to involve complex expert evidence from economists, extensive disclosure, a substantial number of witnesses and a 10-day trial.  The Defendant’s budget totalled £288,000 including £103,000 of incurred costs, whereas the Claimants and the Third Party’s budgets were around £1.5m each, with the Claimant’s incurred costs around £100,000 and the Third Party’s around £350,000.  

Mr Justice’s Birss’ approach to budgets was somewhat unusual.  Rather than going through the budgets phase by phase (or indeed in any detail), he simply looked at the totals and took the view that both the Claimant’s budget and the Third Party’s budget totals were disproportionately high when compared to the subject matter of the dispute.  He also commented that the Defendant’s budget was unrealistically low and not a good guide but declined to comment as to whether that the Defendant had intentionally pitched its budget low as a tactic.  We submitted that they had.

In approaching proportionality, instead of setting phase totals, Birss J decided to allow the Claimant and the Third Party to spent up to a further £800,000 each and to allow those parties the flexibility as to whether they sought to cut costs on disclosure, expert evidence, witness evidence, the trial or a combination of those phases.  This may have been because at the time of the CCMC it would have been very difficult for the judge to make an informed decision as to whether, for example, an AI platform was required for e-disclosure.
 
2018 45 06
Matt Pugh
Today a number of changes related to property law have come into effect. These include: 
  • HMO licensing and regulations – properties will now require a HMO licence if there are five or more people in two or more separate households. This includes two storey households and one storey properties, removing the requirement that a licensable HMO must be three storeys. There are also new room size requirements.
 
  • Section 21 notices – sections 33 to 38 and 40 of the Deregulation Act 2015 (related to retaliatory eviction, prescribed forms, and compliance with prescribed legal requirements) will now apply to all tenancies, as opposed to tenancies commencing on or after 1 October 2015 as previously was the case. This could cause difficulties for landlords with older tenancies in obtaining possession.
 
  • Suspended possession order – there is now no requirement to make a separate part 83(2) application for permission for a warrant for breach of a suspended possession order where the breach is failure to pay rent and/or arrears instalments. 
 
  • Rogue landlord database – a local authority may place any person on the database who has been convicted of a banning order offence or has received a fine in respect of a banning order within the same 12 month period. 

The PLA’s boundary dispute protocol has recently also come into effect. We’ll be blogging about that shortly…
2018 40 01
Phil Copley
The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 require compliance from 1st April 2018.
 
Do you know what they are?
Have you complied with them?
Do you risk facing financial penalties for non-compliance?
 

The Regulations apply to:

  • Domestic PR property which is legally required to have an EPC and which is let on an assured tenancy, regulated tenancy, or an agricultural tenancy; and,
  • Non-domestic PR property that has not been granted for:
  • A term certain not exceeding 6 months (unless a provision exists for renewing the term or extending it beyond 6 months, or, at the time it is granted, the tenant has been in occupation for a continuous period of more than 12 months); or,
  • A term certain of 99 years or more.
 

Unless subject to an exemption, the landlord of a property with EPS rating of less than E must not:

 
  • Grant a new tenancy of the property on or after 1st April 2018 (including any lease renewals, extensions or new lettings); or,
  • Continue to let the property on or after 1st April 2020 (domestic PR property) and on or after 1st April 2023 (non-domestic PR property).
 

Exemptions that will last 5 years and should be registered on the PRS Exemptions Register include:

 
  • Third party consent is refused or granted subject to conditions (e.g. from the local authority, current tenant, freeholder, planning or listed building consent); and,
  • Property devaluation (where the landlord has obtained a report from an independent surveyor who is on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the measures would reduce the market value of the property, or the building it forms part of, by more than 5%).
 
There is also a temporary 6-month exemption when a landlord has only recently become a landlord. 

 

Enforcement authorities are:

 
  • The local authority for a domestic PR property; and,
  • A local weights and measures authority for non-domestic PR property.
 
They may serve a notice on the landlord imposing financial penalties. The authority may also publish details of the breach on the national PRS Exemptions Register.

