WHERE: John Smith House, 145-165 West Regent Street, G2 4RZ. WHEN: Friday 19 January from 12.00 noon until 3 pm Unite the union will hold a meeting on Friday (19 January) at John Smith House for workers impacted by the Stewart Milne group being placed into administration. This week, Unite held meetings in Aberdeen and Dundee to offer legal and employment support for former Stewart Milne Group workers. Unite has stated that it is actively exploring legal action against the company due to its failure to consult the workforce or Unite in a redundancy situation as ‘no notice’ was given.  Members of the Glasgow press are invited to come along at noon until 12.30 pm to conduct interviews with workers and Unite officers. The meeting thereafter will discuss prospective protective award claims and further support. Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals

Construction company placed in administration after workers given ‘no notice’ Unite the union recently confirmed on Friday 12th of December that it is to hold meetings in Aberdeen and Dundee today following the announcement that the Stewart Milne Group has been placed into administration. Unite stated this week that it is actively exploring legal action against the Stewart Milne Group due to its failure to consult the workforce or Unite in a redundancy situation as ‘no notice’ was given.  The two meetings to be held on TODAY will take place at: ·         10.30am to 12.30pm  – Dundee – Apex Hotel, 1 West Victoria Dock Road, Dundee, DD1 3JP. ·         2.30pm to 5pm – Aberdeen – the Beach Ballroom, Beach Promenade, AB24 5NR. Members of the press are invited to attend sections of these meetings but some will be reserved exclusively for workers to discuss protective award claims and further legal support. Interviews with workers can be facilitated by Unite officers at the venues upon request. Unite represents over 60 tradespersons at the construction company in various locations including in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow.  Unite general secretary, Sharon Graham, said: “Unite will do everything possible to support the Stewart Milne Group workers. The company has treated its loyal workforce disgracefully.” The administrator’s Teneo stated that 217 trade roles will be lost but it is feared that hundreds more in the supply chain will lose their jobs. Unite has demanded the Scottish Government and local authorities urgently work with the union to explore how the workers can be found suitable alternative employment on public procurement contracts. It has since emerged that the Partnership Action for Continuing Employment (PACE) will be hosting two webinars – one was last Friday at 2pm, and an upcoming one on the 16 January at 10am for employees affected by redundancy. Unite has criticised the Scottish Government and PACE for this approach stating the hosting of webinars ‘fails to understand the nature of the construction industry’. Unite is highlighting evidence which indicates construction workers face greater reading and writing difficulties, and IT proficiency challenges compared to other workers. The union is therefore demanding public meetings, organised by PACE and the Scottish Government, in the various locations to fully support the workers.      John Clark, Unite industrial officer, added: “Unite will be stepping up our efforts to provide legal support for the Stewart Milne Group workers by hosting these meetings in Aberdeen and Dundee. We are crystal clear that the company has acted in a potentially unlawful way, and these events will help our members make protective award claims.” “It’s also extremely disappointing to discover that PACE will be hosting two webinars instead of physical events. We hope this is immediately reviewed because it fails to understand the nature of the construction industry and the proficiency challenges which many workers face.” Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals

Two-fifths (42%) of UK contractors are not part of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) scheme despite the fact that it could become mandatory in 2024, reveals new research.  Commissioned by Dispute Assist, the UK’s leading dispute resolution provider, the survey of 200 home improvement contractors found that many are not utilising dispute resolution services even though more than a third (36%) have previously had an unhappy customer make a court claim against them.  This is partly due to the fact that almost three in ten (28%) of contractors do not know what ADR is. A concerning finding considering that since 2015, it’s been a legal requirement for traders to signpost consumers to an approved ADR provider when they are unable to resolve a complaint.  ADR is an effective route to resolving disputes in the home improvement sector. It includes methods such as mediation, conciliation and expert determination which help to avoid lengthy and expensive legal proceedings, enabling both parties to move on in a mutually beneficial manner.  Encouragingly, 38% of those not currently part of a scheme said that they would be interested in signing up, suggesting that with a greater level of education on ADR, there is an appetite amongst contractors to get on board.   Of the tradespeople who were aware of ADR, 80% are part of a scheme, indicating a high level of awareness within this group of the benefits it can bring. Nearly half (46%) of contractors who are part of a scheme are in one via a trade body or association meaning that these organisations can play a key role in raising awareness of dispute resolution amongst members and providing access to these services.  For those who are not currently part of a scheme, the most widely cited reasons for this were that they are too expensive (40%) and that contractors are unsure of how to choose a scheme (33%). Despite 43% spending between two and five hours a month dealing with complaints, a third felt that there isn’t enough of a need to be part of a scheme.  Commenting on the findings, Ciarán Harkin, managing director of Dispute Assist, said: “With consumer disputes becoming more frequent as the number of home improvement projects increases, contractors who are not part of an ADR scheme are leaving themselves vulnerable to legal action and reputational damage, even if they’re not at fault.  “It’s clear that there is a need for greater education and awareness around the ADR process to provide contractors with the means to make an informed decision about whether to join a scheme. With mandatory ADR on the horizon, home improvement contractors must be clued up on what ADR is, how it works and the benefits that it brings.  “When it comes to the reasons why contractors are not part of a scheme, it’s interesting to note that a third feel there isn’t a need when a high proportion of home improvement tradespeople are facing customer disputes each year.   “Where cost is a barrier, contractors should investigate different providers and look for a scheme which suits their individual budget. Beyond this, for those struggling to choose a scheme, other factors such as the range of services offered, the speed of resolution and the independence and reputation of the scheme should be considered.”  Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals 

