Freedom and flexibility attract top legal talent to DR Solicitors
Healthcare legal specialist DR Solicitors has announced significant growth in its consultant network, underlining the popularity of its consultancy-led model.
The firm has reported the average annual growth of consultants at more than 40 per cent year-on-year, with a jump of a quarter in the last two months, bringing the total number to 26.
According to the Atlas report by Codex Edge, just 17 per cent of individuals joining UK-based platform firms were hired from UK Top 100 law firms last year. DR Solicitors is bucking that trend and consistently attracting top talent from these prestigious City firms, now making up 85 per cent of its team. Other consultants have often held partner or department-head roles, bringing deep sector expertise and experience.
Founded in 2003 as one of the UK’s first consultancy-led legal practices, DR Solicitors guides healthcare professionals through legal and regulatory complexity. Its pioneering platform model provides all the projects and support consultants need to thrive, while removing administrative burdens, enabling them to focus on delivering high-quality work with the freedom and autonomy to work the way they want.
The firm’s growth has accelerated since its acquisition by business advisory platform Dow Schofield Watts (DSW) in November 2024. Bringing together additional scale and resources, the partnership combines two pioneering platform-based models, providing consultants at DR with enhanced opportunities while strengthening DSW’s multidisciplinary offer.
Daphne Roberston, Founder of DR Solicitors, said: “We have been consulting-led from day one. Our model is unique in that we don’t expect our consultants to generate any of their own leads, nor be responsible for billing, compliance or admin. With 85 per cent of our solicitors having previously worked at Magic, Silver Circle and top-tier law firms, we truly are home to the brightest and best legal minds in the country.
“The rapid growth in our consultant base reflects the enduring appeal of this model and the strength of our reputation in the healthcare legal sector. With the backing of DSW, we are well placed to continue this trajectory.”
Elizabeth Duan joined as a consultant in 2024 before being appointed as DR Solicitors’ Director of Legal Services. She commented: “Having spent over a decade practising in the City as a commercial real estate specialist, I initially joined DR Solicitors as a consultant solicitor. This unique model gave me the chance to deliver the work I enjoy without the distractions of traditional practice.
“Beyond the freedom and flexibility the DR model offers, what stood out was the supportive culture and focus on excellence, which ultimately inspired me to take on a leadership role as COO. It’s an approach that attracts exceptional lawyers because it truly works.”
News
The Leng Review: Implications for Primary Care
The role of Physician Associates (PAs) has drawn significant attention in both medical and national press over the summer following the review undertaken by Professor Gillian Leng, the final version of which, along with its recommendations, was published in July 2025.
This article examines the review, paying particular attention to the implications for Physician Associates working in a primary care setting. It covers the main aspects of the review, the professional responses it evoked, and the implications going forward.
Overview of the Review
The aims and scope of the review were succinctly stated, yet necessitated a wide-ranging and lengthy review. As per the report’s introductory remarks,
“The principal aim of the review was to determine whether the roles of PA and AA were safe and effective as members of an MDT.”
To summarise the main conclusions of the review, Professor Leng stated there was no compelling evidence found either supporting or opposing the safety and outcomes associated with PA intervention; however, it was noted that they did tend to have longer consultations, tender more advice and were associated with fewer hospital admissions than GPs. Overall, Patient feedback was positive, but concerns were raised in 3 areas:
- Lack of clarity about the PA role, including identification and confusion with a doctor
- Barriers to care, for example, if a prescription was required
- Lack of confidence in whether they were seeing an appropriate medical professional
Doctors had their own separate concerns, particularly about supervision in practice, and differing understandings between PAs and doctors regarding appropriate clinical activities and boundaries. Issues relating to the regulation and training of PAs were also identified, among other matters. The results of an RCGP survey cited in the review found that 81% of respondents believed PAs had a negative effect on patient safety.
Key Recommendations
Ultimately, Professor Leng concluded there was no clear justification for abolishing the PA role, but recommended changes to address the identified issues and “effectively embed the PA and AA roles into the NHS workforce.” Key recommendations relevant to PAs in primary care included:
- PAs should be renamed Physician Assistants and have a certification route to prescribing and ordering non-ionising radiation tests.
- PAs should not see undifferentiated patients except as defined in national protocols.
- PAs should have two years’ experience in secondary care first, and should have a named doctor appointed as their supervisor.
- Doctors should receive training in line management and leadership, with allocated time for supervisory duties and effective service management.
