Road works, IT contracts and property rights

first_img Fund raising: Magic circle firm Clifford Chance advised Citibank, Goldman Sachs and Royal Bank of Scotland on a $1.75bn (£1bn) fundraising for Mubadala Development Company, an investment company based in Abu Dhabi. Magic circle firm Allen & Overy advised Mubadala. Road works: Magic circle firm Linklaters advised 16 commercial banks, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and 15 investment banks on a £6.2bn contract for the M25 motorway. Connect Plus, a consortium of Balfour Beatty, Skanska, Egis Projects and Atkins, will widen the M25 and provide ongoing maintenance of 250 miles of road. City firm Ashurst advised Connect Plus while City firm Denton Wilde Sapte advised the Highways Agency. EIB took additional legal advice from magic circle firm Slaughter and May. Identity contracts: City firm Field Fisher Waterhouse advised the Identity and Passport Service on two contracts for the National Identity Service. A £385m contract was awarded to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) to upgrade the passport enrolment system, while IBM won a £265m contract to create a database for biometric information. CSC and IBM were advised by in-house teams. Coal takeover: City firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (RPC), alongside Canadian firm Lawson Lundell, advised Western Canadian Coal Corporation on its £67m takeover of Cambrian Mining. RPC also advised Western on restructuring $27m (£16m) of Cambrian’s debt. City firm Trowers & Hamlins advised Cambrian Mining. Property rights: City firm Lovells advised property investment company Shaftesbury on a £150m rights issue, allowing the company to acquire properties in London’s West End. Investment banks NM Rothschild, JP Morgan Cazenove and Merrill Lynch sponsored the fundraising, and took advice from magic circle firm Freshfields.last_img read more

Read more →

Law firm ‘disarray’ over retirement proposals

first_imgProposed changes to the mandatory retirement age would pose management challenges for law firms and throw succession plans into ‘disarray’, employment lawyers have warned. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published a series of proposals this week to allow people, including solicitors, the right to stay in employment beyond 65. The proposals include the abolition of the default retirement age and the extension of the right to request flexible working to help balance caring and health needs with the demands of a career. The EHRC said the changes reflected the ‘demographics’ of today’s ageing population and, by retaining valuable skills, would inject billions of pounds into the British economy. Audrey Williams, a partner and head of discrimination law at City firm Eversheds, said it was ‘just a matter of time’ before the EHRC’s proposals became fact, whether it was through the Equality Bill or the government’s promised consultation and review. ‘The challenge for management will be to align the new retirement rules with the development needs of the firm,’ she said. The right balance of skills was needed so that associates can step up when the time is right, she added. ‘But how can you ask someone to tell you when they are planning to retire without risking an age discrimination claim? Your succession plans will be in utter disarray.’ Ronnie Fox, name partner at City employment firm Fox Lawyers, said the proposed changes were part of a general trend against ageism. The default retirement age did not apply to partnerships, he said, because partners were effectively self-employed, but the profession took its ‘cue’ from the business community at large and management faced challenging times ahead. Law firms, he said, must be more careful than ever to ensure age-related clauses in contracts met the criteria of being ‘a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim’. Baroness Margaret Prosser, deputy chairwoman of the EHRC, said Britain has suffered a ‘skills exodus’ during the recession and the problem has been ‘exacerbated’ by forcing people to retire at 65. The proposed changes will allow ‘greater flexibility’ to recruit and retain talent, she said.last_img read more

Read more →

Is the pope right to speak out about the Equality Bill?

