What is mobile money?

For over a decade, mobile money has enhanced financial inclusion by allowing anyone with a mobile phone to securely save, spend and transfer money, including the unbanked. In the frontier markets, services typically operate via a network of agents (such as small shops and kiosks) that take in cash deposits and give out cash withdrawals, as requested via a customer’s mobile wallet account. As smartphones have replaced basic phones, functions have expanded to not only allow payment of salaries, electricity, rent and other invoices but also for companies to offer small loans and other financial services.

Mobile money’s biggest impact is in developing countries where there is a high rate of mobile phone ownership but lack of access to formal banking services. A recent World Bank report commented that “mobile phones and the availability of new digital technologies are at the forefront of this change, helping to draw more and more people into the formal economy, potentially mitigating gender and income inequality and stimulating development in areas ranging from farming to education”.

Key trends

At the end of 2018, the GSM Association’s State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money estimated there to be approximately 866 million registered mobile money customers in the world, representing a 20% increase from the end of 2017.

Following a decade of remarkable growth, the GSMA noted four key trends in the current market:

The African technology revolution

World Bank highlights Sub-Saharan Africa as a “trailblazer in the use of mobile money to conduct digital transactions”. The region now has more mobile money accounts than anywhere else in the world with about 396 million registered users at the end of 2018, a 14% increase from 2017.

Michelmores has been involved in the dramatic rise of African mobile money from its early days. In 2008, we advised Manocap, managers of the Sierra Investment Fund (a private equity fund whose backers include CDC, the British Government’s development finance institution) on one of the first African mobile money investments, Splash Mobile Money, Sierra Leone’s first mobile payment system.

Meanwhile, at a similar period in time on the eastern side of the continent, one of the biggest success stories, M-Pesa, was conceived in Kenya and “revolutionized the way Kenyans manage money” according to The World Bank. Now, 96% of households outside the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, have at least one M-Pesa account. This has had a number of positive social impacts, including helping empower women financially, boosting start-ups and encouraging personal savings.

M-Pesa has since been launched in six other African markets, including Tanzania, Egypt and Ghana but as the Financial Times remarked last month, “it has not all been plain sailing. Launches in countries including India, Afghanistan, Romania, Albania and South Africa failed to work and the service was closed down.”

In South Africa, MTN is now planning to relaunch its mobile money service early this year (which it had decommissioned in 2016). The service, called MoMo, aims to improve financial inclusion in a country where about 11 million South Africans remain unbanked and 50% of the adult population remains thinly served, according to Felix Kamenga, Chief Officer of Mobile Financial Services at MTN South Africa.

To this extent, MTN’s experience in Zambia has been inspiring. Komba Malukutila, Chief FinTech Officer of MTN Zambia, commented to us:

“MTN partnered with the Zambian Government in the fight for financial inclusion for all and we have seen that it is indeed a catalyst for economic growth in the country. Mobile money continues to be a key driver lifting the country out of poverty and drawing over 2 million Zambians into mainstream economic activity, harnessing their contributions to society. We can now offer affordable, instant, and reliable transactions, savings, loans, and even insurance opportunities in rural villages and urban neighbourhoods where no traditional banking services exist.”

Unlocking future growth

Whilst there is a steady uptake in mobile money adoption in many African countries, such as Kenya and Zambia, the GSMA highlights the significant opportunity to unlock growth and increase financial inclusion in the continent’s mobile money sleeping giants: Nigeria, Ethiopia and Egypt. In these countries, restrictive regulatory frameworks historically meant few providers were able to offer mobile money services. In 2018, however, reforms were introduced in Nigeria and Egypt, whilst Ethiopia has begun to pursue an ambitious financial inclusion strategy of its own.

Nigeria

In Nigeria, the country’s central bank recently brought in new rules that The Economist noted will allow telecoms firms, supermarkets, courier companies and others to become “payment-service banks”, with a licence to take deposits, make payments and issue debit cards. As 60% of the population do not currently have bank accounts, there is clear potential for widespread adoption of mobile money in the near future.

Service providers such as Nigeria’s market leader, Paga, are well-placed to benefit from these reforms, with increasing support from impact investors who are seeking to promote financial inclusion in these markets. Indeed, Michelmores recently assisted the Global Innovation Fund with its $5m equity investment in Paga intended to drive usage of a mobile wallet and other digital financial services for their customers.

Tayo Oviosu, Founder and CEO of Paga commented to us:

“We believe that there is a major challenge in payments facing emerging markets beyond Nigeria. Our mission at Paga is to make it simple for one billion people to access and use money, and in achieving this, we are poised for global expansion by extending our operations to countries such as Ethiopia and Mexico. In the next few years, our focus will be on digitizing payments by building an ecosystem that enables simple financial services for everyone.”

And in 2019, other Nigerian providers – including Interswitch, OPay and PalmPay – raised almost $400m from venture capital investors with a view to expanding across Sub-Saharan Africa.

Ethiopia

Ethiopia continues to offer significant potential for growth; only one in five people has a bank account, but half of all adults own a mobile phone. Mobile money platforms such as M-BIRR (who were advised by Michelmores in 2018 on an equity capital investment by DEG, the German Government’s development finance institution, and the European Investment Bank) will be increasingly attractive to investors in the coming years looking to facilitate financial inclusion across the country.

The European Investment Bank cites one example:

“The opportunity to receive social security payments by phone is making a huge difference. M-Birr clients speak of how they had to walk for hours and endure long queues to get these payments, without any guarantee that the money would be there in the end. [Now,] to withdraw cash, beneficiaries just have to go to a local agent.”