Responses and Implications
The review has generated considerable debate amongst professionals, with Dr Tom Dolphin, chair of the BMA, stating the report, “laid bare the catastrophic failures in NHS leadership that have put patients at serious risk of harm… The blurring of lines between doctors and non-doctors, aided and abetted by the GMC, has been an unfolding disaster for all to see, and many doctors today will be relieved to see that they were right to raise the alarm”
On the PA side, the United Medical Associate Professionals (UMAP) stated in response, “We want to make it explicitly clear, that we DO NOT accept the recommendations of the Leng Review. The review is unable to substantiate a legitimate patient safety concern and relies on conjecture to fill this void without referencing any of the real-world data submitted by UMAPs and CMAPs which demonstrated MAPs’ track record of safety.”
Implementation of the recommendations is complicated, as the report represents proposals rather than binding legislation or regulatory guidance. Responsibility for delivery rests with the Department of Health and Social Care, with some aspects delegated to organisations such as NHSE, GMC, Royal Colleges, and Unions. Recent communications from NHSE to practices have reportedly confused previous guidance, further contributing to uncertainty.
The current position of NHSE in terms of implementing changes is to leave decisions regarding changes to local policy and HR advice, although there is no definition of who might provide this, risking inconsistency in advice across the UK. In response UMAP has advised its members not to sign any new or varied contracts and instead lodge a “letter of protest” with their manager or HR representative if asked to do so as a result of the review.
Conclusion
This is a very brief overview of some of the issues, but like much of NHS reform, it appears that whilst the aims may be admirable, it is in the detail and practicality of execution that matters fall down.
Practices should navigate these waters with care, as not only may there be matters of patient safety or provision of services to contend with, attracting regulatory attention, but any proposed variations to employee contracts or working conditions need appropriate consideration and advice, as contravention of employees’ rights could ultimately result in claims or legal action.
How DR Solicitors can help
For support navigating the implications of the Leng Review and its recommendations for your practice, contact DR Solicitors for expert guidance and planning.
Sources
- The Leng Review
- RCGP PA Survey
- BMA statement by Dr Tom Dolphin, chair of the BMA council
- UMAPS statement
News
NHS 10 Year Plan: Time for Primary Care to take the lead?
Why PCNs and GP Federations must act now
The NHS 10 year plan is 168 pages long and looks to address all the many problems of the NHS. As such, it can be difficult to identify what is relevant to primary care and, most importantly, what should primary care be doing now to prepare for the changes? The plan is clear that money will be shifted out of secondary care into ‘neighbourhoods’ and that primary care is expected to be at the heart of neighbourhoods. However, it is also clear that if GPs do not step up to lead the new ‘neighbourhood health service’ created through two new contracts, then others, such as Foundation Trusts, will be offered the chance to lead.
A new three–tier structure for primary and community care
The plan envisages three ‘tiers’ of primary and community healthcare provision.
Tier 1
Tier 1 is still the individual GP practice with its patient list and practice area. Unsurprisingly, the plan refers to improving access and to increasing use of the NHS app as a portal to GP practices, but otherwise it has very little to say about the way practices operate. The plan’s view is that the “status quo of small, independent practices is struggling”, and where appropriate, an alternative is needed. That alternative is two-tier neighbourhood working to be facilitated through 2 new contracts covering larger populations, and we consider these below.
From an individual practice perspective, the most impactful changes will come from the ongoing GMS contract negotiations, which we anticipate will facilitate changes to the contractor model which have been well signposted by the Minister for Health.
Tier 2
Tier 2 in the new structure will be individual neighbourhoods. These will be areas of approximately 50,000 patients, and unsurprisingly, the plan states that “the existing primary care network (PCN) footprint is well set up as a springboard for this type of working”. The first of the new ‘single neighbourhood contracts’ will be offered in 2026 and will relate to ‘enhanced services for groups with similar needs’. However, the obvious problem is that many PCNs are not currently in a position to bid for these new services. PCNs were deliberately established through the PCN DES, which is contracted as a practice level enhanced service, so as a starting point, the PCN has no legal status and is not able to contract for anything. PCNs have often worked around this issue through ‘lead practice’ and ‘flat practice’ operating models, but these are unlikely to work well for the new single neighbourhood contract.