first_imgYou have to hand it to the Equality Bill – its detractors come from every walk of life. At one end of the spectrum there’s the white working class British guy who thinks the bill is all about giving his job to women or black people. It’s typical of this benighted government, he rages, and nothing, but nothing will persuade him to vote ‘Nu-Labour’ again! And at the other end of the spectrum there’s a German guy, living in some splendour in Italy, who also dislikes our home-grown British bill and who also isn’t about to engage in reasoned debate – because, God knows, he’s never wrong. He’s Pope Benedict XVI and, like his predecessors since the sixth century, he is infallible on points of doctrine concerning faith and morals – according to the Catholic church. So what’s his beef about the 600-page Equality Bill? It limits the freedom of religious communities to ‘act in accordance with their beliefs’, he says, and ‘violates natural law’. He urges Britain’s Catholic bishops to fight the legislation with ‘missionary zeal’. By ‘natural law’ he appears to mean the right to discriminate against people on the grounds of some or all of the nine ‘protected characteristics’ contained in the bill. These are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief (including lack of belief); sex; and sexual orientation. Actually, the pope shouldn’t worry too much: discrimination legislation has never fully applied to religious groups anyway. Nobody has hauled the Catholic church to a tribunal to defend why women or married men can’t join the priesthood, for example. The new bill will similarly steer clear of preachers. It doesn’t propose making it illegal for a mosque to turn away, on the grounds of religion, a practising Buddhist who fancied a job as an imam, for instance; that would be plain silly. But churches, mosques, synagogues and temples also employ secular people, for gardening, secretarial, maintenance and other jobs. And those employees will have the full protection of the law once the bill is enacted. Any religious group that turns down a gay person for a secular job simply because he or she is gay will be treated the same as any other erring employer. The same applies to the other protected characteristics: race, sex, disability and the rest. That’s going to be the law of this country – as set down by our elected representatives in parliament. What right does the pope have to urge the Catholic bishops of Britain to fight it with ‘missionary zeal’? Should he get involved in politics at all? Yes, because he’s the spiritual leader of the world’s Catholics and, as such, they look to him for leadership and advice. People of faith would argue that their faith and their lives, which of course are shaped by politics, are indivisible. And our Human Rights Act, which also has detractors from all walks of life, allows him the same right to freedom of expression as everyone else in our diverse society. But that’s another legal can of worms altogether.last_img read more

Read more →

Time to embrace back-office outsourcing

first_imgThe term ‘outsourcing’ is hardly new to the legal world: there has been much discussion over several years about legal process outsourcing (LPO) to lower cost locations. However, it has taken the profession a while to feel reassured that outsourcing is not a swear word, but in fact representative of a sensible and innovative approach to a firm’s business structure. So, what of the new kid on the block: back-office outsourcing (BOO)? By this I specifically mean the outsourcing of back-office functions such as the switchboard – a service increasingly used by firms large enough to have a separate switchboard and front of house, or smaller firms in need of an ‘overflow’ system to decrease the number of calls missed because of lack of resources. Sometimes alternatively referred to as a ‘virtual’ or ‘remote’ reception or switchboard. In our experience this is not a brand new development – in fact, for a number of years, CallCare has been handling out-of-hours calls for firms wishing to avoid a situation where the security guard picks up that all-important call from a client. Over more recent times, this picture has been evolving and a number of firms, having had the opportunity to ‘test drive’ outsourced call handling outside of core business hours, now outsource all call answering and see it as a financially attractive option that is aligned to the objective that is to become more strategic and forward-thinking in the approach to business structure. Despite this, BOO is still something that happens behind closed doors: even law firms with which we work are keen to avoid clients being aware calls are answered off-site by an external provider, as if this is an admission of some ‘weakness’. Far from wanting to ‘out’ CallCare’s clients, rather what I find interesting is the contradiction that exists here. The key question is: why are firms comfortable with talking about the outsourcing of legal processes – which sits at the heart of the service they offer to clients – yet are reluctant to make noise about the outsourcing of a basic function such as call handling? Call handling by an onshore outside organization offers the benefit of high-quality service delivered cost-effectively – of course I’m not without bias, but this seems to make good business sense to me. I appreciate it has taken a number of years for attitudes towards LPO to change, one would hope that the profession would learn from past experience and embrace BOO in the interests of cost efficiency and quality – benefits that can be passed on to firms’ clients. People have talked about the fact that LPO is all about improving processes. The same principle can be applied to back-office outsourcing: handing over your switchboard function is about putting the onus of improving the efficiency and quality of that function on to someone else’s shoulders: someone who is an expert in that particular field, leaving the firm’s management to focus on the business of providing legal services. In today’s global village, a law firm’s client base is increasingly widespread and, where necessary, firms are well practised in gearing up legal teams to handle work of an international nature. Yet apply that principle to other law firm departments and the same cannot be said. For example, hiring multilingual staff to fill a switchboard role can be difficult and expensive. Procuring an external provider who can supply a translation service for any international call that comes into the firm is one good solution. Similarly, for smaller firms a ‘virtual reception’ provides a hassle-free option – perhaps preferable to training and managing temporary staff. It’s clear that law firm clients want lower costs. While firms seem to be paying more and more attention to this, and well and truly embracing legal process outsourcing, it is important they do not overlook the option of outsourcing non-core elements of the business such as call handling. There was much negative press about LPO a number of years ago, now a firm is considered behind the times if they haven’t turned their attention to it. I feel confident that we will see the same change in attitudes towards back-office outsourcing, but I strongly suggest the profession as a whole makes it a priority call. Rasik Kotecha, is founder and managing director of CallCarelast_img read more

