Hammonds takes Direct action in lease wrangle

  • Print
  • Comments (8)

Readers' comments (8)

  • Gosh, another reputationally damaging mess, courtesy of the (exceptional) former “management”. I presume that the eventual expected returns from Hammonds Direct were part of the “silver lining” many Hammonds partners saw in agreeing the lock-in. Now that this silver lining has turned out to be just another liability and yet another dispute, Hammonds partners must be wondering when the Augean Stables might finally be clean. More water, Peter?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All HD partners expected the business to have been sold years ago. It seems Heller and Hutton hung in too long waiting for the best price. They missed their chance and now everyone involved is paying the price.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am no real estate lawyer but I clearly remember something about the need for a contract for an interest in land to be evidenced in writing to be binding. Seems to be no contract here and therefore no liability. Clearly a try-on by the boys in Leeds. Tell them to go and hire some property lawyers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's very bad judgement to consider a lease purely a formality and not entirely necessary. How can a group of lawyers get this so badly wrong?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The prospect of Hammonds' main business suing some of its existing partners who were/are also partners in Hammonds Direct is hardly good for morale and internal goodwill between partners ! Indeed it is exactly this sort of conduct which tells you everything thing you need to know about Hammonds main business and the sorry state it is in - what a pity. One wonders whether Crossley and his management team over told Hammonds Direct partners that they were on the hook for this before the proverbial s**t hit the fan. Also, one might imagine that Heller , Hutton and their management team at Hammonds Direct might find that some rather pointed questions will now be asked about their conduct in potentially exposing partners in that business to this sort of potential liability.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hammonds LLP finds itself in an untenable position. In the region of 20 current equity partners have, wearing their Hammonds Direct hat, consciously taken decisions that are not in the best interests of Hammonds LLP (with some understatement).
    They need to resign and give the next generation a chance to take the firm forward.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They need to resign and give the next generation a chance to take the firm forward ? What is going to be left? I will be interested to see what their PEP figure is going to turn out as this year, after last years reduced figure. Hammonds always seem to be fighting an uphill battle. Who would want to stay at the firm and be promoted into that partnership ? Glad I got out of there when I did !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A classic case of "The cobblers childrens' shoes". I come across this time and time again among smaller firms: the ability to take good care of clients' affairs while failing dismally with one's own. I'd always assumed the larger firms were better run but maybe not.
    As a client, would you now take your business to them?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (8)