Therefore, as a matter of urgency, every PCN should now be reviewing its structure and considering whether to either set up a PCN shared company (a.k.a PCN incorporation) or whether to work closely with an existing GP Federation. Those who already have PCN companies should be considering how the company can be modified to move from being a PCN costs sharing arrangement to also becoming a neighbourhood contract holder and potentially an independent provider. Reviewing governance will be key here.
Tier 3
Tier 3 will be ‘multi-neighbourhood providers’ (‘MNPs’) covering a population of 250k+. The plan acknowledges that this may often be similar to the footprint of existing GP Federations, and the new contracts have the potential to breathe new life into organisations which have sometimes struggled since the extended access contracts were incorporated into the PCN DES. The vision for MNPs is both as at scale providers of complex service provision, such as end of life care, drawing on multiple service providers, and as a provider of back office, service transformation and estate strategy services. They are also expected to step in and take over struggling practices and will presumably have a significant role to play in planning the proposed new Neighbourhood Health Centres. These organisations are clearly expected to go far beyond traditional primary care, but if GPs are not at the heart of them, then they may quickly become a threat to independent primary care in their area. The alternative model is stated in the 10 year plan: “we will create a new opportunity for the very best NHS FTs to hold the whole health budget for a defined local population as an integrated health organisation (IHO).”
An immediate action is therefore to assess what GP-led multi-neighbourhood providers already exist in your area/Place, and to assess their fitness for purpose. The new multi-neighbourhood providers will have to ensure that they are able to both represent and support primary care practices and be inclusive of other community based providers. We would expect that this will require significant changes in governance even for the best run GP Federations, and in many locations entirely new provider entities will be required. Given the complexity of the task ahead this process should be started urgently, or ICBs will have little alternative but to offer these contracts to existing at scale providers who will often be community trusts or large private providers.
Our NHS 10 Year Plan Conclusion
Despite the size of the NHS 10 year plan, much is still very unclear about the near future. However, given that most of any additional primary and community funding is likely to come through the two new neighbourhood contracts, it is critical to start preparing for them now. Not doing so risks leaving primary care unviable as it is unlikely that significant funding shifts will happen into GMS.
How can we help?
At DR Solicitors we have a great deal of experience of supporting primary care at scale. We have acted for over 250 PCNs and are already in the process of constructing a number of multi-neighbourhood providers. Please contact us for a no-obligation conversation about how we can help you to better prepare for the future.
News
Understanding the UK Arbitration Act 2025: What It Means for General Practitioners
The Arbitration Act 2025 (AA2025) introduces substantial updates to the long-standing Arbitration Act 1996, bringing changes particularly relevant to General Practitioners (GPs) across the UK. As arbitration remains a preferred method of dispute resolution in GP Partnership Agreements, understanding the implications of this legislation is essential for protecting your practice, preserving confidentiality, and managing conflicts effectively.
Why Arbitration Matters for GPs
Arbitration is frequently chosen in GP Partnership Agreements because it offers a private alternative to court proceedings. For GPs, who often maintain respected public profiles within their communities, this privacy is not merely a preference but a necessity. The Arbitration Act 2025 enhances the appeal of arbitration by streamlining processes and reinforcing legal safeguards.
Key Updates for 2025
The Arbitration Act 2025 introduces several important reforms aimed at improving the efficiency and fairness of arbitration proceedings:
- Summary Disposal of Claims: Arbitrators now possess clear authority to dismiss claims or defences that lack merit. This new mechanism aids in reducing time and legal costs by swiftly eliminating weak or vexatious cases.
- Court Powers Over Third Parties: Courts can now exercise authority over third parties not involved in the arbitration, streamlining dispute management.
- Expanded Duty of Disclosure: Arbitrators must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure impartiality and trust in the arbitration process.
What This Means for GP Practices
The Arbitration Act 2025 has practical and strategic implications for GP partners and practice managers:
- Enhanced Confidentiality
Arbitration remains a highly confidential process. The updates in the Arbitration Act 2025 assist GPs in continuing to resolve disputes without the publicity and reputational risks associated with court hearings.
- Greater Efficiency and Cost Savings
The ability to quickly dispose of weak claims means disputes can be resolved more efficiently, saving GP practices valuable time, money, and disruption.
- Improved Trust
The Act’s emphasis on transparency and impartiality enhances arbitration as a reliable tool for resolving internal partnership disputes, where maintaining working relationships is often critical.
Practical Steps for GPs
- Review your partnership agreements: Ensure your arbitration clauses are fully aligned with the new provisions under the Arbitration Act 2025.