Strategic partnerships and regional interoperability

The IFC states in its Report on Digital Access: The Future of Financial Inclusion in Africa (May 2018) that “key to digital financial services [“DFS”] evolution is partnership. Interoperability is a precursor to most sophisticated services, and this is becoming increasingly common in all markets. It underpins the development of digital payments across value chains, and enables salaries and social payments to be paid digitally to recipients using a range of DFS.”

In Kenya, Safaricom and PayPal announced a partnership in April 2018 to allow M-Pesa users to make mobile money transfers between PayPal and M-Pesa accounts. The new service allows M-Pesa’s users to transact online with PayPal, highlighting the wide ranging utility of mobile money services.

In other developments, in November 2018, Orange and MTN launched a joint venture, Mowali, to enable customers to send money across networks in 22 Sub-Saharan markets.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that Visa is working with MFS Africa, a pan-African mobile money hub, to enable people with mobile wallets in Africa to pay for international online services. Dare Okoudjou, founder and chief executive of MFS Africa, said the partnership would enable users to extend their transactions outside Africa: “Now you can receive money from the US and make a payment in France… Any kid with a mobile wallet in Kigali should now have enough to deal with the rest of the world”.

Potential challenges

Taxation

Despite the industry’s rapid growth, concerns have intensified regarding the introduction of taxes on mobile money transactions throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond. For example, the GSMA report notes that the introduction of a 1% tax on mobile money deposits, withdrawals, transfers and payments by the Ugandan government in July 2018 made mobile money transactions more expensive for a significant number of users: “The new tax had an almost immediate negative effect: the value of peer-to-peer transactions declined by 50 per cent within two months of implementation while the value of all transactions dropped by around 25 per cent. Around 100,000 agents saw their earnings decline by 35 to 40 per cent, and around 30,000 agents went out of business completely.”  Consequently, some customers have reverted to using cash or agency banking whilst others are transferring smaller amounts via mobile money.

Therefore, whilst governments across Africa are attempting to collect more tax revenue, new transactional taxes risk stalling progress on digitization and financial inclusion.

Regulatory

With innovation comes the challenge of ensuring appropriate and balanced regulation. Governments are grappling with the desire to encourage investment in new technology whilst ensuring adequate and proportionate regulation and consumer protection in areas such as cyber-security, anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. Further, if regional interoperability is to work, how can regulations be harmonised across a continent with diverse regimes?

For this reason, many jurisdictions are adopting ‘regulatory sandboxes’ (testing grounds for new fintech business models that are not protected by current regulation) to help them develop appropriate regulations for emerging mobile money businesses, allowing regulators to identify risks and provide supervision for a temporary period, without stifling innovation.

What is next for mobile money in Africa?

In its Report on Digital Access, the IFC notes that “the launch phase of this new industry can be considered complete with hundreds of established services, many of which are profitable. We are now moving into a new phase of development, with emerging technologies and widescale integration between digital financial services and other financial services providing a wealth of new opportunities”.

Whilst challenges remain, mobile money is likely to continue to be a key vehicle of structural change in Africa and other frontier markets, helping to create jobs and alleviate poverty by providing affordable and accessible financial services to all.

In June 2019, HMRC released guidance clarifying which aspects of a property might qualify as “non-residential” in relation to the application of the “mixed use” rate for stamp duty land tax (SDLT).

SDLT is calculated according to the amount paid for a property. Wholly residential transactions are liable for a maximum SDLT rate of 15% on the “top slice” of the property’s value (including an additional 3% second home surcharge). This is in contrast to “mixed use” transactions (transactions that include non-residential aspects) where the purchaser could expect to pay a maximum rate of 5%.

For many agricultural properties, the distinction between “residential” and “mixed use” can be ambiguous.

Residential property is defined in Section 116(1) Finance Act 2003 as being:

1. A building that is used or suitable for use as a dwelling, or is in the process of being constructed or adapted for such use, and
2. Land that is or forms part of the garden or grounds of a building within paragraph (a) (including any building or structure on such land), or
3. An interest in or right over land that subsists for the benefit of a building within paragraph (a) or of land within paragraph (b);
   and ‘non-residential property’ means any property that is not ‘residential property’.

According to this definition, where a residential property includes a “non-residential” element, the property is no longer wholly residential and so the entire purchase can be assessed at the lower “mixed use” SDLT rates.

The potential of reduced tax liability is encouraging purchasers to include an additional “non-residential” element within their house purchase. The Telegraph (Article published on 22 September 2017) optimistically suggested that bundling “a small plot of Nottinghamshire woodland” with one’s “Mayfair townhouse” could in theory create the “mixed use” tax-savings parcel, although this is likely to be viewed with suspicion by HMRC.

However, this principle could have sensible application for purchasers of country estates and agricultural properties, which may include a plethora of elements with a traditional “non-residential” use.

What land would not constitute “grounds or garden”?

Recent discussion, as summarised in Adam Corbin’s article “Stamp Duty Land Tax and mixed use premises: “grounds with house for sale?”” has focused around what type of land falls outside the scope of “garden or grounds” and would therefore be classed as “non-residential property”.

Muddying the waters of the debate was the existence of guidance released by HMRC in 1995 in relation to Capital Gains Tax (CGT). This guidance limited “grounds” to being “enclosed land surrounding or attached to a dwelling house or other building serving chiefly for ornament or recreation” [note RI 119]. This narrow interpretation aided HMRC in obtaining CGT, but has had the opposite effect in relation to SDLT, as it indicates that land which could be described as grounds (and thus “residential” under the S.116 Finance Act definition) must be “surrounding or attached” to a house, or be used for “ornamental or recreational” purposes. Perhaps in an effort to reduce confusion, HMRC has now withdrawn this particular guidance.

