Home > Our people > Kathryn Purkis

Kathryn Purkis

Back to people

Kathryn Purkis

Areas of Expertise

A Partial CV has been added to your portfolio. You can access My portfolio at the top of the page.
A Partial CV has been removed to your portfolio. You can access My portfolio at the top of the page.
A Full CV has been added to your portfolio. You can access My portfolio at the top of the page.
A Full CV has been removed to your portfolio. You can access My portfolio at the top of the page.

Year of Call: 1991 kpurkis@serlecourt.co.uk

Overview

Kathryn has now returned to Chambers after 9 years’ practice in Jersey. Her career as a Chancery practitioner in both jurisdictions has been wide-ranging, and has encompassed civil fraud and asset-tracing work, contentious trusts, regulatory advice, property and planning with associated professional negligence, and heavyweight commercial matters. The Legal 500 2014 described her as a “fearless advocate” and an “outstanding lawyer”.

Kathryn has also had significant practical experience of partnership and law firm management, having been managing partner of Collas Crill from 2009 to 2012, during which time she led its forerunner firm through a merger. She also has a strong interest in the third sector, and is undertaking a part-time postgraduate diploma in charity management at Cass Business School.

Areas of Expertise and Cases


Add section

Offshore

Kathryn was called to the Jersey Bar in 2008 and practised there as an advocate until her departure in June 2014, at which time she ceased to practice Jersey law.

Accordingly, most of the cases referred to here under their subject headings are offshore work. She also taught on the Jersey trusts law course at the Institute of Law in Jersey from 2012 to 2014. 

O’Keefe and others v Caner and others (2016): acting for a defendant in proceedings under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 where issues arise as to Jersey company law and the Jersey law of prescription for claims against directors for breach of duty.


Add section

Trusts and Probate

Re Application of H (2013/4): Acting on an application to set aside the creation of two EBTs, and dispositions into them, on the grounds of mistake pursuant to Arts 16 and 47E of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984. Legal and tax advice had been given on the issue of structuring to avoid CGT on succession. The advice was negligent in terms of the tax consequences of the settlements and because the terms of the EBTs themselves operated to benefit people the settlor had no intention of benefitting and excluded those she intended to benefit.

Re Application of S (2013-14): Acting on behalf of the sole beneficiary of a trust to obtain injunctive relief and disclosure against incumbent and former trustees and a protector, and then trust administration directions. There had been a fraud on a power in appointing the new trustees and potential breaches of trust by them.

Dalemont v Senatorov (2012-3): Instructed by a Moscow firm to assert the lack of Mr Senatorov’s interest in a Jersey foundation, to defend it from the enforcement by the Plaintiff (a bank subsidiary) of certain Russian judgment debts obtained against Mr Senatorov . The foundation’s assets were ultimately Russian real estate, though held in Cypriot companies owned by BVI companies. This was the first case under the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009 and would, but for settling at trial, have involved an argument about piercing the veil of a foundation in light of Petrodel v Prest

Alhamrani v Alhamrani (2006-2009): One of two trial advocates acting for Sheikh Abdullah Alhamrani in the Jersey limb of this long-running family trust and fraud dispute, defending him from claims of breach of fiduciary duty as protector of two large Jersey trusts. The trial settled after 8 months.


Add section

Civil Fraud

Dalemont v Senatorov (2012-3): Instructed by a Moscow firm to assert the lack of Mr Senatorov’s interest in a Jersey foundation, to defend it from the enforcement by the Plaintiff (a bank subsidiary) of certain Russian judgment debts obtained against Mr Senatorov. The foundation’s assets were ultimately Russian real estate, though held in Cypriot companies owned by BVI companies. This was the first case under the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009 and would, but for settling at trial, have involved an argument about piercing the veil of a foundation in light of Petrodel v Prest.  Interesting interlocutory matters included getting an adjournment of the trial on the grounds that the Bank had obtained, and asserted it could not lift, a travel ban on Mr Senatorov, meaning he had to give video evidence when his probity was in issue, and defending an application for indemnity costs of the trial.

Alhamrani v Alhamrani (2006-2009): One of two trial advocates acting for Sheikh Abdullah Alhamrani in the Jersey limb of this long-running family trust and fraud dispute. The fraud aspects included conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, forgery, perjury, suborning of witnesses and the doctoring of computers to thwart disclosure.

Federal Republic of Brazil v Maluf (2006-7): One of the team acting for Brazil to obtain judicial assistance from Jersey in respect of information relating to local bank accounts suspected to be the repository of bribes paid to a former mayor of Sao Paulo in relation to public works contracts. Norwich Pharmacal orders were also obtained against certain Jersey banks, which were appealed on a point of law by Maluf to the Jersey Court of Appeal and to the Privy Council. Appeared as junior to defend the Defendant’s application for special leave, which was refused.

UCC v Bender (2005-7): One of the team acting for the receiver of certain assets in which the defendants had interests, which had been frozen in the context of a $100m claim. There were contested issues of service and a forum conveniens application.