- Understand Disclosure Duties: Familiarise yourself with the enhanced duties of arbitrators and how they might affect current or future disputes.
- Seek Expert Guidance: Legal guidance is crucial to ensure your practice is fully leveraging arbitration under the new legal framework.
How DR Solicitors can help
If you’re a GP or practice manager, now is the time to revisit your dispute resolution strategies. Contact DR Solicitors today to ensure your partnership agreements are compliant with the Arbitration Act 2025 and tailored to protect your practice’s best interests.
News
The impact of including GPs in ARRS funding
Today’s news from the government that GPs can be hired through ARRS funding and that £82m has been allocated for this purpose, will be welcomed by many. The BMA, the RCGP and many grassroots GPs will feel that they have been listened to, but what are the implications for practices and PCNs?
The change is being bought in as a ‘2024/2025 emergency measure’ but it is not clear what happens at the end of March 2025. GPs hired through ARRS funding will presumably have to be hired on contracts which are BMA model terms or equivalent, as the PCN is subject to GMS rules. These contracts normally grant continuity of service for certain NHS previous experience, so if the ‘emergency measure’ comes to an end in March and redundancies are required, there could be quite significant cost implications. If this were to happen, who would pay?
A promise was made under the previous government to cover certain PCN redundancy costs, but the promise was never made contractual and was almost certainly not intended to cover this eventuality. PCNs will presumably want to take advantage of this new hiring freedom as quickly as possible, but in the absence of detailed rules what steps can PCNs take to mitigate any risks?
- Not include continuity of service from before the commencement of the new employment. This would not be consistent with the BMA Model Contract, but the obligation is for GPs to be employed on ‘terms no less favourable’ that the BMA model contract, not on identical terms.
- Alternatively PCNs could look carefully at their member practice contracts and see if they all include the BMA model terms obligation. It is often excluded from older PMS and APMS contracts, so one possibility might be to recruit GPs into those PMS/APMS practices but be careful as this may well present other problems if that practice is not where the GP is actually going to work.
- Recruit into a PCN owned Company where you benefit from limited liability so that in the event of a significant unexpected liability arising, practices would not be obliged to fund it
- Ask a third party like a GP Federation to recruit ARRS GPs, but if you do this be careful to ensure that the sub-contract places the liability for redundancy costs onto the third party. Obviously this will be a difficult term to negotiate.
- Engage ARRS GPs on fixed term contracts. This is unlikely to be popular amongst GPs who will be looking for long term certainty, and hardly supports the ‘bringing back the family doctor’ concept which is supposed to be at the centre of the plan.
- Recruit the new GPs as partners. There is nothing stopping you from using ARRS funding to pay for a partner role, and obviously partners are hired under the terms of a partnership agreement, not an employment contract
Conclusion
In summary, it’s great that the focus is now on hiring new GPs, but be careful to think through your options before entering into a contract, and seek appropriate legal advice if in any doubt.
Contact us for more information on the impact of including GPs in ARRS funding or any other legal issue, or call us for an initial free of charge consultation on 01483 511555.
News
NHS Pensions and PCNs: The new rules explained
When Primary Care Networks (PCNs) were first established, it was only possible for PCN staff to get the NHS pension if they were employed in a practice or (sometimes) a GP Federation. It quickly became obvious that many PCNs would benefit from setting up their own PCN company, but the lack of a pension was an obvious barrier to this. In late 2019 NHSBSA put in place a ‘temporary determination’ enabling PCN Companies to provide the pension to their employees, and once this was available many PCNs decided to incorporate. We have written previously about why PCNs might decide to incorporate.
The concern with the old PCN pension determination was that it was always time limited and needed to be renewed every year. A Consultation was therefore undertaken on proposals to make permanent changes to the pension rules, which led to legislative changes effective from 1 April 2023 (the ‘New Rules’). Any new PCN Companies wishing to provide the NHS pension to their staff will need to apply to provide it under the New Rules. So far, so straightforward.
Unfortunately the legislation was passed just days before the expiry of the old determination, leaving NHSBSA no time to provide any guidance on how the New Rules would be applied. Worse, there was no guidance for existing PCN Companies who had been relying on the old time limited determination, and these were not mentioned at all in the legislation. During the Consultation the Department of Health & Social Care promised to extend the old time limited determination for a year until 31 March 2024 while this was all worked out, but for some reason this extension never happened and the old determination duly expired on 31 March 2023. As a consequence both new and existing PCN companies were largely left in the dark about how to secure and retain access to the NHS Pension for over 2 months. Only very recently has the uncertainty begun to clear.