Hyman v HMRC case

The withdrawal of the 1995 guidance did not prevent Mr and Mrs Hyman from applying this definition of “grounds” earlier this year in Hyman v HMRC (2019). Mr and Mrs Hyman argued that there were three “non-residential” elements to their property, including a derelict barn, meadow and public bridleway, and therefore this should qualify their whole property for a reduced “mixed use” tax rate. This classification would amount to a saving of £34,950.00 when compared to the wholly residential rate.

The Hymans argued that the physical separation (by distance and hedges) of the barn, meadow and bridleway evidenced that they were independent of the dwelling’s “gardens and grounds”. Further, the derelict condition of the barn, and public nature of the bridleway and meadow meant that neither could they be used for “private, ornamental or recreational” purposes and so would not fall within section 161(1)(b). Additionally, Mr Hyman contended that the barn was classified by planners as being “non-residential” due to the absence of a planning permission enabling its conversion to a dwelling.

However, the First-tier Tax Tribunal interpreted “grounds” widely and translated its meaning as being “land attached to or surrounding a house” which is “available to the owners to use as they wish”, irrespective of whether the land was actively used by the owners. The Tribunal dismissed the notion that “grounds” must be for ornamental or recreational purposes, and stated that it was possible for other people to have rights over the land without making it “any less the grounds of that person’s residence”.

New HMRC guidance

In anticipation of a raft of cases along the same lines as Hyman v HMRC and building on their success in that claim, HMRC released detailed guidance in June this year clarifying what constitutes “non-residential” land.

The guidance states that the use of the land in question will often be determinative of its status, as “non-residential” land will usually be land used for commercial purposes. Historical use may be taken into account, but any future or planned use of the land will not be relevant. To allay agricultural fears, the guidance does clarify that a field left fallow will not become “grounds or garden” when not being actively farmed.

The guidance lists other factors that will be taken into account, such as the layout of the land and outbuildings and the geographical distance between the land and the dwelling. However, it is emphasised that any hindrances on the land (rights of ways, access for statutory undertakers) will not prevent the land being “grounds”.

Finally, HMRC has clarified that “it does not follow that any land beyond the CGT ‘permitted area’ is not the ‘garden or grounds’” for SDLT purposes.

Hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’, as it is more colloquially known, has long been heralded as a potential, yet divisive, solution to UK energy security. With the Government’s cuts to clean energy subsidies having an injurious effect on the renewable energy sector, the direction now seems to be shifting towards generation of electricity from the UK’s natural gas resources. In this overview, we examine the extensive regulatory framework governing fracking in the UK and its impact on landowners.

Introduction

On 6 April 2016, Section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 came into force. It introduced amendments to the Petroleum Act 1998 concerning when and how the Secretary of State (the ‘Secretary’) can issue a ‘well consent’ and a ‘hydraulic fracturing consent’ to facilitate the exploration and subsequent production of shale gas from fracking. In short, a well consent concerns the proposed location of the fracking operations. A hydraulic fracturing consent relates to the actual fracking operation itself, including drilling and is the final check before an operator can implement its planning permission. These consents are subject to substantial regulation and are only two of the numerous consents required for a fracking operation to actually get off the ground or, more accurately, under it.

It should be noted that prior to satisfying conditions in relation to these consents, a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence, the landowner’s consent and planning permission are needed for the drilling of wells for both exploration and production purposes, as well as the development of a fracking site. Planning permission will only be granted with the most rigorous of conditions attached. Further, the Environment Agency ensures that any shale gas operations are conducted in a way that protects people and the environment.

Many of the concerns relating to fracking have their provenance in contentions that fracking carries serious risk to people’s health, seismicity, purity of local water supplies and to the local environment, as well as potentially adversely impacting the right of landowners and causing an inadvertent industrialisation of the countryside. Of course, these concerns are only amplified by the media attention that surrounds fracking and the strong views on both sides of the energy debate.

It should also be noted that in April 2016, the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2016 came into force as well. These regulations ensure that fracking only takes place below a certain depth in specified groundwater areas, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites.

Which areas are likely to be affected by fracking?

Productive shale in the UK is specific to various regions. In South East England the primary area of productive shale is situated in the Weald Basin. In Northern England, the area known as Bowland Basin is thought to contain the largest shale gas reserves. The British Geological Survey have estimated that the total volume of gas in the Bowland Basin shale is some 1300 trillion cubic feet. The Midland Valley in Scotland is also considered to be rich in shale gas reserves.

From a policy perspective, as it stands, England is the only member of the UK to open its doors to fracking. Currently, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have implemented moratoriums or imposed far more stringent conditions, which limit an operator’s practical ability to commence fracking.

How does fracking impact on a landowner’s rights?

Announcing the Government’s consultation proposals concerning fracking in 2014, the then Energy Minister, Michael Fallon, said: “Britain needs more home-grown energy”. He added: “These proposals allow shale and geothermal development while offering a fair deal for communities in return for underground access at depths so deep they will have no negative impact on landowners.”

Access

The horizontal nature of shale gas exploration means that whilst the vertical well-head may be in one location, the actual fracturing of the shale rock may occur some distance from that location. Inevitably, this leads to the pipelines passing through land owned by others, albeit often at a depth of a few kilometres beneath the surface.

