Leasehold Solutions Limited and Leasehold Valuers Limited – In Liquidation
What can their clients do now?
Leasehold Solutions announced on their website that Leasehold Solutions Limited and Leasehold Valuers Limited have ceased trading as at 30 March 2021.

If you are a current client of either company then you may have received a letter from them or their liquidators, Begbies Traynor, indicating that you will need to instruct a new solicitor and that there are more steps in order to move your matter forward.

MWB would be delighted to assist you through this difficult situation.

We appreciate that this may be very stressful for you and our experienced team will guide you through the next stages of your matter and having your file transferred to us.

We offer a full range of Enfranchisement services including lease extensions, collective enfranchisement, freehold purchases, deeds of variation and any other matter linked to residential leases. We have a specialist team that is dedicated to this area of law.

It is possible that if you do not select your own law firm to move your matter forward, the liquidators may opt to sell/transfer your matter to a new firm of their choosing which you may not want to represent you.

If you would like to discuss your options then please do not hesitate to get in touch with the Leasehold Enfranchisement team – 0800 84 94 101

Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920
A little visited part of the statute books, the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920 conveys a powerful right available to religious groups utilising a property as a place of worship (‘The 1920 Act’). The 1920 Act represents one of the first forms of freehold enfranchisement, which was brought about following the Select Committee report on Town Holdings from 1989 (‘the Report’).

The Report found that a number of ‘non-conformist’ religious groups suffered from having no long-term security of tenure with regards to the places of worship and schools associated with them. As a result, it was felt important that communities were able to achieve long term security in the form of acquiring the permanent right to buy and use property as a place of worship, rather than being dependent on the grant of a long lease by the landlord.

It was found by the Report that the freeholder should have no objection, provided that the freeholder is adequately compensated for the loss of the property, in this case on the payment of a premium.

Rarely used in practice
The 1920 Act has so far been considered only twice in reported cases, on each occasion by the High Court. The fact that these cases were considered 88 years apart illustrates how scarcely used this piece of legislation is.

This may indicate that most are unlikely to come across this niche area within the already specialised area of enfranchisement law. However, the legislation may be applicable in more ways than many would assume.

Unexpected applications
In a 2015 case, a former supermarket located along a high street in Sheffield was successfully enfranchised by the religious group which held a long lease of the premises.

It could be suggested that 1920 Act was not designed to encapsulate such properties however such arguments are irrelevant; if the building qualifies then it appears that that even a former supermarket is caught by the 1920 Act. The implication is that landlords will need to be aware of this enfranchisement right and the potential loss of the freehold if granting a lease that is caught by the legislation.

Which propertiesplaces of worship qualify for enfranchisement?
Religious groups which could benefit from the liberal application of the 1920 Act should also be aware of this potentially valuable right, even if the building in question is for example a former shop or warehouse is not per se a traditional place of worship.

The 2015 case is a salutary reminder that it is the characteristics of the lease rather than the building, which is important.

Do the physical characteristics of the place of worship matter?
The criteria differ from that found within the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Unlike these Acts, the physical characteristics of the building is not the determining factor.

Do you have the right to buy your building?
The property must be held on a lease granted for more than twenty-one years; and
The property must be used for the purposes of a religious place of worship.
There are some exceptions which would need to be examined carefully in each case. Once grounds to bring the claim are established a mechanism akin to compulsory purchase will apply and in the absence of agreement between the parties, the Upper Tribunal (Property Chamber) can determine the sum payable to enlarge the interest to freehold.

It is therefore critical to take advice both prior to the grant of a lease which may be caught by the 1920 Act or if there is any doubt as to whether the legislation may apply.

Ricky Coleman is an Associate Solicitor within the Leasehold Enfranchisement Team at Mayo Wynne Baxter LLP rcoleman@mayowynnebaxter.co.uk

Secondary Victim Claims: Medical Negligence
The psychological impact of witnessing a parent, child, sibling, or other close individual suffer as a result of medical negligence can be life altering. Medically recognised psychiatric conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and insomnia can have a profound impact on one’s social life, career, and day-to-day life. Victims can require extensive professional input to recover from these conditions.