Somewhat predictably the information vacuum has been filled by a degree of rumour and scaremongering, so we felt it would be helpful to explain the facts and to shoot down a few myths.
The New NHS Pensions Rules
The legislation and subsequent NHSBSA guidance has opened up two routes for PCN Companies to provide the pension to their employees. One is based on the ‘Independent Provider’ model, and the other is an ‘Open Determination’. We will look at each of these in turn:
‘Independent Provider’ Access is a long established ‘pension gateway’ for businesses which cannot automatically offer the NHS pension to their staff. Any business holding a ‘Qualifying Contract’ can apply for ‘Independent Provider’ status. If this status is obtained all staff who spend more than 50% of their time delivering the approved Qualifying Contract are NHS pension eligible. The New Rules introduce a new Qualifying Contract called the “primary care network standard sub-contract”. This is defined as ‘a sub-contract that complies with the National Health Service Commissioning Board’s template sub-contract, “Sub-contract for the provision of services related to the Network Contract Directed Enhanced Service 2022/23”’. Commenting on this less than perfect document is outside the scope of this blog, but suffice to say that in our experience NHSBSA are interpreting ‘complies with’ to mean ‘the same as’, so are telling all new applicants that they must submit a signed copy of this contract with their application for Independent Provider status. An Independent Contractor application involves a very long and complicated form filling exercise, but once completed an Independent Contractor can apply to add further ‘Qualifying Contracts’ at any time.
A ‘Determination’ is a bespoke ‘gateway’ made at the discretion of the secretary of state. This was the original approach used to provide access for PCN companies in 2019, but the old determination was time limited for 12 months which is why it kept getting renewed. That has now been replaced with a new ‘Open Determination’ which is not time limited and is therefore permanent. The application form for ‘Open Determination’ is much shorter and simpler than for Independent Provider status, but a Determination pension provider has no eligibility to provide the pension to anyone other than the category of staff covered by the particular Determination. Unfortunately the new Open Determination application form has not been published online, so you have to email NHSBSA to obtain it. For reasons that are not clear, NHSBSA seem to require applicants to sign the same NHS Standard PCN sub-contract when applying for an Open Determination as when applying for Independent Provider status, even though this is not a stated requirement in the very limited published guidance. The key thing to remember though is pension access is only available for employees of the PCN Company who spend at least 50% of their time activities related to the PCN DES.
PCN Companies are advised by NHSBSA to take advice before deciding which of the two pension routes to select. We would agree with this and further recommend that you also take advice before signing the NHS Standard PCN DES Subcontract.
Existing PCN Companies: Transitioning from the old time limited Determination
At DR Solicitors we have incorporated almost 100 PCNs, most of which will have applied for pension access under the old time limited determination rules which expired at 31 March 2023. It would be nice to think that all the PCN Companies providing the pension under the old dispensation would be automatically grandfathered to one of the new routes, but this does not seem to be what NHSBSA have in mind. The NHSBSA guidance states instead that “Existing employers, with PCN TLD access which expired on 31 March 2023, should complete an application if continued access is needed. When approved for open PCN determination access the existing EA code will be retained.” Because the EA code is retained, the Open Determination is the logical successor to the old time limited Determination as there should be no change from the perspective of the staff if this route is followed. There appears to be nothing to stop an existing PCN Company from applying for Independent Provider status instead of open access, but this would presumably result in a new EA code and thus require the staff to be transferred.
The sting in the tail is that because existing PCN Companies have to reapply, they have to comply with the rules associated with the new open determination. Most importantly, this means that NHSBSA are likely to insist they sign the Standard NHS PCN DES sub-contract, which was not a condition of the old time limited determination. Any existing PCN companies should already sub-contracts in place, but these will almost certainly not be the NHS standard sub-contract. Assuming NHSBSA continue to insist on receiving a copy of the new standard contract, existing PCN companies will either have to change this part of their legal documentation or persuade NHSBSA that their current documents are equivalent. It is unlikely that this will significantly alter the way that most PCN companies operate, but again we suggest that you take legal advice before signing any new contracts or making any changes to your existing company arrangements.
Next Steps
Firstly, don’t panic. There are new rules in place which will take some time to settle in, but once that has happened and NHSBSA has caught up with its application backlog the arrangements will be permanent and everyone should be in a better place as the arrangements are now permanent.