The general rule at common law, with regards to land ownership, is that the person who owns the surface of a piece of land also owns the strata that exists beneath the surface. This is unless the rights have been sold separately from the land. However, by virtue of the Petroleum Act 1998, petroleum rights, including deposits of natural gas belong to the Crown. Operators are required to obtain a licence from the Government to search for and produce oil and gas. This is in contrast to the US, where landowners own sub-surface mineral rights. Operators in the US are required to gain permission from the landowner to conduct fracking operations under their land. However, the rapid spread of fracking in the US would suggest that landowner opposition to fracking operations has been minimal.

In the 2010 Supreme Court case of Star Energy Basin Ltd v Bocardo [2010] UKSC 35, it was held that an operator of a fracking project would be committing trespass unless he had received permission from the landowner to drill underneath their land. Bocardo’s claim for damages arose from the fact that Star Energy had, without Bocardo’s knowledge or consent, drilled a well from their own land through Bocardo’s land to access an oil deposit under Bocardo’s estate in Surrey. Despite the fact that the event giving rise to a claim of damages was trespass, the measure of damages was not decided within the common law of trespass. It was the view of the Supreme Court that compensation in such circumstances should only be nominal. The damages awarded were only £1,000 due to the trespass having no tangible effect on the landowner’s enjoyment of the land, as it had occurred two or three kilometres beneath the surface. The damages centered around what the Court assessed as proper compensation to be paid by Star Energy, to secure its right to install deviated wells and pipelines under Bocardo’s land, the only real hurdle to which was securing the necessary licence to search, bore for and extract petroleum.

Accordingly, prior to the enactment of the Infrastructure Act 2015, the law required a fracking operator to acquire the landowner’s permission to drill under their land and was required to compensate the landowner accordingly. This mirrored the position in the US. If the operator was refused such permission by the landowner, the operator had to apply to gain rights pursuant to the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966. If an application was necessary under the 1966 Act, the operator would have to show that they had been unable to obtain the rights by negotiation, because the landowners had unreasonably refused to grant them, or there was a practical reason why they could not secure them, such as being unable to identify the individuals concerned. Their claim would be assessed by the High Court, who would also determine the amount of compensation payable.

Section 43 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 provides that there is now a right to drill for oil or gas at a depth of at least 300m below the surface. This effectively removes the need to gain consent from the landowner to access land at a depth below 300 metres. The requirement to acquire the consent of the landowner to access land at the surface and down to a depth of 300 metres remains and the landowner would require due compensation.

For a landowner, the issue of access must be duly considered where the requisite consents and licences have been granted to a fracking operator. If necessary these should be separately negotiated. This will include such factors as the nature, extent and duration of that access, as well a payment in respect of that access being granted.

Payment

Sections 45 to 47 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 gives the Secretary wide ranging powers to make regulations which require fracking operators to make payments and provide notices to landowners and “to other persons for the benefit of areas in which relevant land is situated”, where fracking operations are to take place. As it stands there is no automatic right to compensation for an individual landowner. Voluntary notice and payment schemes already exist, but Sections 45 and 46 provide another means of setting up such schemes, if the existing voluntary schemes prove insufficient.

The initial indications were that communities affected by fracking operations would receive a payment from the operator in return for access. This position has changed since the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Shale Wealth Fund. This is a fund designed to share the proceeds of the fracking revenues with community trusts, local authorities and directly with residents of areas affected by fracking operations.

It also been announced by Jim Ratcliffe, the Chairman of INEOS, that the chemical multinational at the forefront of the UK fracking drive will give 6% of its Shale gas revenues to homeowners, landowners & communities affected by the fracking operations of INEOS, including 4% to landowners directly above the wells. Jim Ratcliffe stated: “This is a game changer for Britain’s Shale gas industry. Giving 6% of revenues to those living above Britain’s shale gas developments means the rewards will be fairly shared”.

These factors combined are designed to ensure the economic benefits from fracking operations are shared with those that are directly affected and that landowners are justly compensated for fracking operations that may adversely affect their enjoyment of their land. This is particularly valuable to landowners where no agreement has been reached with the operator for the payment of compensation, as under the statutory route, only nominal compensation might be available to landowners.

Conclusion

In contrast to the rapid growth of fracking in the US, the stringent regulation in the UK is likely to produce a more measured progression. The regulatory framework is likely to ensure that landowners are kept suitably informed and are fairly compensated when necessary. It is also likely, given the current controversy surrounding fracking, that operators will be quick to ensure that suitable agreements regarding access and compensation are reached with landowners.

Landowners should not be put into a position where they could be held liable for any potential environmental issues derived from fracking operations on their land. The nascent status of fracking in the UK and the contrasting information currently available in the public domain mean that it remains to be seen whether the environmental concerns prove accurate. However, such concerns will no doubt be addressed throughout the course of the planning and permitting process and via a continuing dialogue with landowners and local communities affected by fracking operations.

Given the UK’s current over-reliance on gas imports and the Government’s extant disposition towards renewable energy, it is likely that fracking operations in the UK will grow. Consequently, the balancing act between the UK’s need to produce cost effective energy, the rights of landowners and public opinion will become increasingly visible. The inevitable impact on the UK’s renewable energy sector and the UK’s climate change commitments will also garner considerable scrutiny.

For more information please contact Ben Sharples on ben.sharples@michelmores.com or 0117 906 9303

With National Pro Bono Week starting on the 5th November, I thought it timely to share my experiences working as a trainee for this worthwhile pursuit. The numbers of pro bono hours undertaken by city firms has been dropping year on year, but it is encouraging to see that Michelmores retains a strong commitment to pro bono work. With Legal Aid cuts being announced all the time, the need to provide a pro bono service is certainly topical.