Despite this, the law regarding secondary victims in the context of medical negligence has a complex history of uncertainty, and claims are often strongly defended with success.

Who can make a claim as a secondary victim?
The law sets out a strict criterion for secondary victim claims as first established in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, a case that arose from the Hillsborough Disaster. To make a successful claim, you will need to show that:

It was reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would suffer from a psychiatric injury.
The secondary victim has a sufficiently close relationship with the immediate victim (such as parent-child, or brother-sister);
There was sufficient ‘proximity’ (closeness) to the accident; and
The psychiatric illness was caused by the shock of witnessing a sudden horrifying event.
In the context of medical negligence, the difficulty in bringing a claim is often faced at the proximity aspect of the test. Existing case law has predominantly found against secondary victims who have suffered a psychiatric injury long after the negligence occurred; only those who fit clearly into the above criterion and were present at the time of the negligence have been able to claim.

What are the Courts saying now?
More recently, however, the courts appear to be adopting a wider approach to the proximity test. In the recently decided case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1415 (QB), two children who witnessed their father die in the street due to a condition that was misdiagnosed 14 months prior were able to bring claims as secondary victims. It was found on appeal that the event witnessed by the children was shocking enough that the psychiatric injuries they sustained could be linked directly to the negligent misdiagnosis, despite the time that had passed.

This case has therefore increased the scope for secondary victims to bring a claim where there has been a delay between the negligence and the psychiatric injury. This is particularly relevant in the context of medical negligence, for example where a family must witness a loved one deteriorate over time and die because of a negligent misdiagnosis. The psychiatric injury can be sustained much later but still be linked to the negligence and the courts are slowly opening to this argument.

Widening scope
This is not the only example of the courts widening the scope for secondary victims, however. Cases such as Re (a Minor) and Others v Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 824 have seen the courts award damages to a grandmother who witnessed the injuries caused to her grandchild during childbirth. It is evident that the definition of a ‘sufficiently close relationship’ is expanding, with the courts recognising that other family members can suffer psychiatric injury from witnessing a shocking event too. This opens the possibility for more victims to potentially bring a successful claim as a secondary victim in such circumstances.

The Overview
The test for bringing a successful claim as a secondary victim remains strict, and the courts will take each case on its specific facts. However, recent developments mean that solicitors and their clients should not be easily dissuaded from pursuing a claim as the courts continue to widen the scope for those who suffer psychiatric injury at the hands of negligence.

It is crucial that anyone who believes they may have a claim for medical negligence as a secondary victim seeks specialist legal advice from a solicitor with expertise in this area of law.

If you would like to speak to one of our team members, please do get in touch.

0800 84 94 101 or email: enquires@mayowynnebaxer.co.uk

Many tenancies come to a natural end, but sometimes a landlord will have to take action to get the property back. If you want to end the tenancy to regain possession of your property, you will need to serve notice on the tenant. If the tenant does not leave after you have served a valid notice, you will have to apply through the courts for an order for possession. There are two different procedures available to the landlord to terminate an assured shorthold tenancy (AST).

The first step is to give notice to your tenant.
Section 21 – no fault eviction

If the AST has expired and it is a no-fault eviction, then you can use the procedure set out in Section 21 of the Housing Act to terminate an AST. A section 21 notice:

Must be in the prescribed form.
Cannot be served within four months of the day on which the tenancy began.
Is only valid for six months from the date on which the Section 21 notice is given.
Must not be used where the landlord is prevented from retaliatory eviction.
Can only be served where the landlord has complied with all legal requirements.
Also, the minimum notice period to be given in a Section 21 is two months. If the tenant does not leave the property within the notice period, court proceedings can be issued. If you need to terminate the AST during the fixed term, then you can use the procedure set out in Section 8 of the Housing Act.

Section 8

The grounds for obtaining possession are set out in the Housing Act and include:

Rent has been unpaid for a period of
o eight weeks where rent is paid weekly or fortnightly.
o two months if rent is paid monthly.
o three months if rent is paid quarterly.
The tenant has persistently delayed paying rent.
The tenant has breached the terms of the AST.
The minimum notice period will vary depending on the grounds that you are seeking possession. Please contact us to discuss the minimum notice periods.