Read more →

Family law

first_imgConflict of laws – Ancillary relief – Divorce – Foreign judgements Agbaje (respondent) v Akinnoye-Agbaje (FC) (appellant): SC (Lords Phillips (president), Rodger, Collins, Kerr, Lady Hale): 10 March 2010 Nigel Dyer QC, Eleanor Harris (instructed by Knox & Co) for the appellant; Timothy Scott QC, Peter Mitchell, Amber Sheridan (instructed by Tucker Turner Kingsley Wood & Co) for the respondent.center_img The appellant wife (W) appealed against a decision ([2009] EWCA Civ 1, [2009] 3 WLR 835) dismissing her claim for financial relief under part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 following an overseas divorce from the respondent husband (H). H had been granted a divorce in Nigeria. The couple had been married for 38 years and had dual British and Nigerian nationality. Their children were born and, with the exception of the youngest child, educated in England. H and W had spent the majority of their married life in Nigeria, but had a house in England in which W was living when the divorce was granted. The Nigerian court awarded her a life interest in a property the couple owned in Nigeria and a lump sum equivalent to £21,000. W later obtained leave to apply for financial relief under part III of the 1984 act. The High Court ordered that W should receive a lump sum equal to 65% of the proceeds of the sale of the English property. The award represented 39% of the couple’s total assets. H appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal on the basis that the judge had not: (i) expressly addressed the factors in sections 16(2)(d), 16(2)(e) and 16(2)(f) when considering whether the order should be made; (ii) given sufficient weight to the parties’ connection with Nigeria; (iii) addressed the need for respect and deference to be paid to the Nigerian court. The Supreme Court had to determine: (i) to what issue the matters listed in section 16(2) were directed; (ii) what role forum non conveniens principles or comity had to play in the exercise of the discretion under section 16; (iii) whether an applicant had to show exceptional circumstances, hardship or serious injustice before an order could be made; (iv) whether the court was limited to making an award of the ‘minimum extent necessary to remedy the injustice’; (v) what matters the court should have regard to, and in what way, when exercising its powers under section 17. Held: (1) The factors in section 16(2) were not relevant when considering whether to make an order under section 17; they were matters to which regard must be had in considering whether ‘it would be appropriate for such an order to be made by a court in England and Wales’ under section 16(1). (2) Section 16 did not impose a statutory forum non conveniens test. The whole basis of part III was that it might be appropriate for two jurisdictions to be involved, one for the divorce and one for ancillary relief. The factors in section 16(2) were directed to the question of whether it would be appropriate for an order to be made by an English court when there had already been proceedings in a foreign country, including proceedings in which financial provision had been made. However, section 16 did reflect the principles of comity as between competent courts, Holmes v Holmes [1989] Fam 47 CA (Civ Div) considered. (3) Part III contained no express reference to hardship, injustice or exceptionality. Although both hardship and injustice were relevant factors for the court to consider under sections 16 and 18, they were not preconditions, Jordan v Jordan [2000] 1 WLR 210 CA (Civ Div) applied. (4) There was no statutory basis for the principle that the English court was limited to making an order that represented the minimum necessary to remedy the injustice. However, it was not the intention of the legislation to allow a ‘top-up’ of the foreign award so as to equate with an English award. Only in cases where there was a strong English connection was it appropriate to ask what provision would have been made had the divorce been granted in England. (5) Part III had to be applied in light of the legislative purpose, namely the alleviation of the adverse consequences of no, or inadequate, financial provision being made by a foreign court in a situation where there were substantial connections with England. The amount of financial provision awarded under section 17 would depend on all the circumstances of the case and the following general principles. First, primary consideration had to be given to the welfare of any children of the marriage. Second, it was never appropriate to make an order which gave the claimant more than she or he would have been awarded had all proceedings taken place in England and Wales. Third, where possible the order should have the result that provision was made for the reasonable needs of each spouse. The reasons why it was appropriate for an order to be made in England were among the circumstances to be taken into account in deciding what order should be made. Where the English connections of the case were very strong, there might be no reason why the application should not be treated as if it were made in purely English proceedings; however, the full procedure for granting ancillary relief after an English divorce would not apply. (6) The English connections in the instant case were substantial and the judge plainly took the relevant matters in section 16(2) into account. There was a very large disparity between what H and W received in Nigeria such as to create real hardship and a serious injustice. The Court of Appeal had no basis to interfere with the exercise of discretion and the order of the High Court judge was restored. Appeal allowed. last_img read more