All PCN Companies who wish to provide the NHS pension to their staff need to consider whether to adopt the Independent Provider or Open Determination route. There are pros and cons to each, and we recommend that you look into them carefully before making a decision.
Regrettably, existing PCN Companies with the old time limited determination need to reapply. Again they should take advice, but the choice may be more obvious for them because of the benefit of keeping the EA code associated with the open determination route.
Everyone who selects the Independent Provider route will have to use the standard PCN DES sub-contract, which they are advised to take advice on before signing. It is not a particularly user friendly document.
Those who select the Open Determination route are usually required to sign the same document, even though it is not clear why. Again, take advice before doing so.
Myth Busting
We are aware of various rumours circulating about the implications of the New Rules, so we thought it would be helpful to put some of them to bed:
- The pensions access has nothing to do with the CQC. Regardless of which route you go down you do not necessarily have to register with the CQC. CQC registration is a totally different process and is unrelated to NHS pension access.
- NHS Pensions Access for PCN companies did not cease as at 31 March 2023. Quite the opposite. A ‘primary care network management company’ is now set out for the first time in legislation as a company eligible to provide the NHS Pension to its employees. The problem is that the legislation was passed just days before it went into force, leaving NHSBSA very little time to prepare for implementation. Existing PCN Companies need to re-apply, but so long as they do so there should be no problem with continued access and the pension status should then be permanent
- You do no need to decide whether you are a ‘PCN management organisation’ or a ‘PCN Provider Company’. No such distinction exists. You just need to sign a sub-contract. What this means operationally depends on how you complete the sub-contract schedules, but that should not normally affect pension access.
- You do not need to change your PCN business strategy as a result of the New Rules. You need instead to ensure that you complete the new sub-contract in a way which supports your existing PCN business strategy.
- There is not a third option of a ‘Closed Determination’. Whilst closed determinations are often involved during the process of establishing a PCN Company, they are not a generic way of providing future pension access.
Conclusion
The New Rules are a big step forward. As ever with pensions they are not straightforward, but it is important that all PCN Companies familiarise themselves with the rules and make an application for one of the two routes. At DR Solicitors we would like to see some increased flexibility around the less than perfect standard PCN sub-contract, but in the meantime it can, with care, be made to work for your PCN Company. However this is a complex area, so please do get in touch if you need any support in making the applications.
News
Trusts in Primary Care: Do you need to register with the Trust Registration Service?
Regular readers of our blog will be aware of the Trust Registration Service and the recent requirement to register all ‘express trusts’. DR Solicitors have recently worked with the GPDF to help prepare guidance on the various trust relationships which exist in primary care, and the circumstances under which such trusts may be registerable. The guidance can be found in full on the GPDF website.
The guidance explains:
“A trust is a legal relationship by which one or more ‘Trustees’ hold and manage assets (such as money, investments, land or buildings) on behalf of one or more other people (the ‘Beneficiaries’), and may be created (whether expressly or by operation of law) for convenience or through necessity.
There are a significant number of trust relationships in primary care, generally created by necessity as a substitute for a ‘missing entity’ – particularly in the case of GP partnerships and Primary Care Networks (PCNs). The most common of these trust relationships relate to the ownership of a practice’s surgery, a PCN’s Bank Account, and shares held by GP partnerships in Federations or PCN companies.
Express trusts and taxable non-express trusts must now be registered with the Trust Registration Service (TRS), but the majority of such trusts in primary care settings will be able to benefit from an exemption for “public authorities” and will not need to be registered. In addition, a smaller number of such trusts will be able to benefit from an exemption for “legislative trusts”. It is therefore likely that only a small residual minority of primary care related trusts will need to register with the TRS.”
We recommend that all practices and PCNs read through the guidance to ensure that their particular trusts are likely to be covered by one of the exemptions, and for the minority of trust relationships which are not exempted to seek support from their professional advisers to assist in the registration process.
News
PCN sub-contracting: new NHS template and factors to consider
NHS England have recently published a template sub-contract for PCN DES services https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/subcontract-for-the-provision-of-services-related-to-the-network-contract-directed-enhanced-service-2022-23/
Many PCNs do not seem to realise that when buying in clinical services (as opposed to employing ARRS resources themselves) member practices are creating a sub-contract of their GMS/PMS/APMS contracts. This is true whether the supplier is a GP Federation, a PCN Company or an entirely separate third party.