Supreme Court Decision Today: Fearn & Others v Trustees of Tate Gallery Ends Six-Year Battle With Wide-Ranging Implication For Developers and the Laws on Visual Nuisance In a milestone decision today the Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and found in favour of the flat owners overlooked by the Tate Modern’s public viewing gallery, putting an end to this long running case.. The claim concerns the Tate’s public viewing gallery on the top floor of the Blavatnik Building.  The viewing gallery attracts between 500,000 – 600,000 visitors per year and can hold up to 300 people at once.  The distance between the viewing gallery and the flats is some 34 metres and the flats have floor to ceiling glass windows. The viewing gallery is open all day, 7 days a week and provides a clear and uninterrupted view of the flats.  The owners of the flats complained of being constantly viewed by visitors to the museum, of people taking photographs and videos on their smartphones and uploading them to social media.  The flat owners seek an injunction to prevent the Tate from permitting people to view their flats from the viewing gallery. The claim was dismissed at first instance on the basis that the Tate’s use of the land was reasonable, the flats (with floor to ceiling glass windows) were exceptionally sensitive and the owners could install blinds or curtains if they chose.  The claim was appealed but dismissed at the Court of Appeal where it was held that “mere overlooking” could not constitute a nuisance. In a majority decision today  the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and found in favour of the flat owners.   The essence of the decision is that the law of nuisance seeks to prevent substantial interference with the ordinary enjoyment of land.  The ordinary use of land, done conveniently and with due regard for your neighbours, cannot constitute a nuisance.  However, the Court found that the near constant visual intrusion went well beyond “overlooking” and would be regarded by ordinary homeowners as substantially interfering with their use and enjoyment of their property.  The viewing gallery was a particular and exceptional use of the Tate’s land and not an ordinary incident of the use of the land as an art museum.   As a result, the use of the viewing gallery in this way constituted a nuisance. Thomas Freeman Senior Associate Solicitor in the Real Estate Disputes Team at Irwin Mitchell said, “ In the short term, the case is likely to be misunderstood as having been decided on the grounds of “privacy”. There are likely to be many people concerned about the use of neighbouring land or its proposed development who will seek to rely on it.  However, the case was concerned the law of nuisance and not privacy.  The Judgment is clear that the ordinary use of land, including for ordinary instances of overlooking or development, will not constitute a nuisance.” “The case is important because the Supreme Court has re-stated the law of nuisance.  In doing so, it has rejected the notion that there is a “reasonable user” test, or that the “reasonable use” of land in all the circumstances will provide a defence to claim in nuisance.  Rather, the questions of whether the interference is substantial, and whether it emanates from an ordinary use of the land or not, are of paramount importance. In the longer term, it is the question of “ordinary use” which is likely to generate satellite litigation.  It is difficult to assess ordinary use by reference to locality in highly developed mixed areas, or where new uses are to be introduced to an area or are developed incrementally over time.” “Finally, the Supreme Court avoided the question of whether the owners should be awarded damages or an injunction.  This is a missed opportunity for the Court to provide guidance in an area which, as the Court itself acknowledged, has been uncertain since the issue was last examined by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence.” Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals