Brown Turner Ross was delighted to sponsor this Award at the MOWLL Annual Awards Ceremony on December 1^st 2011. The glittering Ceremony for this very worthy Charity took place at The Liverpool Marina.

MOWLL is a Liverpool grown organisation dedicated to promoting the social inclusion of people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions and brain injury (Self Advocates). Their aim is to equip Self Advocates with the appropriate practical skills and knowledge to ensure that:

• they are safe in their Community particularly relevant as there has been an increase nationally in disability hate crime
• they understand their rights to respect, dignity, choice & increased control of their lives
• they can progress to further Training, Education, Employment, a wider social network & improved independence

It is based within Liverpool University and promotes social inclusion for all. They provide flexible Programmes including Disability Equality Training at both Liverpool & Chester University. This Training reaches future Social Workers, Nurses, Psychologists & Occupational Therapists.

They are also working with young people through their Keys4Independence Programme bringing together Groups from three Specialist Schools across Liverpool to plan their future.

In partnership with People First they are working with Liverpool John Moores University on their Learning Disability Collaborative Programme which will include Training with future Midwives, Nurses & Paramedics.

The Bill Blunn Award

Brown Turner Ross was delighted to sponsor this Award.

Bill Blunn  was a peer Advocate at MOWLL and fondly known as “The Godfather”!  He  died of Cancer in 2008 and is still  sorely missed by all at MOWLL. Bill was dealt the worst hand in life as he was wrongly locked up for 35 years in  long stay institutions as a result of a case of mistaken identity.  At the age of 15 Bill was alleged to have stolen a bottle of lemonade from a milk float and was arrested.  He spent 15 years in Calderstones, 12 years in Lisoux Hall and 8 years in HMP Newhall.  His records were accessed when he was 66 for us to find out that the name recorded on his files was William Allen Blunn whereas his actual name was William Francis Blunn.

William  Allen Blunn was a serious offender with  history of breaking into properties in the Old Swan area of Liverpool and spent his life as a free man!

The Award was presented on the night by Terry Kelly & Mark Barrett. It was awarded to the person who was felt to have “taken the most time to get to know the people MOWLL work with, sharing banter, respecting individuality and the building of friendships” something Bill was renowned for.

Heidi Kenworthy, CEO of MOWLL commented:

“Without the support of Sponsors like Brown Turner Ross we would simply not be able to hold an Awards Ceremony or recognise the outstanding work that is done in trying to achieve our key objectives. I would like to thank Lyndsey McHale (Head of Wills, Trusts & Probate) & Frank Rogers (Head of Business Development) from Brown Turner Ross for their ongoing support of MOWLL.”

Lyndsey McHale, Director of Brown Turner Ross commented:

“We were delighted to sponsor this Award. Frank Rogers suggested that we got involved in this way and I had no hesitation in agreeing. The work done by Heidi and her outstanding Team at MOWLL desrves wider recognition than is sadly the case. The work they do is challenging but rewarding and all of us here at Brown Turner Ross have nothing but admiration for their dedication, expertise and commitment.”

To find out more about MOWLL visit www.mowll.net

From April 6^th 2012 an Employee will have to have worked for 2 years to be able to bring a Claim for Unfair Dismissal. This was announced at the Conservative Party Conference.

In our Opinion Piece published on October 3^rd we reported on the fact that many Employer’s organisations had called for Applicants to pay a Deposit that would only be refunded if the Claim succeeded. It now looks as if the Government may now also be looking making the unsuccessful Party liable for all of the other Party’s Legal Costs in every Case.

The power to award Costs already exists: in the period 30.4.2010 – 1.4.2011 132 Applicants & 355 Respondents were awarded Costs. The average sum payable was £2,830 which would certainly fall way below what might be incurred if the Case proceeded to a Hearing.

 Two Options are being considered

In option One,  the Applicant would

• pay an initial Fee of £150-£250 to issue Proceedings
• pay an additional Fee of £250-£1,250 if the Claim goes to a Hearing
• be subject to no limit to the maximum Award of Damages they could recover if they won their Claim

In Option Two, the Applicant

• would pay a single Fee of £200-£600
• only be able to recover an Award of Damages up to a maximum limited to £30,000
• would have to pay an additional Fee of £1,750 to be able to recover Damages in excess of £30,000

In both options, the Tribunal would have the power to order the unsuccessful party to reimburse the Fees paid by the successful Party.

It is expected that Fee Waivers will be available for people on low incomes to protect their access to Justice.

Tony Marriott, Head of Employment Law at Brown Turner Ross commented:

‘These proposals are clearly designed to make both parties to a Tribunal Claim look towards an early settlement using forms of Mediation or Conciliation. The Legal Costs incurred by both sides to a fully contested Claim could run into thousands or even tens of thousands of Pounds. The risk of having to be solely responsible for Costs at this level is bound to impact on how a Claim is dealt with at the outset.

The aim is to protect small Businesses from liability for Costs & Damages arising from Claims that are perceived to have little real merit. However, as is always the case with measures of this sort, there will be an impact on genuine Applicants who simply cannot afford either the Fee to issue the Proceedingsor the risk of paying their Employer’s Costs in full.

If you have lost your job or, are owed money by an Employer, the Fees payable may be beyond the means of many potential Applicants so the Fee Waiver Scheme will need to be looked at carefully. As always, it is a question of balance – protecting small Businesses from Legal Costs & Damages that can see them strangled at birth while also giving Employees adequate protection and access to a Legal system they can afford.

Given the need for the Private Sector to bale out the economy, the Government clearly sees these proposals as being helpful to the growth of small Businesses.”

The Government will continue to fund ACAS, the free service that helps people involved in Employment disputes try and resolve their differences without having to issue Proceedings.

The consultation closes in March 2012 and Fees will not be introduced before 2013-14.

So should the Government have gone further encouraging earlier and compulsory Mediation before proceedings can be issued, Payments into Court with Costs Sanctions and making more use of Employment Judges?

What changes would you like to have see made? Please get in touch with me through the website law@brownturnerross.com or direct at frank.rogers@brownturnerross.com. You may find the Employment Law section of our website helpful so click for a direct link.

Whether you are seeking assistance

• as a Tenant of an Agricultural Holding seeking to protect succession rights
• in buying or selling a freehold Farm
• entering a new Farm Business Tenancy either as Landlord or Tenant
• buying or selling a Single Payment Scheme entitlement
• with Grazing or Sporting rights
• with Short Term Lettings

you can rely on our specialist Agricultural Property Team for expert advice.

Succession Rights

Tenancies created before July 12th 1984 allow for two “successions” to close relatives who must be able to demonstrate that

• the land in question is their main income source and
• they do not have any interest in other land from which they can derive an adequate income

There are many pitfalls for the unsuspecting Tenant seeking to pass the Tenancy on to a loved one. Landlords will often seek to challenge the rights of succession because if they do so successfully they can regain possession of the land and let it under a Farm Business Tenancy on far more advantageous terms to them.

You therefore need expert legal advice before you try to effect any succession to ensure you do not put your otherwise secure entitlement at risk.

Single Payment Scheme entitlements can also be lost if succession is not carefully dealt with. These entitlements do not attach to the land. If a transfer of them is not properly planned they can be passed to a family member who does not satisfy the stringent conditions meaning the entitlement to them will be lost.

Buying or Selling a Freehold Farm

You should consider a wide range of key issues including the following

• a site visit to check boundaries, access and matters such as public footpaths and sporting rights are clearly defined
• that all relevant searches are conducted
• enquiries regarding Single Payment Scheme entitlements and ensuring “cross compliance”
• ascertaining whether Sporting Rights have been granted and whether they are to be included in any sale
• whether all access and drainage rights are adequate
• whether Water Abstraction Licences remain valid if they are applicable
• Nitrate vulnerable
• Employees
• Disease
• VAT

A New Farm Business Tenancy

Any Tenancy created after September 1st 1995 will be a Farm Business Tenancy if is actually stated to be one. There are no automatic succession rights with such a Tenancy.

There are few implied clauses for these Tenancies even if they are not set out in any documentation relating to the Tenancy so it is important that the positions of both the Landlord and the Tenant are protected. For example

• a poorly drafted Business Tenancy can create succession rights which a Landlord may not want
• Rent Reviews cannot be upwards only irrespective of what the parties agree

The issues that arise for a Freehold transaction will also apply here.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court has caused consternation in legal circles resulting in calls for urgent reform of the law governing property jointly owned by unmarried couples.

The ruling by the Supreme Court came in the long-awaited judgment in Jones v Kernott.

The Parties involved in this Case were not married but had lived together in a property where the legal title was held in joint names with no specific declaration of how it was to be shared if the relationship came to an end. The couple would no doubt have regarded the sale proceeds as belonging to them equally if they had sold the Property while their relationship was still an amicable one. However, when their relationship came to an end, Patricia Jones remained in occupation of the house for many years until a dispute arose as to how the cash value of the property should be shared between them.

The Supreme Court, led by Lord Walker and Lady Hale, unanimously ruled that Patricia Jones (who had appealed against the decision of a lower Court) was entitled to retain 90% of the equity in the property jointly owned with her former partner Leonard Kernott, rather than the 50% that the usual strict interpretation of property law would have given her.

The couple had bought the house in 1985 in joint names using money from the sale of Patricia Jones’ previous home for the deposit. From then on they shared the mortgage repayments and maintenance costs but, Patricia Jones continued to live in the property and had been solely responsible for its mortgage and upkeep for over 12 years following their separation.

Samantha Bushell, Head of Family Law at Brown Turner Ross commented:

“This decision makes some progress in allowing Courts to form a view about what outcome is fair in any given case based on what the Parties intended. However, this falls well short of giving clarity to cohabiting couples as to what happens to jointly owned or shared property on a relationship breakdown.

It is time there was some legislation dealing with the rights of unmarried couples taking account of reform proposals previously put forward by the Law Commission. This decision will therefore result in more litigation between unmarried couples with the consequential increase in litigation, legal costs and can only be unhelpful for those affected by this decision. Four different Courts have ruled on this Case showing what chaos surrounds the prevailing view on this issue even among Judges. Cohabitees are entitled to greater clarity and protection.

It is interesting to note that in Scotland the rights of former Cohabitees are clearly defined by legislation.”

 

The last thing you will want when you have invested in a property is to get caught up in a lengthy and expensive dispute as happened in this case. There are a number of things you can consider when buying a property so as to ensure this does not happen to you!

 Options for Joint Owners

These must be considered very carefully. You need to think carefully about what will happen to the property if you were to split up or if one of you were to die. Unless you contribute equally to the purchase funds namely

• the difference between the purchase price and any mortgage loan
• and also to the subsequent payments on your mortgage

the person paying or contributing the larger share of the funds may wish to ensure that when the property is sold they receive a larger share of the net proceeds than the other joint owner.

This should be discussed and agreed between you both before you purchase the property. If you leave this until after the purchase has been completed any changes can only be made if all the joint owners agree – this will not be the case if, by then, a dispute or disagreement of any sort has arisen as was the case here. People can own a property by a variety of means which have very different implications for them -

Joint Tenants

This means that the property is owned on the basis of you each having an equal interest in it so that if one of you died, the survivor would automatically own the property outright.

Tenants in Common

This means the property is still jointly owned but on the basis that each of you owns a precise and specified share of the property which you can leave to anyone of your choosing in your Will. You need to consider whether you wish to own the property in equal
shares or in unequal shares the latter option being designed to protect an owner who is contributing more money to the purchase than the other.

Declaration of Trust

If you wish to own the property based on unequal shares, for example 60% and 40%.  your respective interests may be protected by means of a separate document called a Deed of Trust.  This document will set out your respective interests in the property by reference to, for example, your capital contributions towards the purchase of it.

Making a Will

When considering these options we recommend that you consider making a Will.  If you are going to own the property as Tenants in Common the survivor of you will not automatically be entitled to the share in the property owned by the person who died.  It is therefore important that you make clear what is to happen to your interest in the property. You can get advice from us on making your Will and we will also register your Will for no additional charge.

For a Free initial Consultation contact us and get expert advice on where you stand given this ruling.

New figures from The Personal Support Unit (whose volunteers provide practical support to Litigants in Person) show a dramatic increase in the number of people representing themselves even before the pending cuts in Legal Aid are implemented.

• there was a 19% increase in the number of Litigants in Person in the eight months to
  August 31^st in London’s main Family Court
•  the rise at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre was a staggering 89% in the four months to September 30^th.

The PSU’s Director, Judith March said Budget Cuts had removed many Court Staff who had previously provided basic information to Litigants in Person. It is believed that an entire level of middle management has been removed at the Royal Courts of Justice inLondon.

District Judges who will, more than most Judges, see the impact of this change are already saying they are “nearing the limits of their capacity and inventiveness”. Delays in the administration of Justice are now likely to soar which is in no-one’s best interests.

Litigants in person often suffer major health problems including stress, anxiety and depression – many will not find it easy to cope with Court Procedure, standard Court Documents and even in many cases the written or spoken word let alone have the skill
required to “manage” their Case and the paper work it will generate. Lawyers facing a Litigant in person often find that they spend far more time on a Case beacuse their “opponent” understandably is not familiar with Procedure and often unable to present their Case to their own advantage. The Lawyer ends up having to guide the Litigant in Person through the process which itself becomes more protracted and tortuous.

The Law Society’s Gazette commented in a Leader Column

“The risk is that Ministry of Justice Cuts have so eroded the capacity and operational integrity of the Courts that even measures intended to save further public funds cannot be absolutely executed. Justice may or may not be served when there are far more Litigants in Person. But cuts to the Courts Service make it more likely that it will not.”

A Civil Justice Council Working Party has recently made recommendations to the Justice Secretary and it will be interesting to see how they are treated but anyone expecting either a reversal of pending Cuts or, action based on investment in Staff or resources to combat this problem should look out of the nearest window and watch for pigs flying past.

The £2.7m deal for the 86,000 sq ft Garden Centre located on the 19.5 acre site in Knutsford, takes Blue Diamond Garden Centre’s portfolio to thirteen sites in the UK and Channel Islands.

Specialist retail and garden centre property consultancy, Gilbert Evans, brokered the deal on behalf of Fryer’s Garden Centre. David Bushell of Brown Turner Ross Solicitors acted for Fryer’s in the deal.

Gareth Fryer, Managing Director of Fryer’s Garden Centre said:

“We started looking at succession planning and I wanted to find the right partner to take over our family firm. David Bushell and Mike Gilbert guided us through the process, expertly matching us with a company who shared our values and quality of service. Blue Diamond’s reputation for quality made them a natural choice.”

Fryer’s was established in 1912 by Arthur Fryer, who specialised in the growing of roses on a small plot in Knutsford. He was joined by his sons Frank and Jim in 1945, when they returned from serving in World War II. By the late 1950’s, Fryer’s were growing 750,000 rose plants every year throughout the UK.
More…

The current Managing Director of Fryer’s is Arthur’s grandson Gareth. He joined the family firm in 1966 and it was his energy and drive that saw the firm exhibit at over forty shows each year, developing the business further into international markets. In early 1970, he saw the opportunity for the development of a Garden Centre. Education is at the core of this business, with rose experts on hand to ensure the very best advice is given to their loyal customers.

Fryer’s has gone on to win no less than twelve Gold Medals at the prestigious Chelsea Flower Show along with a clutch of international awards, including two sought after All America Awards, a Golden Rose at the Hague, along with Gold Medals in Japan, New Zealand Australia, USA and Europe.

Mike Gilbert, Partner and Head of Garden Centres at Gilbert Evans, added:

“We have represented a great number of family owned garden centres over the last 20 years, and often it is the intangible things that make a deal work. Fryer’s Roses are highly respected in the sector and finding the best match for them was about more than the deal on the table. It was the confidence to pass on the heritage and proud reputation to a firm who shared their vision and values. Blue Diamond has been trading from Guernsey for over 100 years. Their trademark is quality, service and innovation, I could think of no better match for Fryers”

David Bushell, Senior Partner of Brown Turner Ross Solicitors said:

“When you are looking to sell the family firm, it is vital that the final deal fits with your own core values, and taking expert advice early on ensures the best result for all parties. I have worked with Mike Gilbert on a number of Garden Centre deals; they are often long standing family firms with outstanding heritage. However diagnosing any legal or practical issues which could delay the sale of agricultural land early on is essential. We are delighted that we have enabled Gareth to retain his specialist rose breeding business as part of the final deal.”

In our Opinion Piece published on October 3^rd we reported on the fact that the Government was planning to increase the qualifying period for bringing Unfair Dismissal Claims following widespread consultation with business organisations that concluded in April 2011. During that consultation process many Employer’s organisations also called for a Deposit to be paid by Applicants that would only be refunded if the Claim succeeded.

The Government have now announced that with effect from April 6^th 2012 Applicants

• will have to have 2 years employment before being able to bring Unfair Dismissal
  Proceedings
• will have to pay a Fee of £250.00
• will also have to pay £1,000 if the Case proceeds to a Hearing refundable only if the Claim succeeds

The Chancellor, George Osborne, and Business Secretary, Vince Cable, said the changes would save UK businesses £6m a year and encourage them to take on more Staff.

Our View

It is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty that these measures will reassure Employers to the extent that they will be more likely (for this reason alone) to create new jobs or what savings will be made as a result.

In our Opinion Piece published on October 3^rd we mentioned other measures Employers had been calling for which in our view would have more impact on the time and money Employers spend in dealing with such Claims. One major opportunity missed is to insist that all cases are referred to ACAS before Proceedings can be issued.

Statistics show that the vast majority of Cases do not reach a Hearing and anything that could be done to weed out Claims with no merit or settle Claims with obvious merit would surely have been welcomed.

The Facts

The Government’s Statistics show that the number of Unfair Dismissal Claims reduced in the last year -

• 2008 -2009 – 52,700
• 2009 -2010 – 57,400
• 2010 -2011 – 47,900

Unfair Dismissal Cases Dismissed 1.4.2010 – 31.3.2011

At a Preliminary Hearing 1,400 = 13% of Unfair Dismissal Cases proceeding to a Hearing

At A Final Hearing

4,800 = 46% of Unfair Dismissal Cases proceeding to a Hearing

Cases Upheld

• Reinstatement or re-engagement – 8 = 0%
• Remedy left to Parties – 100 = 1%
• Compensation – 2,600 = 25%
• No Award made – 1,400 = 14%

So 10,300 Cases proceeded to some sort of Hearing representing 21% of all Unfair Dismissal cases disposed of in that period. Compensation was awarded in 2,600 Cases – bear in mind that in that period 47,900 Cases were started.

Compensation Awards

In the Cases where Compensation was awarded (2,608 to be precise) the average Award was £8,924.

A more detailed breakdown reveals the following:

• Under £500 – 243 = 9%
• £500 – £999 – 194 = 7%
• £1,000 – £4,999 – 930 = 36%
• £5,000 – £9,999 – 508 = 20%
• £10,000 – £19,999 – 450 = 17%
• £20,000 – £49,999 – 232 = 9%
• £50,000+ – 51 = 2%

Costs Awards

In the same period 132 Claimants & 355 Respondents were awarded Costs. The average Award was £2,830 which would almost certainly fall below the Costs actually incurred by the Employer.

