Sam Greer Commercial Solicitor

21/05/2026

One of our established Hucknall members! Some members, including myself, checked our own business cards to make sure it contained all the information needed! Worth a read.

The second of our member presentations from May’s Hucknall Business Club meeting came from Lisa Collett, who picked up nicely on the theme of presentation and first impressions.

Read the full article here: https://hucknallbusinessclub.co.uk/news/what-needs-to-be-on-your-business-card

Following Dawn’s session on visual merchandising and displaying your business at events, Lisa focused on what happens once you start those conversations: presenting yourself professionally with a well-designed business card.

From layout and colours to paper quality, QR codes and branding, Lisa highlighted how even small design choices can affect how memorable and credible your business appears.

A great example of the practical knowledge-sharing that happens at HBC each month.

If you would like to join us for our next meeting in June:

🗓 Thursday 4th June | 7pm – 9pm
📍 The Bowman, Hucknall

18/05/2026

**Work Experience Week**

Today, I welcome my first work experience student of 2026, who wants to enter the Legal profession. Hope you enjoy your week!

11/05/2026

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUESTS - ICO updated Guidance on use of AI when submitting a request.

Organisations are increasingly encountering Subject Access Requests drafted using artificial intelligence and whilst it may feel like a shortcut, the downsides are becoming harder to ignore.

AI-generated SARs are often:
• unnecessarily lengthy and repetitive;
• unclear or imprecise in scope;
• legally inaccurate or poorly framed;
• filled with generic or irrelevant demands; and
• broader than the individual actually intends.

In practice, many of these requests include references to rights or legal obligations that are incorrect, or ask for categories of information without a clear understanding of what is being sought. This creates avoidable delay, additional cost, and greater administrative burden for both sides.

Importantly, poorly understood or overly broad requests can slow down access to your own personal data. Where a SAR is vague, contradictory or excessive, organisations are more likely to seek clarification or rely on exemptions to narrow or manage the request. That inevitably pushes back response times and can delay disclosure of the information you are trying to obtain.

The core issue is not the use of AI itself, but the tendency to rely on its output without properly checking or understanding it. AI can produce confident but incorrect legal assertions and introduce unnecessary complexity that works against the requester’s interests.

If you do not fully understand what has been submitted, you are more likely to face clarification requests or exemption-based resistance, both of which slow down access to your data.

Clear, focused and well-understood SARs remain the most effective route to timely disclosure.

If you have received a SAR and not sure what to do, get in touch.

[email protected]

07/05/2026

CASE LAW UPDATE: Construction Law

A recent Court of Appeal decision is an important reminder that disputes with homeowners follow different rules from business‑to‑business construction contracts.

In RBH Building Contractors Ltd v James, the builder tried to enforce an adjudicator’s award of £663,016.16 against homeowners in Devon. The Court refused. The key issue was whether the clients counted as residential occupiers. The Court said they had a realistic prospect of showing they intended to live in the property when the contract was made. That intention matters more than the wording of a development loan. If they were residential occupiers, the statutory adjudication process does not apply at all.

The Court also held that the homeowners’ letter of 27 November 2024 was a valid pay less notice. It set out what they disputed and why, and that was enough. Homeowners are not held to the same technical standards as commercial parties. Courts take a practical, common‑sense approach when dealing with residential clients.

For builders, the message is clear. Adjudication is not guaranteed on residential projects, and technical challenges to a homeowner’s pay less notice are unlikely to succeed. Early clarity is essential. Record discussions about whether the client intends to live in the property and ensure your own payment documents are precise and complete.

For construction advice get in touch!

[email protected]

06/05/2026

My lovely clients cheered me up today with surprise chocolates for helping out in an emergency. Not a problem at all.

05/05/2026

Calling all small businesses in Hucknall.

Running a business can feel surprisingly solitary at times. That’s one of the reasons Hucknall Business Club exists. Once a month we get local business owners in the same room for straightforward networking, conversation and support.

Some come for referrals. Others come for perspective. Most stay because they value the relationships that build over time.

If that sounds like your kind of room, come along:
🗓 Thursday 7th May | 7pm – 9pm
📍 The Bowman, Hucknall
👉 https://fb.me/e/904hL4Hkf

01/05/2026

What does the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act mean for you and your company?

Legislation has changed the role and purpose of Companies House, and there are new responsibilities for company directors.

Find out what's changed. 👇

30/04/2026

Let’s go!!!