So, one Thursday morning I was sat at my desk getting on with some work, when I noticed David Howe, our head of property, standing next to me, asking the loaded question: ‘have you got any plans for tonight?’. What we were going to do, he explained, was to go on a site visit. The property team are involved in providing pro bono advice to a community association in a small village. We were to meet some of the committee this evening, and to look at the property they had recently acquired. David explained that some works needed to take place which would need to be carefully examined as, after the visit, I would be drafting an appropriate Deed of Mutual Easement for the parties involved. He handed me the file to read and asked me to meet him at 5pm.

We drove down to the village together and met some of the members of the association, who were extremely nice, and didn’t seem to mind the tag-along trainee! It was a really good feeling to be spending an evening with such lovely people who were all working together to pursue a benevolent cause. Not only that, but I was able to watch one of the most respected lawyers in the property world relate to clients and answer difficult legal advice. It also punctuated the importance of site visits; it really is worthwhile to look at a property physically rather than just looking at the boundaries ‘edged red’ on a title plan.

I have been given more work to do on this matter and am excited to see it progress. The National Pro Bono Week is held to celebrate the involvement of solicitors who give up some of their time to provide their services for free for the sake of the public good, and I am very proud to be involved in this with Michelmores.

Michelmores’ Agricultural Litigation team has succeeded in opposing a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) which would have re-categorised a public footpath running through our clients’ woodlands as a bridleway. If confirmed by the Secretary of State, the DMMO would have allowed horse riders and cyclists access to the environmentally sensitive ancient woodland, which is classified as a site of special scientific interest.

With the help of the Michelmores team, led by Partner Adam Corbin, supported by Hannah Drew and along with Alistair Mills of Landmark Chambers, the land owners successfully opposed the confirmation of the DMMO.

The application relied upon a combination of historical documents and user evidence. The case involved issues of capacity to dedicate and historical charity law as well as interpretation of historical documents and arguments concerning the safety of the proposed reclassification.

The land owners said:

‘We had absolutely no experience of public rights of way matters and are glad we asked Michelmores to act for us.  They assembled a team of specialists who not only impressed us with their thorough and knowledgeable credentials, but also with their understanding and collaborative approach.  The Michelmores team and Alistair Mills helped us navigate the considerable stress caused by the fight to protect and preserve this valuable haven for people and wildlife.   We are pleased to have the opportunity to thank them and would not hesitate to recommend them to anybody in a similar position.’

The decision hopefully marks the end of a long-running dispute, with the present application being made in 1996, following an unsuccessful previous attempt to reclassify the footpath at a public inquiry held in 1995 and historical evidence showing some uncertainty over the footpath’s status dating back more than a hundred years.

A full copy of the decision can be found here.

A recent Court of Appeal decision has confirmed that there is limited scope for local authorities to dismiss applications for DMMOs. The requirement for any unrecognised or incorrectly recorded public footpaths and bridleways to be recorded on the Definitive Map by 2026 is also believed to have led to an increase in DMMO applications. Because of these two factors, it is anticipated that there will be an increasing number of this type of dispute being heard at public inquiries and Adam and his team continue to act on a number of such matters.

This Article was written by Becky Kells at AllAboutLaw. 

Observing a few simple principles can make all the difference in how your application is perceived.

At Michelmores, training contracts are very competitive, with fewer than five percent of applicants securing one. Since virtually all applicants meet the basic qualifications, it follows that your application is going to have to stand out from the majority for you to have a decent chance at being shortlisted and moving on to the interview phase. Here are some tips that can help you improve your odds of success.

Put yourself in your reader’s shoes

The person who initially reads your application (and makes the first cut) is likely to be examining over 100 applications a week for only a few available positions, which means that they are looking for a reason to reject your application, not accept it. Don’t give them an excuse.

It is critically important that you answer precisely the question asked, instead of using the question as a platform to tell the reader what you want them to know about yourself. Above all, don’t cut and paste material from applications to other firms just to save time. An experienced application reader will be able to spot a cut-and-paste job immediately, and it could be fatal to your application.

Demonstrate your capacity for concise, lucid writing and sound logical reasoning

It’s not just the content of you answers that matter—it’s how you present them. Words are the stock in trade of a competent solicitor, and now is your chance to prove that you have mastered them. Treat your application as if it were part of a legal brief that you are preparing as your first assignment for the firm. In other words, make sure it is flawless.

Michelmores’ application questions have a 1500-character limit. Remember, that means characters, not words—and 1500 characters adds up to only about 250 words. Do not exceed this limit. As a solicitor, you are going to need to express complex ideas in clear, concise language. Consider your answers to the application questions to be your way of demonstrating your ability to do exactly this. Get straight to the point in rigorous, logical fashion—in fact, it might be a good idea to outline your response before you write it.

Do your homework

Michelmores is looking for people who want to become a part of the team, not just someone who wants to become a solicitor. The more you know about the firm, the more you will be able to demonstrate this knowledge in your responses, and tie it in to your own experiences and demonstrated inclinations. Resist the temptation to list what you know about the firm; find a way to work it into the point you are trying to get across.

Show, don’t tell

Anyone can speak floridly about their “passion for commercial law”, their “problem-solving abilities” or their “commitment to teamwork”, for example. It takes a little bit more to convince the firm that you actually embody these qualities. It is better to illustrate that you possess these qualities, without necessarily even stating them directly. Try using the STAR approach:

• describe the Situation;
• explain the Tasks you were charged with;
• list the Actions you took; and
• describe the Results

Emphasise the skills you have developed, not just the titles of your positions

There will be plenty of space in your application to list your activities by name. Ultimately, however, it is more important to show how participation in these activities made you into the person you are today. Joining the International Law Association, without more, is not likely to be as impressive as obtaining a promotion at work, even if your job has nothing to do with law. Certain attributes, such as interpersonal skills, are transferable to a wide variety of activities.