When is a court order needed to evict a tenant?
If a tenant does not leave a property within the notice period following service of a Notice (be that a section 8 or section 21 notice) then the next step would be to issue court proceedings which must be issued to obtain possession. A landlord must not evict or make attempts to evict a tenant without obtaining a court order. To seek to evict a tenant without a court order is an offence.

There are two different court procedures in place; an Accelerated Procedure and a Standard Procedure. The Accelerated Procedure can be used where:

The tenancy is an AST.
It is a written tenancy.
The landlord is only seeking possession of the property and the claim does not include a claim for payment of rent arrears.
Subject to a defence being filed by the tenant, if the judge is satisfied that the AST has been ended by service of a Section 21 notice and the Claim Form has been served on the tenant then a Possession Order will generally be made without a hearing. The tenant is then usually ordered to give vacant possession of the property within 14 days. Where the claim does not fall within the Accelerated Procedure then the Standard Procedure must be used.

The court normally sets a hearing date when serving the claim on the tenant. The hearing will be at least 28 days after the court issue the claim. At the hearing, the court will either order possession or make directions to progress the claim.

Where the tenant does not leave the property by the date set by the court then the Order for Possession will need to be enforced.

If you need help gaining possession of a property or in recovering rent arrears, then get in touch. We are here to help – 0800 84 94 101

A Right To Manage Claim could be the perfect solution
Far too often we hear of leaseholders who are at a loss as to what to do, due to their landlord’s poor management of their property, astronomical service charges incurred for what seems like little, or no, ‘service’ and of disrepair to the buildings their flats are situated in. A leaseholder in this position may well feel trapped and unable to take control of a situation which impacts the enjoyment of their property on a day-to-day basis.

This is where a Right to Manage (RTM) claim, if eligible, could be the perfect solution. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 grants leaseholders the right to form a company and use this company to acquire the landlord’s management functions. The company itself does not have to deal with the management and can still delegate these duties to a Managing Agent, just as a landlord could.

The right to manage is only available to leaseholders of flats, not of houses and any leaseholder will need to ensure they qualify in order to initiate the process.

Do I qualify for a Right To Manage claim?
For your building to qualify the following criteria must be met:

The property must be a self-contained whole or part of a building (and that part must be structurally detached).
It can be a part-commercial building, but the non-residential part must not exceed 25% of the total floor area, excluding common parts.
The property must consist of at least two flats and at least two-thirds of the flats must be let to ‘qualifying tenants’.
What does ‘Qualifying tenant’ mean?
This is a leaseholder who was originally granted a ‘long lease’ that is one that has an original term of more than 21 years. The leaseholder does not have to be the occupier of the flat so if you are a leaseholder of a buy-to-let property, you will still qualify.

The RTM will not apply where the immediate landlord or any of the qualifying tenants is a local housing authority. The RTM will also not apply where the premises fall within the ‘Resident Landlord Exemption’. For this exemption to apply the following 3 criteria would ALL need to apply:

The premises must be other than a purpose-built block (e.g., a converted house);
They must comprise not more than 4 flats;
One of the flats must be occupied by the freeholder and/ or adult members of their family as their only or principal home for the last 12 months.
I think I qualify…
If your building qualifies, you will need 50% of the leaseholder’s, including you, to participate in order to form a RTM Company. There must be a minimum number of qualifying tenants amongst the members of the RTM Company and the required minimum number of qualifying tenants must be equal to at least half the total number of flats in the building.

The RTM Company will then be formed by you and your fellow leaseholders and then a notice to participate must be served on all of the other leaseholders. This is the formal way of inviting them to join the RTM Company.

What is the process for Right To Manage claims?
Step 1 – When you have decided which leaseholders wish to participate, those leaseholders, on behalf of the RTM Company, will serve a Notice of Claim on the landlord. The landlord will have a month to reply with a Counter-Notice.

Step 2 – If the landlord does not object in his counter-notice, then from the point of receiving consent, the RTM Company will have 3 months to prepare to take over the management of the company. A formal acquisition date will be decided.

Step 3 – Understandably, the process is much longer if, in the landlord’s counter-notice he alleges reasons why the RTM Company is not entitled to proceed. The landlord is only able to dispute on the following grounds:

The building does not qualify; or
The RTM company does not comply with the legislative requirements; or
The members of the RTM company do not represent half the flats in the building.
Step 4 – An application will then need to be made to the First Tier Tribunal within 2 months of the date of the counter-notice, for a determination. If an application is not made in time, then the claim is deemed to be withdrawn. The First Tier Tribunal will then make a determination as to whether the RTM can be granted.

What costs are involved?
The RTM Company is responsible for reimbursing the landlord for any costs incurred in the process. Where the RTM Company is successful in their claim this will be limited to any legal expenses associated with ‘the notice, any accountancy or audit costs arising from provision of accounts or transfer of monies and the costs of his solicitor or managing agent in the hand-over of management records and functions’.

The landlord cannot recover their costs in relation to a Tribunal hearing unless the Tribunal finds against the RTM Company. Where costs are disputed, an application can be made to the Tribunal for determination.

How can we help?
Our dedicated enfranchisement team have years of experience in dealing with Right to Manage claims and acting for both leaseholder’s and landlords. We are able to assist in serving the relevant statutory notices where there is no dispute between parties and also in dealing with applications to the Tribunal and legal issues presented by this where the RTM claim is disputed.

If you would like to speak to one of our team members in relation to a potential RTM claim or have any queries over whether you would qualify as a leaseholder, please do get in touch.

0800 84 94 101 or email: enquires@mayowynnebaxer.co.uk

Whose interest is it anyway?
TIP 8.
And the next hot tip…

Confusion over whose interest you represent is another common trap. When a case involves many parties, it can be far from simple.

An architect instrumental in creating the famous biomes of the Eden Project in Cornwall was involved in a case that hinged on this point. His lawyers set up a charitable trust without explaining that this might defeat any expectations of personal benefit. It turned out the law firm was advising on both the interests of the proposed project and the personal positions of the two co-founders. This created a conflict of interest serious enough to support a negligence claim. Damages of close to £2million were awarded.

What if multiple professionals are involved – who is doing what and does the client know who is doing what? Are you acting as a post box or are you liable? Has there been sufficient delegation of responsibility?

Consider this actual example from one of our cases. A building project in Birmingham involves a client (ie employer), an architect, builders and a structural engineer. Straightforward in building matters. The project is to convert houses into flats. Halfway through the project, part of the walls collapses and building work ceases. There are wasted costs – the roof load has caused the problem and the whole project has to start again.

Our clients can blame the structural engineer, but we may also blame the architect. He oversaw the project, dealt directly with the structural engineer on specifications: he was able to pass on key information to the engineer. He was aware of the risks. Just because he delegated a task will not always exonerate him. He may have assumed responsibility by his actions and conduct, something which he obviously did not intend. He would be horrified to receive details of a claim against him.

As professionals have you thus assumed responsibly to a client or have you delegated it sufficiently?

Professionals do need to instruct others, but care needs to be taken to ensure responsibility is delegated effectively.

On occasion, a freeholder can become uncontactable or missing over time. For example, the freeholder might have moved abroad and lost interest in management or a deceased freeholder may have made no arrangements for a successor, leaving the building to fall into disrepair.

This raises immediate concerns such as whether the building is insured, as well as whether a service charge fund is safely held in an appropriate account. A longer term, but no less important issue is that of a leaseholder’s inability to sell or remortgage the flat, due to a short lease that needs to be extended.

Practical challenges of a missing freeholder
In the usual course of a statutory lease extension under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (the 1993 Act), a formal s.42 claim notice is served on the landlord. In addition, the extension of the lease term is granted by Deed signed by both the landlord and tenant.

Practical problems therefore arise in serving a notice on a party that cannot be found, negotiating a premium to extend the lease and then having the Deed signed at the end of the process.