 

Financial penalties (domestic):

  • Breach less than 3 months, <£2,000
  • Breach more than 3 months £2,000<
  • Registered false or misleading information on PRS Exemptions Register, <£1,000
  • Failed to comply with compliance notice <£2,000



Financial penalties (non-domestic):

  • Breach less than 3 months, <£5,000 or <10% of the rateable value of the property (whichever is greater) subject to a maximum of £50,000
  • Breach more than 3 months, <£10,000 or <20% of the rateable value of the property (whichever is greater) subject to a maximum of £150,000
  • Registered false or misleading information on PRS Exemptions Register, <£5,000
  • Failed to comply with compliance notice <£5,000
 
 
2018 00 06
Ian Mccann
Money laundering is a huge concern for UK law firms who are required to handle large sums of money.

Ensuring compliance, the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 have transposed the Fourth EU Money Laundering Directive into UK law. 

In an effort to further prevent money laundering, Law firms are now required to:

• Conduct money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments;
• Implement systems, policies, controls and procedures to address money laundering and terrorist financing risks;
• Apply policies procedures and controls across the firm’s group structure;
• Adopt appropriate internal controls;
• Provide training to staff;
• Comply with new due diligence requirements;
• Comply with requirements relating to politically exposed persons; and
• Keep records of data protection systems, policies and procedures.

The Legal Sector Affinity Group have released Anti-Money Laundering Guidance for the Legal Sector in order to explain the new requirements and help law firms understand and comply with the regulations. 
2018 25 03
A recent report featured on radio 4 suggested that only 8% of UK businesses will be GDPR compliant by the 25 May 2018 deadline.

Whilst this may be of some comfort to those who are not compliant, it will not be a defence should the Information Comissioner's Office (ICO) take an interest in your business.

As I write, you have two months to get compliant but even if you are not fully compliant by the deadline, you may find that ICO is somehwat more forgiving if you are travelling in the right direction.

In short, it's never too late to start on the path to compliance. A good place to start is to email or call us and book one of our interactive training sessions for your directors and senior staff.

We'll help you understand the issues and cut through the jargon in a way you can understand so that you can identify what needs to be done. We'll also conduct a "mini-audit" with your input as part of the session.

After your training we'll follow up with our views and proposals on where you stand and what you need to do to get compliant.

Call Matt Dowell now on 0113 247 3801 or Jodie Wildridge on 0113 357 3250 to book.
 
2018 01 20
Matthew Dowell
The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 come into effect on 1 April 2018.
 
From that date, all landlords must ensure that their properties (both residential and commercial) must be at least For all new tenancies created from 1 April 2018, all landlords must ensure that their properties (both residential and commercial) must be at least an Energy Performance Certificate rating of ‘E’.
 
For all tenancies already existing before 1 April 2018, the requirement applies to all residential properties from 1 April 2020 and all commercial properties from 1 April 2023.
 
While there are limited exemptions to these requirements, it is important that all landlords start taking steps to get their properties into shape.

For help getting your properties into shape, contact our experts today.
 
2018 30 14
Phil Copley

A boundary dispute often includes two parties fighting over a small strip of land, where neither party changes its standpoint and legal costs quickly increase due to their unwillingness to use ADR. When establishing a boundary, complex questions arise such as:
 

  • Is the boundary marked by a physical feature?
  • Is the boundary defined in legal documents?
  • Is the physical boundary followed exactly the same as the legal boundary?
  • Is there an agreement between the owners, a statute or legal presumption that defines the boundary?

These disputes can be notoriously complex and the final outcome can be uncertain. But there must be some other way to resolve this efficiently.

Now, there is.

A new Boundary Disputes Protocol has been created by the Property Litigation Association. The Protocol applies to both commercial and residential property within England and Wales and assumes that informal discussions have failed, and a more structured resolution is required. It is a FREE resource online for parties alongside relevant guidance.
 

What does the Protocol do?

There are a number of time limits and processes that the Protocol implements for parties in order to exchange information and resolve the dispute efficiently and consensually. Failure to comply with the Protocol could result in costs being awarded at court against the non-complying party.
 

What does the Protocol say?

1. When a dispute arises, neither party should interfere with the boundary or the disputed land, until the dispute is resolved.

2. Neither party should do anything which may impair the relationship between the parties or increase costs unnecessarily.

3. Both parties should agree to use the Boundary Dispute Protocol.

4. The First Conveyance should be interpreted to determine the location of the boundary. The words used, and the physical features referred to on the First Conveyance can assist the dispute. In some circumstances, subsequent conduct and services could be relevant.

5. Each party must consider the evidence that they can use. They must exchange documentary evidence they have, identify proposed witnesses and what they will say.

6. When appropriate, a joint expert should be instructed. If separate experts are justified, the experts need to write reports, meet up, identify the issues in dispute and set a strict timetable.