Read more →

Legal aid payment regime blamed for RMJ collapse

first_img See Comment and Letters Legal aid lawyers should brace themselves following chancellor George Osborne’s emergency budget, as the Ministry of Justice confirmed it is looking at cuts in legal aid eligibility and fees. A spokesman said the department will be taking a ‘fundamental’ look at the legal aid system ‘to innovate and provide value for money’. The Law Society has hit back at government claims that inefficiencies at legal advice charity Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ) led to its collapse – while third sector groups have warned that all legal aid suppliers are facing funding difficulties. The charity, which was one of the largest providers of immigration and asylum advice, went into administration last week. It blamed cashflow problems caused by the Legal Services Commission’s payment regime, under which firms are not paid until a case closes. Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said the payment structure was ‘at its lowest a major contributing factor in the collapse of RMJ’. He described as ‘inaccurate’ the government’s claim that all other organisations had coped with the payment regime, saying cashflow problems had contributed to the closure of Gateshead and Cambridge law centres and that private practice firms were also ‘suffering’. Hudson said the LSC and former legal aid minister Lord Bach last year accepted that billing arrangements for immigration work were inadequate. AdviceUK, a support network for advice centres, wrote to justice secretary Kenneth Clarke this week, warning that RMJ is ‘far from alone in experiencing cashflow problems’ as a result of the legal aid payment structure. Chief executive Steve Johnson wrote: ‘Every legal aid supplier I know of has a cashflow problem because they cannot now collect payment for legal aid work until the case is closed.’ He said the problems were down to the ‘serial maladministration’ of civil legal aid by the LSC, which had pressed ahead with ‘poorly conceived reforms’ that have increased bureaucracy and costs, and driven down quality. Julie Bishop, director of the Law Centres Federation, said law centres struggled for three years to cope with the fee regime introduced in 2007, and were now on an even keel. But she said that stability had come at a price, with centres on average using 70% of their reserves to survive.‘Were they to face another financial hit there would be meltdown,’ said Bishop. last_img read more