Missing landlord procedure
Thankfully, the 1993 Act caters for these circumstances and whilst the procedure requires specialist advice and is more time consuming than a standard claim, it will be possible to extend the lease term on payment of a premium and reduce the ground rent to nil, even if establishing the whereabouts of the freeholder is not possible.

In the first instance steps must be taken to contact the freeholder at their last known address and at any other address that can be found by looking at public registries or historic documents. The solicitor involved will document this process carefully, to ensure that the efforts that have been made can be readily explained to a Judge, who will ultimately decide if the case can be considered a ‘missing landlord’ case.

The solicitor will prepare a County Court claim by compiling the evidence required to prove the case and will then guide the case as necessary through the County Court and First-tier Tribunal. Given that there will be no other party to respond to the claim, the Court will scrutinise such claims very carefully and forensic preparation is therefore key.

There are then established practices for setting the premium payable. This will be proposed by an independent valuer, as there will be no freeholder to negotiate with. The leaseholder will however be guided by their own valuation advice obtained at the outset.

Once a price is determined, further work needs to be undertaken to deal with the payment of the premium and other costs by the leaseholder, along and the subsequent signing of documents and registration at the Land Registry.

These cases bear little resemblance to standard lease extension claims however the outcome will be the same; a 90-year extension of the lease term on payment of a premium and costs, with the ground rent being reduced to nil.

Potential upside
Whilst it is noted above that this process concerning ‘missing landlords’ is more involved, and therefore more expensive than a standard lease extension in terms of professional costs. A solicitor with specialist knowledge in this area may be able to use this process to the advantage of the leaseholder. Advice should be sought on whether this will be possible in each case.

If you would like to speak to one of our team members, please do get in touch.

0800 84 94 101 or email: enquires@mayowynnebaxer.co.uk

We specialise in dealing with contested Wills.
To find out more please contact us on 0800 84 94 101

There are a number of grounds on which you can contest a Will. Due to the increase in people preparing their Wills themselves, it is becoming more frequent for people to pass away leaving a Will which does not reflect their wishes or comply with the criteria for a valid Will.

You can contest a Will if you believe it is invalid or if it fails to provide financial provision for someone who was supported by the testator.

Can I contest a Will by making an Inheritance Act claim?
If a Will fails to make adequate financial provision for a spouse, partner, child, or dependant of the deceased they can bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. If a claim under the Act is successful, the Will remains valid, but the court can vary the provisions of the Will to provide for the Claimant.

Can I contest a Will on the basis that it is invalid?
There are numerous ways in which a Will can be invalid. If one of these grounds applies you can contest the validity of the Will and have it declared as invalid by the court.

In the event that the validity of a Will is successfully challenged then an earlier Will may take effect. If there is no earlier Will then the intestacy rules would apply so it is important to consider this at the outset. It is unlikely to be cost effective to challenge a Will if the outcome would not be in your favour.

The first consideration would be whether there are any procedural irregularities.

Contesting a Will due to dementia or mental capacity
One of the most common grounds for contesting a Will is on the basis of mental capacity. A testator must have had sufficient mental capacity at the time the Will was made. Establishing that the testator lacked capacity is complex and often requires a careful review of medical evidence. There are various legal tests which apply, and it is important to consider that just because the testator was suffering from a condition such as dementia at the time the Will was made this does not necessarily mean that they did not have capacity.

Was the Will witnessed and signed correctly, without coercion?
If someone was compelled or coerced into signing their Will, they may have been subject to undue influence. This is another ground upon which a Will can be challenged. Evidence of this would be required to convince a court that the testator did not make the Will through their own initiative.

Other grounds for contesting a Will include fraud and forgery and lack of knowledge and approval.

If you would like more information in relation to the above or are considering challenging a Will, we are happy to help.

Please get in touch on 0800 84 94 101 or email: enquires@mayowynnebaxer.co.uk

One hundred years after his death and Wynne Edwin Baxter is a name that is still well known by the people of Lewes. He was a remarkable figure, and we know him best as the lawyer that founded the legal practice that is now Mayo Wynne Baxter. What many people may not know, is he was also a translator, antiquarian and botanist. However, he is probably best known as the Coroner who conducted the inquests on most of the victims of Jack the Ripper, as well as on Joseph Merrick, better known as the “Elephant Man”.