7. There should be an on-site meeting with the parties in dispute and any surveyors that have been instructed. An agreement on what the issues are needs to be made.

8. Any agreement reached must be set out in a written document and state clearly what has been agreed or what is required. It may refer to physical features on the ground. This will prevent future disputes. For certainty, it is wise to ask a lawyer to draw up this agreement.

9. Each party should apply to the Land Registry to note the agreement against their titles.

Following this Protocol will help you solve a dispute earlier, avoid unnecessary costs and can preserve a relationship between neighbours. We therefore suggest that you seriously consider the Protocol before pursuing litigation.

The easy to read Protocol can be found here

2018 08 22
Phil Copley
Any individual living in the current technological age may have had some doubts about the protection of their personal data. When personal data is given over for social media accounts, automatic online sign-ins, employment contracts, legal claims, health records and other reasons so freely, it is understandable why these doubts arise.

The doubts are only provoked by seeing advertisements that relate so closely to search history patterns and the receiving of emails from businesses without giving explicit consent to them. Businesses process and control personal data on a daily basis for these reasons and only now have individuals been given further rights to protect them against this.
 
The new General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) has recognised the need for protection of personal data. It will apply from 25 May 2018 and makes sure that personal data flowing in, or from, the EU is protected under one harmonized law.
 
For any business processing data, or controlling data with businesses that process data, compliance is essential. There are new requirements under the GDPR that need to be followed. These include, but are not limited to:
 
  1. Ensuring that consent has been genuinely obtained for the processing. If consent is obtained from a child, parental consent must also be obtained. This must be freely given, obvious to the individual that it is the giving of consent, clearly separate from other information, a positive action and be in plain language. This means that the ticking of a box would be acceptable, but the unticking of a box would not be.
 
  1. Making sure that the whole business is educated and trained about the GDPR, carrying out impact assessments and documenting all processing activities that are carried out. Records of training and impact assessments must be kept as a Supervising Authority may ask a business to show proof of GDPR compliance.
 
  1. Allowing individuals extra rights after the processing. This includes:
     
    • A way to withdraw consent as easily as giving it;
    • A way to access personal data that a business has, in a readable format; and
    • A way to request that their data is completely deleted.
       
Information about how an individual may initiate these rights must be provided by a business such as within a privacy notice or at the time of giving consent.
 
And what if a business doesn’t comply? They can be fined over 20 million euros! For any business, this is huge sanction. Non-compliance is not an option when faced with this potential penalty.
2018 00 22
Matthew Dowell
A recent poll commissioned to mark Cohabitation Awareness week revealed that out of 2,000 adults, 37% wrongly believed that unmarried couples can obtain a ‘common law marriage’ and 27% wrongly believed that if they separated they would have the same rights as a married couple. Whilst it might be seen as unromantic, this blog helps to clarify 4 myths about cohabitation so you can understand your rights as a cohabiting couple better and get back to enjoying your day!
 

Myth 1: Because you have lived together for so long, you are treated as husband and wife

WRONG 

A common law marriage does not exist in any form. Regardless of the duration of the relationship, the laws applied to cohabiting couples are completely different to those applied to married couples.
 

Myth 2: If we split up, the main carer of children will get the cohabited home

WRONG

This should not be assumed. Although a court considers the needs of the children, the main carer may not be able to keep the shared home. Once a child reaches the age of 18 years old, their needs are no longer prioritised and the house will usually be sold in order for the other parent to retain their rights in the house.

 
Myth 3: Cohabitation agreements are of no assistance

WRONG

A cohabitation agreement allows both parties’ promises to be recorded in a written agreement. This helps you to know the rights that you and your partner have, and allows the court to know what the parties intended.
 

Myth 4: The court will consider a fair outcome

WRONG

Because you are not married, the question is: “who legally owns the assets in dispute?”. The argument of fairness is not of any huge influence. Factors that do come into consideration are whether there was a common intention to share the property and there had been an express conversation stating this, or, whether the property is held jointly in proportion to the amount paid.
 
Whilst we sincerely hope that you never need to get into this kind of situation (and not on today of all days!), if you do want a free, confidential discussion regarding a co-habitation dispute, take a look at our Cohabitation Dispute page on our website, or get in touch with Matthew Dowell.
 