(You don’t need to tell us you want to attend beforehand!)

We are so flex.

One week to go until our next Hucknall Business Club meeting.

If you run a business in Hucknall, Ashfield or nearby, this is a good chance to meet other local owners and strengthen your network in a relaxed setting. No pressure, no hard selling. Just a room of people who understand what running a business actually looks like.

🗓 Thursday 7th May | 7pm – 9pm
📍 The Bowman, Hucknall
👉 https://fb.me/e/904hL4Hkf

26/04/2026

📌CONTRACT REVIEWS!📌

Commercial contracts rarely collapse overnight; they become misaligned over time. Payment terms drift, exit rights narrow, obligations expand, and a once‑sensible agreement can begin to expose the business to unnecessary cost or commercial risk. A structured legal review is one of the most effective ways to regain control and ensure the contract still reflects your current commercial reality. All advice is provided strictly under UK law.

I am offering a fixed‑fee contract review for £450.00 (up to 50 pages), providing a clear, high‑level assessment of the legal and commercial risks within your agreement.

The review focuses on the provisions that matter most: payment and credit exposure, termination and break rights, performance obligations, price review mechanisms, benchmarking, exclusivity, security provisions, retention of title, and any drafting that may leave you vulnerable if a counterparty’s financial position changes. It also considers whether the written contract reflects how the relationship operates in practice.

For suppliers, the review highlights risks around late payment, credit‑worthiness, insolvency restrictions and the adequacy of your remedies.
For customers, it identifies opportunities to improve value, tighten service levels, challenge pricing, or create a lawful route out of an outdated or underperforming arrangement.

Please note: I cannot provide legal advice to consumers, as I am not a law firm. However, I can discuss your situation, outline the issues, and help you understand the options available for obtaining appropriate legal advice.

If your business is operating on contracts that have not been reviewed for some time, or if you are preparing to renew, renegotiate or exit, this fixed‑fee review gives you clarity, leverage and practical options.

If you would like a precise, commercially focused assessment at a predictable cost, get in touch, and I will take it from there.

To take advantage of this offer please quote APRIL26 at the time of engagement.

[email protected]

All engagements are subject to ID and AML checks**

22/04/2026

CASE LAW UPDATE: COSTS!

MJS Projects (March) Ltd v RPS Consulting Services Ltd [2026] EWHC 884 (TCC)

A client sued a contractor in the Technology and Construction Court, alleging negligent design of a container park. After a full trial, the claim was dismissed. The follow‑on judgment dealt only with costs.

The claimant argued that the contractor should not recover its costs because it had refused mediation and because its expert changed part of his evidence shortly before trial. The contractor denied any unreasonable conduct and sought its costs in the usual way. It also asked for indemnity costs for the expert‑evidence phase, arguing that the claimant’s expert evidence had been so flawed that the case fell outside the norm.

The court rejected all of the claimant’s arguments. It held that the contractor’s refusal to mediate was not unreasonable in the specific circumstances, that the expert’s late calculations were part of the ordinary cut‑and‑thrust of technical litigation, and that the high threshold for indemnity costs was not met. The claimant was ordered to pay the contractor’s costs on the standard basis, with a substantial interim payment.

Practical takeaway for contractors: costs and ADR

This judgment does not give contractors a licence to refuse mediation. The courts expect parties to engage with ADR under the Pre‑Action Protocol, and a refusal to mediate can still lead to serious costs consequences. What this case shows is that the reasonableness of refusing mediation is always fact‑specific. A refusal may be justified where a party genuinely lacks the information needed to negotiate meaningfully, particularly in technically complex disputes where expert evidence is central.

The court will look at the whole course of conduct: whether the refusing party sought clarification, whether it proposed other ADR routes, whether it made settlement offers, and whether it explained its position at the time. A single refusal, taken out of context, is not enough.

The judgment also confirms that late expert refinements or ordinary tactical decisions will rarely justify indemnity costs. Even where an expert performs poorly, indemnity costs remain exceptional and require conduct that is truly outside the norm.

For contractors, the key points are to document your reasons for any ADR decisions, comply with the Pre‑Action Protocol, ensure your expert is properly instructed, and maintain a clear record of your settlement engagement. Courts reward reasoned, consistent conduct and penalise parties who cannot justify their approach.

For advice on Adjudication, please get in touch.

[email protected]
0115 667 0245