Avoid fatal mistakes

No matter how good your application is, a fatal mistake could ruin it. Do the following to avoid making errors:

• Have someone else proofread your application for typos. Law is a detail-oriented profession, and there is no better way to have your application thrown into the reject pile that to commit a typographical error.
• Don’t engage in flattery—lawyers are known for their ability to catch the faintest whiff of this misguided form of persuasion.
• Don’t overuse cliches or write in “legalese.” Both of these habits are annoying, and they detract from your credibility.
• Don’t engage in dishonesty of any sort. Whoever is reading your application will have developed a fine-turned radar for even subtle acts of deception.
• Don’t regurgitate what you have read on the firm’s website. It is OK, however, to tie in the firm’s values and expectations with your own experience, as long as this is done seamlessly and doesn’t appear to be grafted onto your application.

Observing the foregoing application tips, of course, is not enough to guarantee that you will be offered a training contract—the competition is simply too intense for that. It will, however, help you put your best foot forward and maximize your odds of making it to the next step in the process.

The Corporate Finance team at Michelmores has acted on behalf of its longstanding client, Magicseaweed (MSW) on the acquisition by Surfstitch Group, which was announced today.

MSW is the world’s largest user generated surf content network, providing forecasting and live reporting of over 4,000 beaches across the globe. The business was founded in Devon in 2002 and has become the world’s leading online surf forecasting platform, used by surfers and water sports enthusiasts in over 200 countries.

MSW serves the key markets of North America, Europe and Australia, attracting over 2 million unique monthly users to its site, and over 1 million app downloads.

Surfstitch is a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) which is an industry leading online retailer to over 2 million customers through its websites surfstitch.com, swell.com and surfdome.com.

Surfstitch undertook its ASX IPO last year and is quickly growing into a global leader in the sector. Surfstitch’s focus has historically been on retail and MSW’s has been on content (surf forecasts, user generated, editorials, etc). Surfstitch’s mission is to become the global destination for action sports, youth lifestyle content and online retail.

The Michelmores Corporate Finance team was led by Richard Cobb and Henry Taylor, with support from Francesca Eastwood, Tom Torkar and Andrew Tobey.

The shareholders of MSW were advised by Gary Partridge, Richard Day and Tracey Bentham from PWC’s Bristol based Corporate Finance Team.  Herbert Smith Freehills acted as lawyers to Surfstitch, KPMG carried out financial due diligence and J P Morgan in Sydney provided corporate finance advice.

Commenting on the deal, Henry Taylor, Lead Associate, said:

“As an enthusiastic user of the MSW website for many years, it was very refreshing to be able to use my passion for a client’s services in the context of a fast-moving international listed transaction.  We wish Ryan, Ben and Nick all the best for their exciting future under Surfstitch’s new ownership”.

Ryan Anderson, Co-Founder of Magicseaweed said:

“We are thrilled to be working with the Surfstitch Group as we look to expand Magicseaweed in the USA, Australasia and Europe.

“It’s a unique opportunity to find the right balance of surf forecasting, inspirational content and product offerings to our global surf community and millions of users.

We are very grateful for the outstanding support we have received from Michelmores for many years and especially at this key point in the company’s history”

For further information, please visit  www.magicseaweed.com

Michelmores’ Corporate team has advised wealth planning firm Succession Group in its largest acquisition to date − buying Birmingham-based Clay Rogers & Partners Limited (Clay Rogers) via a mix of cash and shares, which over time could value the deal at over £10 million.

This is the 25th acquisition for the Plymouth-based firm and the largest and most complex they have completed to date.

Clay Rogers began working with Succession in 2013 to develop its proposition and grow capital value. It has £450million of funds currently under management.

The deal will see significant investment into Clay Rogers’ former Birmingham headquarters to become a client servicing hub, consolidating Succession’s Midlands activity to deliver world-class wealth planning solutions locally.

The Michelmores team advising was led by Partner Henry Taylor, with support from Associate Francesca Hubbard and Solicitor Megan Wright.

Paul Morrish, Group Corporate Director at Succession, said:

“The Group continues to identify strong businesses to further develop our leading consolidation model and this latest acquisition – the biggest and most complex we have undertaken to date, marks an exciting time of growth for Succession.

“The Michelmores team provided excellent support, offering proactive and efficient advice throughout the process”.

Michelmores Partner Henry Taylor said:

“This was an exciting deal between two like-minded and driven businesses. We very much enjoyed working with the whole Succession team and look forward to contributing to their continued progress”.

For more information please contact Henry Taylor, Partner on henry.taylor@michelmores.com or +44 (0)1392 687654

Triodos Bank, one of the world’s leading sustainable banks, has launched its own crowdfunding platform, offering a range of bonds and equities issued by organisations focusing on positive social and environmental impact. The platform, www.triodoscrowdfunding.co.uk, is the first to be launched by a bank, and will allow investors to hold the investments in an Innovative Finance ISA (IFISA).

Alexandra Watson, Partner in the Corporate team, said:

“This was a really exciting project to be involved with, and one that has a direct, positive impact to society and the environment. Not only did we advise on the establishment of the platform, including drafting the terms and conditions, but we also advised on the two bond issues currently on the platform and on their documentation and security. We are delighted that the platform is now live and look forward to continuing to support it as it develops.”

The two current investments include Mendip Renewables, which pays 5 per cent a year, increasing in line with RPI inflation and repayable over 17 years. This project aims to take a 5MW operational solar farm in Somerset into community ownership. An estimated £1.4m of profit will be contributed to a community benefit scheme over the life of the project.