Wynne, the eldest of six children, was born to William and Anne on 1st May 1844 in Lewes. His father was a printer and publisher, and the sign of W E Baxter Ltd can still be seen on Lewes High Street.

Wynne was educated at Lewes Old Grammar School and privately in Brighton. He studied law and was admitted as a solicitor in 1867 starting his first legal practice on Albion Street in Lewes. Never one for idleness, Wynne held a host of public offices including Vice-President of the Provincial Newspaper Society between 1871 – 1877. He was appointed Junior Headborough for Lewes in 1868, Under-Sheriff of London and Middlesex from 1876 – 1879 and again 1885 -1886, Junior High Constable of Lewes in 1878, and the last Senior High Constable in 1880. In 1881 Wynne Baxter became the first-ever Mayor of Lewes.

Wynne Baxter moved to London in 1875 where he opened a second solicitor’s practice and an advertising agency in Cannon Street. He maintained the law firm in Lewes, which was eventually run by his son,.

Solicitor
Following his admission to the bar at the age of 23, Baxter immediately became in demand in Lewes. He was appointed solicitor to Lewes Co-operative Benefit Building Society on its formation in 1870, a position he held until his death. In later years his son Reginald ‘Reggie’ Truscott Baxter ran the Albion Street offices and carried out the duties for the Society. Over the years Wynne Baxter was to become a member of the Law Society, the Law Association and the Solicitor’s Benevolent Association too.

In 1875, Wynne Baxter moved to London, starting another solicitor’s practice at Cannon Street E1 and an advertising agency under the name Baxter & Co at the same address.

By 1880, he was busier than ever with his Coroner duties, so Baxter took on Henry William Hennicker Rance as a partner. The new firm, Wynne-Baxter and Rance, steadily grew until 1886 when the firm admitted Edward Meade as a third partner, renaming as Wynne-Baxter, Rance and Meade. This partnership lasted just two years before the three went their separate ways with both Rance and Meade deciding to form their own practices. In 1888 Baxter employed a newly qualified solicitor Jasper Keeble, and eventually renamed the firm Wynne-Baxter and Keeble. The firm proved extremely successful and continued working under the same name beyond both Keeble’s and Baxter’s deaths.

Coroner
Wynne Baxter was appointed Coroner for Sussex on 29th January 1880 and in 1886 was also the Coroner for East Middlesex. He relinquished the Sussex post in 1887 as the demands on his time were such that he felt unable to successfully handle both roles. During these seven years in Sussex he presided over hundreds of local cases, most famously the inquest into the murder of retired corn merchant Frederick Gold by Percy Lefroy Mapleton on the 2pm train from London Bridge to Brighton, on 27th June 1881. The Daily Telegraph made newspaper history by publishing the first likeness of a wanted man and Mapleton was eventually captured in Stepney and hanged at Lewes on 29th November 1881. Baxter also conducted the murderer’s inquest.

By 1885, Wynne Baxter was also a Deputy Coroner for the City of London and Borough of Southwark. On 13th December 1886, he fought a fierce campaign against Dr Roderick MacDonald to be elected as Coroner County of Middlesex (Eastern District) with 1,401 votes, to MacDonald’s 1,069.

Wynne was subsequently named Coroner for the County of Middlesex (South Eastern District) for 1889 – 1891, and then for the City of London (Eastern District) and the Liberty of the Tower of London from 1892 until his death.

He was very proud of his long period of service, and in 1907 Baxter commented: “I have held over 30,000 inquests and have not had one body exhumed yet”.

Jack the Ripper
Wynne Baxter played a key judicial role during the Whitechapel Murders of 1888 – 1891. He conducted the inquests into the deaths of Annie Millwood, Emma Elizabeth Smith, Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie, the ‘Pinchin Street Torso’ and Frances Coles. Around this time Baxter became well known across the country and was in the newspapers almost daily.

Baxter’s own theory was that the murderer was attempting to obtain specific female organs for sale to doctors.

