The importance of complying with Health and Safety Law is vital to prevent avoidable accidents in the workplace. Ultimately compliance will reduce personal injury claims made by employees and visitors to the premises for injury which in turn will lead to the smooth running of your business.
In our personal injury department we come across employees who have been injured as a result of an accident in the workplace, for example as a result of defective machinery, unsafe systems of work and failures to provide and enforce the use of personal protective equipment.
We were recently instructed by one of our long-standing manufacturing clients in a dispute regarding unpaid invoices. The client is a subsidiary company of a large engineering group based locally. They specialise in providing customer support, from manufacture to sale of goods and post-sales service, for various market-leading machine tool brands.
Wright Hassall LLP advised HWSIL Finance Co Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hadrian’s Wall Secured Investments Limited (HWSIL), a main market London Stock Exchange-listed investment company - on a £5 million lending deal to XL Cars.
We have been advising in relation to insurance recoveries and are taking forward a claim against the business’s insurance broker for fire damage and consequential loss, valued at around £7m.
Wright Hassall was instructed by 27 independent financial advisers (“IFAs”) who had been told, on termination of their services agreements, that they could not advise their clients for 12 months.
We acted for a Newco pharmacy business in its share acquisition of an existing pharmacy business from multiple shareholders which was supported by bank funding.
Our Banking & Finance team acted for a housing developer on a land purchase that had to be structured in an unusual and inventive way. Our client (the “Purchaser”) entered into a land purchase contract in 2010 that obliged it to purchase land from a company (the “Seller”) in three phases; two phases had been completed already and the third constituted our transaction.
Mr B’s widow had previously consulted another firm of solicitors about pursuing a medical negligence claim against the hospital who treated her husband but they went into administration before they had submitted the claim. Therefore Mrs B approached us to represent her.
Our client’s position was that the deliverables worked on the representative hardware, whereas the development company said that when the software was used on the hardware at their office, there were coding errors.