The second investment is Rendesco, which is rasing £5.5m to develop green energy from ground source heat pumps and is paying 7 per cent interest per year over a 7-year term. The aim is to develop 100 sites, with a focus on retirement homes and providing low-carbon heating to keep the elderly warm.

Shortly there will be the Thera Trust going live, which provides home for people with complex learning disabilities, which offers 5.5 per cent interest per year over a 6-year term.

Triodos said the investments “have been extensively screened by Triodos for social and environmental impact, the viability of their business model and the credibility of the management team”.

Bevis Watts, Managing Director of Triodos Bank UK, said:

“We’ve been crowdfunding since before it became a well-known term. With the new Triodos Crowdfunding platform we’re recognising the huge potential of crowdfunding and responding to demand for Innovative Finance ISAs. Investors are looking for opportunities that allow them to support progressive companies, social enterprises and charities making a positive impact, while also receiving good long-term returns.”

Investments offered on the Triodos platform are not readily realisable, which means that they may be difficult to sell and you may not get back the full amount invested. Investments are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) and your capital is at risk and returns are not guaranteed. Repayment of capital and interest or payment of dividends will be dependent on the success of the organisation’s business model and past performance isn’t a reliable indicator of future performance. You should always read the offer document in full before deciding whether or not to invest as it will cover risks specific to an individual investment. You can read more about the general risks associated with making these types of investments here. If you are unsure if any of these investments are right for you, you should contact an Independent Financial Adviser.

In November Lord Justice Coulson and Lady Justice Rose gave judgment in the development dispute case of Farrar and another v Rylatt and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1864.

The appellants had been disappointed by a decision in the High Court that oral discussions between the appellants and respondents did not amount to either an oral profit share agreement, or an oral express trust; and that (concerning a different agreement) heads of terms marked “Subject to Contract” did not morph into a binding agreement. The Court of Appeal agreed that the appellants should remain disappointed.

The alleged profit share agreement, whether or not it included a trust, was a complicated arrangement, which both courts doubted could have been agreed by these parties orally, and at such a high level. Further, the appellant had not been able to identify and plead clearly enough when, and where the oral agreement was reached, or what was said.

The use of the label “Subject to Contract” to avoid a binding agreement, was given a high degree of respect at the outset, with the Court then considering carefully at each stage, since the heads of terms, whether the parties had started to perform an agreement, or otherwise by conduct agreed to be bound by it, reaching the decision that they had not.

The Farrar v Rylatt case

This is a decision which bears all of the hallmarks of a development dispute; there is usually a profit to be split, or a loss to be apportioned, a number of incomplete documents, some alleged oral agreements, a number of parties, including limited companies, which are often wholly owned by their principles, and people building stuff.

In this instance the claimants, and then appellants were Neil Farrar (referred to in the judgment as Neil) and his company Farrer Construction Limited (Farrer). The defendants and later respondents were James and Kevin Rylatt (referred to in the judgment as James and Kevin), and their limited company, JKR Property Developments Limited (JKR).

The dispute concerned two development projects, in each instance the defendants had purchased the land, and the claimant was the builder developing it.

Hazel Grove development

The first project, where the arguments were for an oral profit share or trust of land, involved a development site purchased by James and Kevin, referred to as Hazel Grove, for £50,000. James and Kevin agreed to pay either Neil or Farrer £97,000 to build a house at Hazel Grove. It appears not to have been resolved who was supposed to be paid, or in fact who was paid, but agreed that someone was paid.

The development was purchased in the end for £190,000, meaning that (in broad terms) a profit of £40,000 was up for grabs.

Oral agreement

Neil and Farrer sought to argue that there had been an agreement that there had been an oral agreement that the proceeds of the sale of Hazel Grove would be held on trust for Neil, and James and Kevin, at 50% each side, or that there was an oral agreement that the proceeds of sale would be split in that way.

The Judge at first instance, and then Lord Justice Coulson giving the leading Judgment were unimpressed with the oral evidence, and noted that there was little documentary evidence in support of the claim. There was also universal judicial agreement that the idea of parties reaching agreement orally on a complex declaration of trust was unlikely, given that they were probably good builders, but unlikely to fully understand the application of trust law in those circumstances.

The Barns development

The other property, known as the Barns, was owned by Neil. The parties appear to have agreed in principle to develop the property together, pursuant to heads of terms, drawn up by a chartered surveyor, bearing the heading “subject to contract and without prejudice”.

The heads of terms included that James and Kevin would purchase the site, Farrar would build out the project under a JCT contract for a fixed sum of £300,000, which would be paid by James and Kevin, in return for which the net profit of the development would be split, 50% to Neil, and 25% each to Kevin and James.

The heads of terms were not signed, but were a common document between all of the parties.

Farrar commenced work on the barns, then the site was conveyed to JKR (not James and Kevin personally), and a JCT Contract between Farrar and JKR (again not James and Kevin personally) was entered into, with the heads of terms annexed to it.

There was a dispute over the final payment for the building works, but that appears to have been resolved, and some of the properties had been sold, at least by the point that the Court of Appeal heard the matter.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal preferred to look at three types of agreement (land sale, building contract, and profit share) which the parties might have entered into. It then considered various points at which such agreements might have become binding on the parties: the point at which the heads of terms were completed, the date of sale of the land and the date of entering into the JCT.

Neither Court found any significant evidence of performance of any of the terms, indicating that the parties intended to be bound by the heads of terms, despite entitling them as subject to contract.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the heads of terms were unlikely to amount to a binding agreement to sell land, given that the agreement fell short of the stringent provisions of section 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, and that the term that the property was transferred to James and Kevin personally had not been reflected in reality.