So should the Government have gone further:

•  encouraging earlier and compulsory Mediation before Proceedings can be issued
• Payments into Court with Costs Sanctions and
• making more use of Employment Judges?

What changes would you like to have seen made?

Please get in touch with me through the website law@brownturnerross.com or direct at frank.rogers@brownturnerross.com. You may find the Employment Law section of our website helpful so click for a direct link.

Please also let me know what topics you would like us to comment on in our Blog.

Background

For many months business owners have been calling on the Government to take action to help them grow their business mainly by cutting red tape (something the Coalition has already committed to doing) and by easing the pressure that can come from Tribunal claims which can drain time, money and other resources.

The perception amongst many Business organisations is that the number of Tribunal Claims is increasing and that the number of frivolous Applications is spiralling out of control.

So why have so many Employer’s  Organisations  been lobbying Government for change & what have they been asking for?

The view is that the number of Claims being brought has spiralled out of control and that Employers are being forced to spend substantial sums of money dealing with frivolous Claims – money they are currently unlikely to recover even if they successfully defend the Claim.

The reality is that the statistics for Employment Tribunal Claims have been  distorted by a few massive Group Claims (mainly involving Equal Pay arguments) sometimes involving hundreds of individual Applicants being represented by their Trade Unions.

There was a 56% increase in Tribunal Claims in the period up to March 2010 but in September 2011 the Tribunals Service released statistics showing that between April 1^st 2010 – March 31^st 2011 they received 218,000 Applications, an 8% fall compared to 2009-2010 but a 44% increase on those received in 2008-2009.

In 2010-2011 there were 60,600 single Applications received a reduction of 15% on the previous year and 157,500 multiple Applications received, a fall of 4% on the previous year. Since 2000 the trend for single Applications has been slightly downward apart from 2009-2010. The trend for multiple Applications has been steadily upward until last year having trebled in the last decade.

So the overall trend is currently downward.

The backlog of unresolved Cases has risen with the figure as at March 31^st 2011 being 484,300 up by about 20% on the previous year but the vast majority of the outstanding Cases are multiple Applications including 199,000 relating to Working Time Regulations. These Applications have risen from 24,000 in 2008 to 114,000 in 2010! In the same period Unfair Dismissal Claims have reduced from 52,700 to 47,900.

Concerns About Employment Law have been looked at by Government

A Consultation process closed on April 20^TH this year covering a wide range of proposed reforms including:

• a requirement for all Claims to be lodged first with ACAS for one month to allow Conciliation before being lodged with a Tribunal
• allowing Offers to Settle to be formally paid into the Tribunal like Civil payments into Court
• allowing more Cases such as Unfair Dismissals to be heard by Employment Judges sitting alone
• extending powers to require a party to always pay a Deposit in order to proceed with a Claim – the CBI suggested this should be as high as £500.00
• increasing the qualifying time that has to be worked before a Claim can be brought with 2 years being the favoured change

 So how do Unfair Dismissal Claims Work at the Moment?

Let’s run through a basic Timeline from when the Application is issued

• Firstly the Applicant does not have to pay a Fee to issue an Application
• An Application can be issued online and the Tribunal then serves the papers for the Applicant
• An Unfair Dismissal Claim has to be issued within 3 months less a day of the date of dismissal. Time still runs even if there is an internal Appeal against the dismissal
• If Discrimination is being alleged time runs from the date of the discriminatory act but can be extended on just & equitable grounds
• Standard Directions will be given e.g. for exchange of documents and Statements – in complex Cases there may be a Case Management Conference when more detailed Directions will be given
• An ACAS Officer will be appointed and will write to the Parties when the Claim is issued – ACAS will assist in negotiations if invited to do so but do not otherwise intervene
• A Tribunal can strike out a Claim at the outset if there is no jurisdiction to bring it or give a Default Judgement if no response is received from the Employer!
• If there is a Preliminary Issue e.g. was the Claim issued late then this will be determined at a pre Hearing Review
• If the issue is whether the Case has any prospects of success the Tribunal can order the Applicant to pay a Deposit and if he loses he can be ordered to pay Costs
• Procedure at Hearings is similar to that in Civil Courts save that they are more informal. The onus is on the Employer to show that the dismissal was fair – if Constructive Dismissal is alleged the onus remains with the Applicant to prove breach of Contract