Read more →

New laws on the use of cookies

first_img ‘Strictly necessary’As before, when all that was required was the opportunity to ‘opt out’, there is an exception to the ‘opt in’ consent requirements where the cookie is ‘strictly necessary’ for the provision of a service requested by the user. The European Commission, the DCMS and the ICO appear to agree that this will include cookies such as those expressing language preferences, or cookies for shopping websites which help to remember what has been placed in the user’s ‘basket’. But where is the line drawn between ‘strictly necessary’ and ‘necessary’, or even merely ‘desirable’? The ICO warns that this provision will be ­interpreted narrowly, and makes it clear that the seemingly more controversial use of cookies for tracking and advertising will not be seen as necessary. With accusations of ignorance and fear-mongering coming from both the privacy and the tech-freedom camps, recent new laws surrounding the use of ‘cookies’ have not been without their problems. A cookie is a small file which is used to assist the operation of websites and is essentially a binary calling card. Each time your browser (whether through a PC, tablet, mobile phone and so on) accesses a website, the website might deposit a cookie onto your hard drive so that, next time you visit the website, it already knows who you are. This can be extremely useful if you regularly use a particular website and you would prefer not to have to type in your name and address every time, or if you have expressed a preference as to how the webpage appears on your screen. On the other hand, cookies are also used for more controversial purposes, such as tracking your journeys through the internet so that advertisers can target you with more focused adverts for things which they think you might want. In view of the concerns that cookies can be used to build a detailed map of personal data, the European Commission issued a new directive in 2009 amending the regime for electronic communications networks. So far, the UK is one of only a handful of EU member states to have done anything about implementing the directive, which it did recently through the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1208). Before the amendment, websites were not permitted to store cookies on a user’s computer unless the user had been given sufficient information about what the cookies do and why they are there, and the user was ‘given the opportunity to refuse’ the cookie (regulation 6(2)(b) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2426)). Now websites cannot store cookies on a user’s computer unless the user has ‘given his or her consent’, having been provided with that information. This is a significant shift from ‘opting out’ to ‘opting in’. Failure to comply may lead to investigation and enforcement by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and, for persistent offenders, fines of up to £500,000. When to get consentThe question of timing has also received some attention. The user’s consent need not be given on every occasion that a cookie is stored by a particular website. It is sufficient that the user give consent on the first occasion. There has been some debate as to whether consent must be obtained before the cookie is deposited by the website, or whether it will be enough to get it afterwards. The DCMS argues that, although prior consent should be the norm, there is no absolute requirement for it. Some say that this flies in the face of the express wording in the regulation (the requirement that the user ‘has given’ – in the past tense – his or her consent). It remains to be seen how significant this issue may become. Competition riskWebsite developers and their supporters maintain that cookies are harmless, unintrusive and, more importantly, play a key part in analysis of internet usage. Many websites are free for all to access, but to achieve this they are heavily reliant on advertising income. If online advertisers cannot properly analyse internet usage and focus advertisements on their target audience, then that source of funding may dry up, meaning that many websites will simply cease to exist or have to start charging for access. Critics point to this as a major risk to the competitiveness of the UK and the rest of Europe. On the other hand, privacy campaigners have long been fighting for better regulation of cookies and other means of tracking individuals’ internet use. They argue that most websites will operate just fine without cookies and that it really does not take much to ask the user to express consent. In any case, there is no reason why the internet should not be subject to the same laws and principles as every other aspect of day-to-day life. Of course businesses want to target their marketing as effectively as possible, but that should not be at the expense of the individual’s privacy. What is clear is that the debate and controversies have not yet been settled, and it is far from clear how websites will be required to deal with this in practice. Unless new browser settings can be developed to satisfy the government and the ICO, I predict that users will see a pop-up box or, as on the ICO’s website (www.ico.gov.uk), a banner across the top of the webpage requesting consent. That might even be split into two – one consent to remember the user’s details so that the website can show ‘cool stuff’ that would interest the user (following the Amazon model), together with a second optional consent for a wider, and perhaps more controversial, use for tracking the user’s internet voyage. Hopefully, websites and users will have a better idea of where we stand in 12 months.center_img How to get consentThe regulations do not prescribe how, or even when, such consent may be given. Critics have argued, and the ICO has agreed, that endless pop-ups requesting consent would ruin the user’s experience. Adopting the example from the directive, the regulations state that the use of browser settings might be one way to give consent. The browser could be instructed to automatically accept or reject certain types of cookies for particular uses, so that the user is not asked to give consent each time a website is visited. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the ICO have championed this, but with a significant health warning that, while there are some cookie-specific browser settings currently available, the technology is not yet good enough to satisfy this requirement. The DCMS has reported that it is working with browser manufacturers such as Microsoft, Mozilla and Google in an attempt to bring the relevant technology up to speed. The government will not seek enforcement of the new regulations until that exercise has been completed, but it seems that developments are still at an early stage. It remains to be seen how the new settings will work or how, if at all, they can be implemented in less-customisable browsers such as mobile phones and palm devices. The ICO has taken a slightly stronger line, stating that it will allow websites ‘up to 12 months’ (that is to say, until 26 May 2012) to ‘get their house in order’, but failure to do anything towards compliance in the meantime will be taken into account when the ICO does get around to enforcement. The ICO has in fact already received several complaints of non-compliance but, at this stage, is simply writing to the alleged offenders with a warning. Jim McDonnell is an associate at DLA Piperlast_img read more