Most PCNs rely on securing at least some of their resourcing from these providers, and yet many PCNs seem relaxed about documenting this significant relationship through informal SLAs, supplier provided contracts, wording in their PCN Schedules or in some cases, leaving the arrangement completely undocumented. In reality these sub-contracts are critically important in managing the risks for member practices, as a service delivery problem with a sub-contractor can lead directly to a breach of the GMS/PMS/APMS contracts of all the member practices. Having a poorly drafted or non-existent agreement might itself constitute a breach, since practices are required to include a number of important obligations in all sub-contracts to comply with their own contracts.
With the imminent transfer of responsibility for Enhanced Access, many PCNs will be looking to continue this service with the current providers, at least for the time being. This arrangement will also be a sub-contract and it may not be possible to continue the service provision in exactly the same way as before due to regulatory constraints. As a minimum however, a proper sub-contract should be put in place, and for those who have not already done so, the new NHS template PCN sub-contract would probably be a good starting point.
PCNs should bear in mind however that the published document is just a template, and like all templates it needs to be populated and tailored to the particular situation. It also needs to be amended to reflect the different requirements of each party: put bluntly, practices will want to ensure that as many of their risks as possible are passed on the sub-contractor, and the sub-contractor will want to achieve the opposite. It is important that this is taken into account when completing and negotiating the agreement. It is important to remember that, unlike GMS or PMS contracts, PCN sub-contracts are negotiable, need to be negotiated with the supplier, and the template might not suit all circumstances.
Whether or not you use the new template as a starting point, we would strongly recommend that you take specialist advice on all sub-contracting arrangements before entering into them.
For further information on sub-contracting or on any other legal issues, please contact Nils Christiansen on 01483 511555 or email enquiries@drsolicitors.com
News
How might the new Trust rules impact primary care?
The Trust Register was introduced in 2017 and at that time, no registration was required for those trusts which did not pay tax. New rules were introduced on 6 October 2020 as part of anti-money laundering and counter terrorism measures, which significantly extended the scope of the register. The deadline for registration is 1 September 2022, however the situation is complex and HMRC have only recently issued guidance on how the new rules will apply.
On the face of it, many practices and PCNs may unfortunately get impacted by the new rules. The underlying problem is that neither partnerships nor PCNs are legal entities which are capable of holding assets in their own name which forces them to hold assets in the names of nominees. In normal circumstances this nominee arrangement would be a ‘trust’ relationship, and therefore potentially subject to the new rules.
The three most obvious examples where trusts are commonly used by primary care medical practices are:
- GP Surgery premises where partners jointly own the freehold or long leasehold building(s):
- Shares held by a GP partnership in a GP Federation or PCN company
- PCN nominated bank accounts where a practice is holding funds on behalf of other PCN member practices
It is important to state that the position is still unclear and there is currently conflicting advice available. DR Solicitors are therefore contributing to the production of some national guidance for primary care, which we hope will be issued soon.
One of the reasons that the issue is receiving a great deal of publicity is that there are financial and criminal penalties for failing to register. However we would direct concerned practices to the website of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales which contains some helpful information from HMRC on initial failure to Register or late registration:
In recognition of the fact that the registration requirement is a new and unfamiliar obligation for many trustees, there will be no penalty for a first offence of failure to register or late registration of a trust. The exception is when that failure is shown to be due to deliberate behaviour on the part of the trustees. In that case, or where there are repeated failures, a £5,000 penalty may be charged per offence.
In practice, this means that, should HMRC become aware of a trust which has not been registered by the relevant deadline – either because that trust has been registered late or because HMRC has identified that trust’s existence by other means – HMRC may issue a warning letter to the trustee or agent. It would usually only charge a penalty if that letter were not acted on.
The website contains other relevant information and can be accessed at: https://www.icaew.com/insights/tax-news/2022/aug-2022/hmrc-updates-trs-manual-in-advance-of-1-september-deadline
We will be issuing more guidance on this subject very soon, so please stay subscribed to the blog.
News
Should GPs worry about Directors’ Liability?
When we incorporate PCNs or GP practices, one of the most common questions from concerned GPs relates to the liability they might pick up if they become a director of the incorporated company. In this blog, we look at how real the risks are to company directors, and whether or not you need be concerned.