There is a very good Government website where you can get more information & guidance –  http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/employment/index.htm and the Employment Law section of our website is worth a visit

or simply contact me direct at frank.rogers@brownturnerross.com - you can also follow us on Facebook & Twitter @BrownTurnerRoss.

I remember when Employment Law began life in the 1970s when it was stated that it would be simple and that there would be no need for Lawyers (outrageous suggestion!) – the reality was that almost over night it became one of the most complex and fastest changing areas of the Law affecting any business small or large.

So it is well worth asking us to

• look at your current Procedures
• look at your standard Contracts of Employment
• and to advise you generally on HR issues

You can enlist the services of Chris Blackburne  our HR Director who has many years experience of working with small and large Employers across a wide range of Employment and HR issues.

Preventative measures are of vital importance if you are going to be able to devote your time to growing your business as opposed to dealing with Tribunal Claims.

The Liverpool Food and Drink Festival Awards were the culmination of a 10-day foodie extravaganza and saw more than 4,000 people cast their votes as restaurants, bars and producers battled it out to be titled the city’s best.

Attendees were treated to a selection of drinks as they arrived including Dark and Stormy cocktails made by Beers Cellars, before they tucked into a luxurious picnic themed three course dinner with a twist, featuring exquisite food from Rhubarb & Custard Catering; served by students at the prestigious De Vere Academy of Hospitality.

Restaurant of Excellence went to 60 Hope Street, who were presented their award by event sponsor Brown Turner Ross Solicitors, while Lunya, in College Lane, won the award for Liverpool’s Favourite European Restaurant.

Owner Peter Kinsella said:

“Winning last year had a fantastic effect for us in many ways – being titled as one of the city’s best is something to be very proud of. It is one of the only awards actually voted for by the public, and that is one of the highest accolades possible. We’re delighted to have won again.”

The Outstanding Customer Service award went to Bem Brazil, in Hanover Street, while the Favourite Bar or Pub award was presented to The Hub Alehouse and Kitchen.

Most Family-Friendly Restaurant went to Yo Sushi, in Liverpool One, and Favourite Independent Cafe or Coffee Shop was awarded to Bold Street Coffee. Sapporo Teppanyaki, in Duke Street, was voted Liverpool’s Favourite International Restaurant.

Sapporo Teppanyaki’s managing partner, Vince Margiotta, said:

“These awards are extremely important to us as a business because it means our hard work and dedication has been recognised by the public around the city.

“To think people took the time to go online and vote in their thousands this year is overwhelming, and they are the ones responsible for helping restaurants like us to create an impressive foodie revolution in Liverpool.”

Favourite Neighbourhood Restaurant award went to Almond, in West Derby, and Liverpool’s Favourite Food Producer was awarded to the Liverpool Cheese Company. Favourite Sunday Lunch was given to Marco Pierre White’s The Swan, in Aughton.

Denise Harris, MD of SK Events, who founded both the Liverpool Food and Drink Festival and tonight’s awards, said:

“When the Liverpool Food & Drink Festival Awards were first launched three years ago, our aim was to give public recognition to the restaurants, bars and producers who continue to excel in this city and tonight has proved that Liverpool definitely has something to be proud of.

“Following thousands of votes, endless campaigning and several months of hard work, we now have eleven establishments that have officially been crowned the city’s best and they have received the recognition that they truly deserve.

“Liverpool’s food offering continues to rapidly flourish and that is all thanks to the dedication, passion and enthusiasm of the thousands of people working in the sector. We can’t wait to see what the next 12 months will bring.”