His Hobbies
His career and other public roles must have left him with very little spare time, but despite that, Baxter had numerous other interests.

Baxter collected the works of John Milton and was considered one of the country’s leading experts on his life and works. Following his death, his extensive collection of Milton works, rare English and Italian books from the 16th and 17th Centuries was auctioned by Hodgson & Co in July 1921. The catalogue lists 583 items, including an 11th-century psalter and a 13th-century Bible.

A 1909 issue of The Bibliophile gives an insight into his home and books at 170 Church Street in Stoke Newington:

“For twenty- or thirty-years Mr Wynne Baxter has been amassing – I use the word in no derogatory or greedy sense – a library of works by and on the second greatest figure if all our huge army of men of letters. You are welcomed by a bust of Milton, you leave with a bookplate on which is engraved his portrait. There is no putting old wine into new bottles in this collection. The old volumes are in an old house. It was built in the reign of Queen Anne, and formerly sheltered Beaconsfield’s grandfather. Isaac Disraeli, Leach, Dickens and Thackeray have hallowed it by their presence. Would that the walls could re-echo the kindly chat of the compiler of Curiosities of Literature, and the writer of Vanity Fair. And the huge iron chair, at the back of the door in the hall could unfold many a romance of the days of highwaymen and such-like worthies.”

He also studied the Diatomacae (microscopic plants) and his keen interest in microscopy led to his translating and publishing, in 1893, Henri Van Heurck’s The Microscope. Van Heurck was one of the 19th Century’s leading authorities on diatoms. Baxter was for some years the Treasurer of the Royal Microscopical Society, to whom, in the early 1900s, he presented several old microscopes which are now in the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford.

Baxter was a member of the archaeological societies of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Gloucestershire. However, his primary involvement was with Sussex Archaeological Society, who made him a Life Member in 1863. After his death, his collection of41 volumes of archaeological papers were also sold at auction.

Legal Legacy
After he retired from the law firm, various partners came and went, including his son Francis (Frank). Although still listed as Wynne-Baxter and Keeble, the firm had separated from the Lewes office, and by 1937 the firm traded under the name Warburtons. By the 1940s the firm was so large that it was the official solicitor for Barclays Bank. Despite numerous mergers, the Wynne Baxter name didn’t disappear entirely until 1972 when various companies incorporated under the same name and became known as Stafford, Clark and Co. A name change to Young, Jones, Hair and Co. in 1975 carried the firm forward to 1989 when it became Stafford, Young, Jones. In November 2019 they merged with Attwaters Jameson Hill who currently has five offices across London, Hertfordshire and Essex.

The Lewes practice, run from Albion Street by Reggie until he died in 1939, still survives of course. In 1970 the firm was renamed Wynne Baxter, Hillman and Carter, reverting to Wynne Baxter from the tongue-twisting Wynne Baxter Godfree with Selwood Leathes Hooper in 2001. In 2007, the firm merged with Mayo & Perkins to form Mayo Wynne Baxter. Today the firm employs around 200 people across eight locations in Sussex and is a UK Top 200 law firm.

Lewes
Wynne Baxter never lost touch with his Lewesian roots and all six of his children were born there. Following the death of William Nevill, 1st Marquess of Abergavenny and Earl of Lewes in 1915, the trustees of his estate sold off some of his lands in Lewes. This was likely to pay the death duties, and Wynne Baxter took this opportunity to do some good. He purchased an area of land from the estate known as the Pells on 11th March 1920, and in June of that year he donated to the people of Lewes for it to be used as a ‘public pleasure resort’. This generous gift completed a park close to the River Ouse which included the Pells lake, the recreation ground, and the now-famous Pells Pool.

His Death
Aged 76 Baxter’s failing health was becoming a cause for concern, and there were reports of his impending retirement. Finally, after the third inquest of the day at Poplar Coroner’s Court on Wednesday 15th September 1920, Wynne Edwin Baxter suffered a heart attack and collapsed. He was rushed to his home in Stoke Newington where he was confined to bed but died at 9am on 1st October.