Financial risk
At a very basic level, it is worth remembering that liability is limited in companies but is unlimited in partnerships. So, if a partnership has assets of £60,000 and £100,000 of creditors, then the partners have personal liability for the shortfall. If a company has assets of £60,000 and £100,000 of liabilities, then the directors can liquidate the company, whereupon the £60,000 of assets are sold and the proceeds distributed to the creditors, leaving the creditors short by £40,000. In other words, in a partnership structure the partners lose out if there are insufficient assets, whereas in a company structure the creditors lose out. This is the very essence of limited liability and is why limited companies come with more onerous rules than unlimited partnerships.
In the above scenario, the shareholders of the company will have no liability: if shareholders could be liable for a company’s debts then neither stock exchanges nor pension funds would exist. Directors could theoretically have liability for some or all of the shortfall, but in practice this is extremely unlikely. However, the likelihood of a partner being held liable for the shortfall in a partnership is 100%.
Directors can incur personal liability to creditors in certain circumstances if the company is insolvent, but such liability only arises in situations which go beyond negligence and into the realms of recklessness or crime. One of those circumstances is fraud, which speaks for itself. The other is wrongful trading, which occurs when a company continues to trade when it has “no reasonable prospect” (which wording sets quite a high bar) of avoiding going into insolvent liquidation or insolvent administration. An example of this in a normal trading company might be continuing to take customer orders and customer money when there is no realistic chance of the orders being met because the company is insolvent. Again, the liability which a director would have in such circumstances is no greater than a partner of a partnership would have in identical circumstances, whilst the hurdles which a creditor would have to overcome to enforce a claim against the director would be considerably higher than in enforcing them against a partner.
By moving trading activity from a partnership of which you are a partner to a company of which you are a director, you are invariably reducing your risk of personal liability very significantly.
Breach of fiduciary duties
So what other liabilities might a company director be opening themselves up to? In law, there are seven fiduciary duties set out in statute:
- to act within powers;
- to promote the success of the company;
- to exercise independent judgment;
- to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence;
- to avoid conflicts of interest;
- not to accept benefits from third parties; and
- to declare any interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement with the company.
To a director who is familiar with these duties in the context of a partnership, these hardly seem onerous and, most significantly, the duties are owed to the company itself, rather than to third parties. It would be the company itself, either through a majority of directors or through minority shareholder action, that would have to sue a director for breach of fiduciary duties. Whilst this is conceivable in a large, listed company, in a small private company which is run and owned by the same people, and in which decisions are made by majority, it is hard to conceive of a situation whereby it might occur.
When it comes to clinical negligence, a company can be liable for the actions of a director, but it is rare for a director to be capable of being held liable for the actions of the company unless the director has themselves done something negligent, in which case the liability arises by virtue of the director’s action rather than by virtue of them being a director. Corporate manslaughter is an exception to this principle, but for a director to be liable in respect of corporate manslaughter it would have to be established that the way in which the activities of the company were managed or organised caused someone’s death and amounted to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed to that person. Again, it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of circumstances where a director of a company had more liability in identical circumstances than a partner of a partnership.
What steps can be taken to reduce the risk to directors?
A question we are often asked related to directors’ liability concerns directors’ and officers’ liability insurance (D&O Insurance). D&O Insurance first started to feature in the public awareness as a result of the various government-commissioned reports into corporate governance in the 1990s: the Cadbury Report, the Greenbury Report and the Hempel Report. These reports led to an increase in the number of non-executive directors being appointed by listed companies. As these non-executive directors usually had very limited supervisory roles, usually concerned with audit and director remuneration, but could potentially incur the same personal liability as ‘ordinary’ directors, they invariably insisted on companies taking out D&O Insurance on their behalf before they would accept appointments – simply by virtue of the enormous numbers involved in such companies. D&O Insurance in respect of a small private company, such as a PCN company or an incorporated GP practice, would be unusual as the directors invariably have a much greater understanding of the operations of a much simpler business. If however you are concerned about this residual directors liability you should speak with a specialist insurance broker about the risks more generally in primary care.
Conclusion
In summary, when you move trading activity from a partnership to a company you invariably end up reducing your potential personal liability. It is no surprise that well over three quarters of all businesses in the UK trade as limited companies, and the majority of the remainder trade as very small sole practitioners. Partnerships have their advantages, but reducing personal liability is not one of them.
If you have any questions on the topics covered in this blog or on any other legal issues, please contact Nils Christiansen on 01483 511555 or email enquiries@drsolicitors.com.