Read more →

Pinsent Masons in Anglo-Scottish merger talks

first_imgTop 20 London firm Pinsent Masons has confirmed it is in cross-border merger talks with Edinburgh-based McGrigors. If successful, the merger would create a business with a turnover of more than £300m, headquartered in London and with six offices across Asia. In the next week, talks are expected to be held with partners and staff about the proposals. A spokesman for Pinsent Masons said: ‘Both firms complement each other well, being leaders in the field of construction, energy and infrastructure. A potential tie-up would greatly benefit the clients of both firms, providing a wealth of market-leading expertise across a number of sectors and practice areas. ‘It would also provide a strong platform upon which to grow internationally, with a continued focus in Europe, the Gulf and Asia Pacific.’ The combined firms would be a top 75 global firm, with 350 partners, 1,250 lawyers and 14 offices. National firms Cobbetts and DWF have also begun preliminary merger talks, although no further information is being released. Last year saw early signs of increased merger activity between larger firms, with Beachcroft and DAC and BLG and Clyde & Co forming alliances. Analysts have predicted a wave of mergers for some time, as firms look to protect themselves against threats from new entrants, a flat UK market, fee pressure and difficult credit conditions. Earlier this month, law firm consultant Andrew Otterburn told the Gazette he had his ‘busiest summer ever’ in 2011 helping firms to re-engineer their businesses in anticipation of potentially huge changes in the market. ‘Firms are having to look much more seriously at their future strategy,’ Otterburn said, but cautioned ‘there is a fairly limited timescale and there are only so many decent firms out there’.last_img read more

Read more →

Are judges interested in legal costs?

first_imgIn a year’s time, everything is set to change in relation to lawyers’ costs. Among Lord Justice Jackson’s many and ambitious plans are a new rule on how to decide whether legal fees are proportionate (met with scepticism by many experts, it must be said), a new process for controlling costs from an early stage with electronically submitted costs budgets, and a new, more efficient, way of dealing with costs assessments on paper in the first instance, rather than incurring the expense of a court hearing. The driver behind it all is Jackson’s desire to tame an unruly costs beast that has got out of control in recent times. But the reforms will work only if those responsible for implementing them are prepared to deal with what one lawyer describes in April’s edition of Litigation Funding magazine as ‘the elephant in the room’, meaning the judiciary. Speaking to solicitors immersed day-in, day-out in litigation, there is a concern that actually it is not the rules that are wrong, but the way judges are failing to stick to them; for example by not looking at costs estimates properly or ensuring that parties do not stray from them. Many lawyers see nothing amiss with the current Lownds test to assess the proportionality of costs; the problem is that it is simply not applied properly. Too many judges lack the understanding, or indeed the will, to address costs issues properly (after all, in the High Court at least, many of those on the bench are former barristers who have never even delivered a bill; they have had well-paid clerks to deal with money matters). Indeed, there is a line of argument that Jackson’s reforms would not have been needed had the judiciary made proper use of its considerable existing powers to keep a lid on costs and manage cases effectively. The lawyer quoted in Litigation Funding, who was speaking under the Chatham House rule at a recent conference, suggested that some judges can almost be seen rolling their eyes when, at the end of a long trial, the issue of costs arises; it is not as intellectually stimulating as the technical point of law with which they have just been dealing. He added that it is not uncommon to find barristers ill-briefed on costs aspects at the end of a trial. As Jackson himself acknowledges, judicial training will be essential if his reforms are to succeed. But clearly training alone will not be enough. With changes to the rules on proportionality, costs management and costs budgeting, Jackson has given judges plenty of new tools to begin fixing the over-active costs machine; but ultimately, none of these will be effective unless there is a change of mindset about costs from the judiciary, and a willingness to tackle the issue head on. Follow Rachel on Twitter Rachel Rothwell is editor of Litigation Funding magazine, providing in-depth coverage on costs and the financing of litigation.last_img read more

Read more →

Who cares?

first_imgGet your free guest access  SIGN UP TODAY To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe now for unlimited access Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our communitylast_img read more

Read more →