The funeral took place five days later at the same church where he had been married to his wife, Kate, 52 years earlier. The coffin was adorned with massive brass fittings and covered in floral tributes. It was taken to the church on a wheeled hand-bier from 170 Church Street, with mourners following on foot in silence. Along the route, the blinds of private homes were drawn. The Public Library and many shops shut and covered their windows with black boards out of respect. The church bells of St Mary’s where the service was held, played Abide With Me as the procession approached. Hundreds attended the service in the church where Baxter had been Warden for 25 years. Dignitaries came from far and wide.

Afterwards, the cortege left for Lewes. There, a brief service was presided over by Reverend Mackay-Clarke, Rector of All Saints, before the body was interred in the family vault. The family mourners were Reggie, Katie and Frank, Wynne’s sister Edith and brother in law Frederick Harrild, along with the Mayor of Lewes and a complete set of members of the Corporation. Among the dozens of floral tributes was one inscribed “In loving memory, from the officers and men of H Division, Metropolitan Police”.

The flag at Lewes Town Hall was flown at half-mast in recognition of Baxter’s contribution to his place of birth.

Whilst researching this, it has been challenging to get a real picture of what Wynne Baxter was like as a man, but following his death, the Hackney and Stoke Newington Recorder wrote this about him:

“Reviewing his career and his many associations with public life, a characteristic which stands out pre-eminent is the unbounded energy which he always displayed in all his undertakings. No task was too great, and the driving force of his indefatigable zeal and resourcefulness was an inspiration to many. At all times courteous and accommodating, and ever ready with kindly sympathy and advice he made hosts of friends, and in his quiet unassuming way he endeared himself to all with whom he came in contact. Possessed of an even and jovial temper, he was ideally suited for the position of Coroner, which he held for so many years. No matter what the nature of his inquiries was, and no matter how excited witnesses became when giving evidence before him he always maintained the placid manner and unruffled demeanour which stamped him as a man of cool and calculating mind.”

Wynne Edwin Baxter was born and raised in Lewes to a local printer William Baxter, and he was educated at Lewes Old Grammar School. He started his first legal practice in the town in 1867 which is now arguably Sussex’ largest law firm, Mayo Wynne Baxter.

Wynne Baxter dedicated some of his career to serving the people of Lewes and held numerous public offices including:

1868 – Junior Headborough
1878 – Junior High Constable
1880 – Senior High Constable
1881 – The first-ever Mayor of Lewes
All six of his children were born in the town, and although he moved to Stoke Newington in London, he always maintained a strong link with his hometown.

On 12th December 1915 William Nevill, 1st Marquess of Abergavenny and Earl of Lewes, died aged 89 and what followed would leave a lasting legacy for the people of Lewes.

Probably to be able to pay the death duties at the time, the Trustees of the Marquess’ estate sold off some of his lands in Lewes, including an area known as the Pells. Wynne Baxter saw this as an opportunity to do good, and on 11th March 1920, he bought the land from the estate. In June of the same year, Baxter donated the land to the people of Lewes for it to be used as a ‘public pleasure resort’.

This generous gift completed a park close to the River Ouse which included the Pells lake, the recreation ground and the now-famous Pells Pool. Wynne Baxter died on 1st October 1920 aged 76, and he was buried in the family vault at All Saints Church in Lewes.

A hundred years on, The Pells and St Johns Neighbourhood Association wanted to celebrate the Pells’ centenary and had organised a raft of events for the 6th and 7th of June. But then the Covid-19 pandemic struck, and now many of the activities that were planned have been postponed to 2021. One thing that is going ahead is the publication of a book by the Lewes History Group entitled ‘The Pells of Lewes: Pool, Park, People, Places’. Fifteen Pells residents have written the book, and it covers the history of the area, including the sacred springs and the development of the Victorian houses they live in today. The richly-illustrated, 160-page book covers many other intriguing elements of the Pells. It will be available to order from 1st September 2020 priced at £12.50 via the Lewes History Group’s website, and from other outlets too. Three of the authors are also planning to do a talk, and details will be announced on the group’s website soon.

As you can see Mayo Wynne Baxters roots are firmly in Lewes and we are proud of our rich heritage in Sussex.