Both Courts also drew inference from the fact that the only contractual emanation of the heads of terms was the JCT, indicating that if the parties had intended upon a binding agreement for the rest of the terms they would have entered into one.

“Subject to contract”

Both Courts also attached much importance to the subject to contract tag. The Court of Appeal pointed out the authority of Regalian Properties PLC and another v London Docklands Development Corporation [1995] 1WLR 212 which provides that: “…in the absence of special facts (which the judge explained by reference to a number of separate conditions which needed to be fulfilled) the deliberate use of the words “subject to contract” had the usual effect so that, in the event of no contract being entered into, any resultant loss must lie where it fell.”.

The special circumstances in this case might have been substantial performance of the terms, but in this case, having carefully analysed the chronology of events, the Court could not find any performance which amounted to a special fact.

“Without prejudice”

Incidentally, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the use of the label “without prejudice” did not appear to be appropriate in these circumstances. The parties were not at that time in a dispute, and the use of the label added nothing except confusion. There will be times where it would be appropriate to use the label on heads of terms, but normally these would be times when there was a dispute in contemplation, and the parties did not want to water down their evidence by indicating they were willing to settle.

Practitioners should take comfort from this decision, as it indicates that heads of terms which are appropriately titled, will be construed as working, not binding, documents. On the other hand, no doubt James and Kevin will have incurred costs which they have not been able to fully recover from Neil, and as such, perhaps they might (with the benefit of hindsight) have been better to clearly indicate to Neil that there were no special deals.

Click here to read a transcript of Farrar and another v Rylatt and others

Michelmores has announced a new two-year charity partnership with The Charlie Waller Memorial Trust, a charity working to educate young people on the importance of staying mentally well, and how to do so.

From January 2020, Michelmores will fundraise in support of The Charlie Waller Memorial Trust, across its offices in Bristol, Exeter and London.

The Charlie Waller Memorial Trust, based in Berkshire, was set up by Sir Mark and Lady Waller, in memory of their son Charlie, who sadly took his own life whilst suffering from depression. The charity’s work focuses on delivering talks, education and training to young people, teachers and those who work with them about positive mental health. They provide education and training to primary health care and other professionals, in identifying and supporting those with depression as well as offering training and self-help resources to universities and colleges to promote resilience and mental wellbeing.

Lady Waller, Head of Fundraising at Charlie Waller Memorial Trust said:

“We are thrilled to have been announced as Michelmores’ Charity Partner and are looking forward to working with them over the next two years. The money raised by the three offices in London, Exeter and Bristol will mean that we can run many more training sessions in schools, universities, FE colleges and workplaces and enable more people to understand and talk openly about depression and other mental health problems, stay mentally well and access appropriate treatment.”

Every two years, Michelmores invites applications to become its dedicated charity partner. Submissions are shortlisted and the winning charity is selected through a staff vote.

Michelmores staff raise approximately £40,000 annually for their nominated charity partner through initiatives such as the 5K Charity Run, the Christmas bizarre, the National Three Peak Challenge and many other fundraising events each year.

For further information on the Charlie Waller Memorial Trust, please visit their website here.

I am often asked by clients what is the difference between executors and attorneys.

The role of attorney and executor are similar to some extent but also very different. Both roles involve attending to somebody else’s financial affairs but in different contexts. The main difference is when that person can make decisions for another – depending on whether they are to act during that person’s lifetime, or after their death.  In addition, attorneys and executors are appointed in different ways by entirely separate documents.

An attorney is appointed by an individual (the Donor) to act on their behalf during their lifetime by the creation of a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). An attorney can be appointed to act in respect of either the Donor’s health and welfare matters and/or their property and financial affairs. In this article, I will be focusing on attorneys appointed to deal with a Donor’s property and financial affairs. Subject to the LPA being registered with the Office of the Public Guardian, and any restrictions that may be placed on the scope of their authority written within it, an attorney appointed under a LPA can make decisions on behalf of the Donor in respect of his or her property and financial affairs. This authority to act can extend to making decisions even when the Donor has lost the requisite capacity to be able to make those decisions themselves.

The appointment of an attorney automatically ends on the death of the Donor, at which time their executor becomes responsible for dealing with their financial affairs.

By comparison, an executor is generally appointed in the Will of a person (the Testator). The appointment only comes into effect once the Testator has died, at which point the executor becomes responsible for administering the estate. In the same way that an attorney cannot act under a LPA for a Donor after their death, an executor appointed in a Will cannot act for a Testator during the Testator’s lifetime. The appointment of an executor only comes into effect when the Testator has passed away.

The role of attorney and executor also differs in how they make decisions. An attorney must ensure that they have made every effort to allow the donor to make their own decisions before they decide on a course of action on the Donor’s behalf, and must act in the donor’s best interests at all times. This is set out under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

In contrast, an executor must act in accordance with the provisions of the Will and is subject to duties set out in various legal instruments, such as the Administration of Estates Act 1925 and the Trustees Act 2000. These duties include collecting in and safeguarding the assets of the estate, paying all debts and liabilities and distributing the estate to the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the Will.

It is crucial for both the person choosing to appoint attorneys and executors (and of course those who are due to act) to understand the difference between these very separate and distinct roles, even if the same person is to act as both attorney and executor. Both roles create a heavy weight of responsibility and there are strict penalties for failing to act in the correct manner in either role.

If you would like further assistance or advice about appointing attorneys or executors or if you wish to review your existing appointment please contact Gemma Shepherd.