2018 30 14
Matthew Dowell
Yes, ‘Don’t cry over spilled milk day’ is an actual day, and it’s today! So, in the midst of legal proceedings, issues, claims and disputes, we therefore encourage you to think of the positives and stay optimistic.
 
It may be hard to do so, due to the financial difficulty, time pressures, nerves and ambiguity that may surround your legal situation, but think of the benefits of your situation.
 
The Jackson civil litigation reforms have benefitted you in the following ways:
  • An extension of the range of funding mechanisms that are available to parties such as damaged based agreements, third party funding and legal aid funds;
  • Banning referral fees in personal injury cases;
  • Fixed costs in the fast track;
  • Controlling disclosure and e-disclosure more effectively so that costs are proportionate to the issues in dispute;
  • Part 36 offers; and
  • The promotion of ADR and out of court settlement.
 
These make your legal experience less time consuming, less expensive and can even help preserve the relationship between parties.
 
It may not be plain sailing in law for everyone, but we learn from mistakes. The legal proceedings will end at some point. The whole process and final judgement will help you understand how to avoid disputes and proceedings in the future or deal with them in an efficient way.
 
It could be worse, you could have finalised your dispute before the reforms.
 
After all, the glass is still half full (of milk).
 
2018 00 11
For the first year ever, Legal Studio will be one of the small number of law firms in Leeds to sponsor awards at Leeds Beckett University and the University of Leeds.
 
Academic excellence in the “Cyberlaw: Law and the Regulation of the Information Society” module on the LLB Law course at the University of Leeds and in the “Best Extended Study at L6 – Employment” module on the LPC course at Leeds Beckett University will be rewarded by Legal Studio.
 
This is only one way in which Legal Studio are actively getting involved with the student community of Leeds.
 
The Legal Studio stall can also be found at the Stay in Leeds Law Fair in the Liberty Building on Wednesday 21st February 2018 where we will be speaking with students and collecting CV’s for work experience placements during the summer.
 
Legal Studio will also be conducting mock interviews for law students at the University of Leeds who require interviewing experience and assistance during their applications for placements.
 
We wish good luck to those studying on the modules and look forward to meeting the students that take advantage of these opportunities.
 
2018 27 09
The Winter Olympics Games are being held in PyeongChang in South Korea this year. Although a fun event, sporting ‘irregularities’ have become a much bigger issue in recent times. So, if you’d like to know more about how the Winter Olympics are regulated, have a read of this blog to see the rules that must be complied with.
 
There are 3 primary enforcement codes and conventions that implement the rules for the Winter Olympic Games. These are:
 
  1. Olympic movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions
 
This Code aims to provide sports organisations with harmonised regulations to protect all competitions from the risk of manipulation. Appropriate measures must be taken to comply with the Code by all National and International Olympic Committees, International Federations, their respective members and also IOC recognised organisations.
 
More information is available here.
 
  1. IOC Code of Ethics
 
The Code prevents participants of the Olympics from betting on the events and report any suspicious activity of manipulation, corruption and cheating. Each Olympic Games has its own edition of the Code. There is a strict review and disciplinary procedure for non-compliance.
 
The 2018 Code of Ethics can be found here.
 
  1. Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Competitions
 
This is a specific international convention on competition manipulation, signed by states around the world. It aims to prevent, detect, punish and discipline the manipulation of sports competitions including the Winter Olympic Games, alongside enhancing international cooperation with sports organisations.
 
More information can be found here.
 
2018 30 06
Following a few months’ worth of planning, we are delighted to finally reveal our new website!

What’s changed?

There are many elements to the website that have changed. These include:

•    More user-friendly information about the services that we provide;
•    Updated, easy-to-access blog content;
•    A newsletter sign-up;
•    Updated photos;
•    An easier method to contact us; and
•    Much more!

For clients

You will now be able to search our ‘For You’ and ‘For Businesses’ sections easily to find out more on the services we provide. 

For each service, you can also see the consultant who deals with the service, what other people have said about them, as well as their contact details.

You have access to our FREE online resources, blogs and newsletter sign up, which provides you with easy to understand, up to date, legal information. 

For consultants

We have improved our Careers page so you can see what Legal Studio is really like, what a consultant at Legal Studio really does, the stories of our current consultants and the rewards you receive working with us.

What’s next?

However, our new website is only the beginning of the big changes coming to Legal Studio!

Keep up to date with our blogs or sign up to our newsletter so that you’re the first to know. 

Navigate through our new website NOW and see the changes for yourself.
 
2018 14 09