Philip Syvret, who heads up the firm’s property team said: –

“We were delighted to be involved in the letting of this iconic property. I was amazed to learn that Hamon’s have occupied the premises since 1845 consistently as a fabric and haberdashery shop. The business in its original guise truly became part of the Island community.”

The property, also known as Victoria House, was added to the list of sites of special architectural and historical interest in 2008. Philip Syvret said: –

“The interior of the property retains so many of the original Victorian features which would have been in situ when the business first started. Internal wooden mezzanine floor and balustrade together with the original staircases and plaster work would be familiar to Victorian shoppers as much as they are to those who have used the shop in the 21st century.”

“As a result, the licence for works to permit the refurbishment of the premises for a 21st century business had to be carefully negotiated so as to ensure that all features were retained to meet the listing requirements but allow safe operation of a modern business.”

Benest & Syvret have a particular expertise in dealing with listed buildings and advising clients in relation to the obligations which arise. The firm undertook a full renovation of its own premises at 16 Hill Street, formerly a Georgian town house, which now provides the elegant and stylish offices of Benest & Syvret.

Philip Syvret commented,

“I know from personal experience of the careful path that one needs to navigate in converting historic buildings to modern purposes. A collaborative process between client, architect and planners is necessary to achieve a successful outcome. I have no doubt that in the hands of the new tenant, 37-39 King Street will become once again a vibrant and busy part of St Helier’s retail centre.”

Benest & Syvret have vast experience in advising clients in relation to leasing of commercial premises. If you need any assistance in this area please contact Philip Syvret or Abigail Watkins on 875875.

The post A new lease of life for 37-39 King Street (Hamon’s Building) appeared first on Benest & Syvret.

Rarely do parents agree on every aspect of their child’s upbringing, but usually most parents agree on the big issues facing their children. Perhaps just as well, as the concept of parental responsibility (“PR”) which may be held by both parents, is not exercised by committee. Generally every person who holds PR for a child may exercise it independently of anyone else who also holds it.

What happens if parents fundamentally disagree over a subject as important and binary as having their child inoculated? What will happen if the Covid vaccine divides parental opinion?

The very strong, yet opposing views as to the appropriateness of the MMR vaccine were well documented in the press, and gave rise to a number of cases where that divergence of opinion occured between parents who then had to turn to the Courts for help. In 2003 the Court of Appeal in England said “Where parents were in dispute about the immunisation of a child against infectious disease, neither parent had the right to make the decision alone and immunisation should be carried out only where a court decided that it was in the best interests of the child…..” ¹

Both parents will be determined that their view constitutes what is empirically in the best interests of their child. So how does a judge choose between these diametrically opposing opinions to establish what is in the best interests of the child? Were such a situation to arise in Jersey, the Royal Court would no doubt look to the decisions in England and Wales for guidance given our Children (Jersey) Law 2002 so closely resembles the Children Act 1989 in England.

The English Court of Appeal has said that in such cases, the judge’s assessment of divergent expert opinion was likely to be determinative; therefore the judge should make his assessment of and findings on the expert evidence before considering other relevant factors. The judge would then need to consider the weight to attach to each additional factor and the order in which they should be considered.

Clearly there is going to be a winner and a loser as far as the parents are concerned; such is the nature of a binary decision. But should any greater weight be attached the views held by the primary carer? They have the day to day care of the child and may consider they, better than anyone know their child and what is in that child’s best interests. The Courts have repeatedly held that the rights of the resident parent, are no greater than the rights of the absent parent. However, judges have also stressed the need to be sensitive to the impact on the ongoing relationship between parent and child of any decision that went against the parent’s strongly held views: “the court recognised the importance of the bond between a child and the parent with whom he or she lived, and would take care to safeguard and preserve it in the best interest of the child. If a course was proposed that was beneficial for the child but might cause damage to that relationship, the court would balance the issue with great care..” ²

Objection to medical treatment may also be voiced by a child. Each case will be fact specific. Much will depend on the age, maturity and understanding of the child in question, whether they can consider and balance the wider picture including the consequences of not being vaccinated and the degree of influence of one parent’s strongly held beliefs.

The strong message coming from the cases is, that without a compelling reason, the Court is likely to follow the received medical wisdom presented in evidence. While the Court must consider all relevant factors making up the welfare checklist, usually the greatest weight will be accorded to whatever course of action is most likely to promote the child’s medical health and alleviate risk in accordance with the “…child’s right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health under Art 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989”² What remains to be seen is how much weight will be attributed to public policy to achieve mass vaccination, in the face of a global pandemic.

1. Re: C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation) [2003] 2 FLR 1095 CA
2. Re: C _Welfare of Child: Immunisation) [2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam)

The post The development of a Covid vaccine, parental responsibility and the prickly subject of childhood immunisations appeared first on Benest & Syvret.

Lexcel is the Law Society’s legal practice quality mark for practice management and client care. It is only awarded to firms who have achieved excellence in compliance and practice management as well as client service. Accreditation is given following a detailed two-day audit of files, procedures and interviews with partners and staff.

Only 16% of law firms in England and Wales have been awarded Lexcel accreditation. Benest & Syvret is one of only two firms holding accreditation in Jersey since the award became available to firms outside of England and Wales in September 2010.

Partner, Philip Syvret, said:-

“The standards applied in the Lexcel accreditation are rigorous and closely monitored via an annual inspection by an independent assessor appointed by the Law Society. I am delighted that following a full two day examination our assessor was able to report not a single failure in compliance with Lexcel standards. Indeed, the report indicated that our risk management approach was exemplary. It was particularly pleasing that the assessor acknowledged that the ethos of providing outstanding client service was embedded within all of our team from partner level through to junior administrator.”

The Lexcel accreditation report highlights areas of outstanding achievement. Advocate Nina Benest, partner said:-

“Of all of the outstanding areas of achievement that the assessor noted, the one that stood out for us was her acknowledgement that all of the team at Benest & Syvret work in a collaborative and cohesive approach, focused primarily on successful client outcomes. To have that immediately recognised by an independent assessment is a pleasing reward for the efforts of all of our team.”

After seven years of consecutive Lexcel accreditation Benest & Syvret do not propose to rest on their laurels. They are recruiting, with new staff joining their commercial and litigation teams in the next few months. Following on from the recent launch of their new website, new digital marketing streams are to be launched shortly.

11^th June 2019

The post Seventh Consecutive Year Lexcel Accreditation appeared first on Benest & Syvret.