Barros Mattos v McDaniels (2004): Acted for the Plaintiffs in this multijurisdictional, $242m Nigerian fraud claim. The case encompassed the usual raft of pre-emptive orders, defending a jurisdiction challenge by one of the defendants in favour of Nigeria, and after succeeding in that, an application for summary judgment which established inter alia that the change of position defence is not open to those who have acted illegally.


Add section

Chancery

Harcourt Developments Ltd v Jersey Development Company and Minister for Treasury and Resources (2012-4): Acting for the Plaintiff, a major Irish construction company, which had heads of agreement to redevelop the Jersey waterfront. They believed that the States of Jersey deliberately interposed some impossible obstacles on the way towards a formal agreement, in order to extricate themselves from the deal so that development could then be taken over by States-owned JDC. Initially this involved resisting the striking out of the Plaintiff’s original claims and then re-pleading the claim, to include a claim against the Minister for the tort of procuring breach of contract. Success at first instance was not sustained in the Court of Appeal.

EVIC v Greater Europe DV Fund & Green Shoots Ltd (2012-13): Acting for a minority shareholder who was also the investment manager of a closed-ended investment fund, to defend the application of another shareholder for liquidation of the fund inter alia on the just and equitable ground, on the basis of a loss of substratum, alternatively as a remedy for unfair prejudice. The issues concerned the construction of the articles, and whether it had been possible thereunder for the directors to offer redemption in specie of certain devalued real estate assets. The concern was that a liquidator would perform a fire sale, which would in the circumstances have crystallized significant losses for the shareholders.


Add section

Property

Harcourt Developments Ltd v Jersey Development Company and Minister for Treasury and Resources (2012-4): Acting for the Plaintiff, a major Irish construction company, which had heads of agreement to redevelop the Jersey waterfront. They believed that the States of Jersey deliberately interposed some impossible obstacles on the way towards a formal agreement, in order to extricate themselves from the deal so that development could then be taken over by States-owned JDC. Initially this involved resisting the striking out of the Plaintiff’s original claims and then re-pleading the claim, to include a claim against the Minister for the tort of procuring breach of contract. Success at first instance was not sustained in the Court of Appeal.

Re a planning application (2013): Advising on a third party planning appeal against the grant of permission for development in the Jersey green belt.


Add section

Regulatory and Disciplinary

In re M (2013-14): Acting for a director of a Jersey trust company in an investigation by the Jersey Financial Services Commission into its collapse, and into her role as one of the directors. 





All Quotes

"Kathryn is a top-notch advocate to have on your side in complex trust and commercial disputes.  She is level-headed and calm but knows when to fight on certain points and never loses focus on the overall stragegy and what the client wants to achieve." (Citywealth Leaders List, 2016)
"Fearless advocate" and "outstanding lawyer" (Legal 500, 2014)
"An excellent lawyer who never drops the ball" (Chambers & Partners, 2014)
"Diligent, conscientious and knowledgeable" (Legal 500, 2013)
"One of Jersey's young stars" (Legal 500, 2011)
"Highly regarded" with "sharp intellect and excellent organisational skills" (Chambers & Partners, 2011)
"Combines the intellectual capacity of a specialist Chancery counsel with tremendous commercial nous" (Legal 500, 2010)

Recommendations

Offshore (Jersey) - Legal 500 (2010-2014)
Offshore (Jersey) - Chambers & Partners (2011-2014)
Offshore (Jersey) - Chambers Global (2012-2014)
Citywealth Leaders List (2016)
Citywealth Power Women List (2016)
Citywealth Leaders List (Lawyers) (2015)
Citywealth Power Women List (2015)
Citywealth Leading Lawyer (Honours List, contentious trusts) (2014)
Citywealth Power Women List (2014)
Citywealth Prominent Figure (Lawyer, Contentious Trusts) (2013)  
Citywealth IFC Power Women Hot 100 (2013)
Who’s Who Legal: Asset Recovery (2014) 

#
Kathryn Purkis

Kathryn Purkis

Year of Call: 1991
Email: kpurkis@serlecourt.co.uk

Overview

Kathryn has now returned to Chambers after 9 years’ practice in Jersey. Her career as a Chancery practitioner in both jurisdictions has been wide-ranging, and has encompassed civil fraud and asset-tracing work, contentious trusts, regulatory advice, property and planning with associated professional negligence, and heavyweight commercial matters. The Legal 500 2014 described her as a “fearless advocate” and an “outstanding lawyer”.

Kathryn has also had significant practical experience of partnership and law firm management, having been managing partner of Collas Crill from 2009 to 2012, during which time she led its forerunner firm through a merger. She also has a strong interest in the third sector, and is undertaking a part-time postgraduate diploma in charity management at Cass Business School.

Areas of expertise

Recommendations

Offshore (Jersey) - Legal 500 (2010-2014)
Offshore (Jersey) - Chambers & Partners (2011-2014)
Offshore (Jersey) - Chambers Global (2012-2014)
Citywealth Leaders List (2016)
Citywealth Power Women List (2016)
Citywealth Leaders List (Lawyers) (2015)
Citywealth Power Women List (2015)
Citywealth Leading Lawyer (Honours List, contentious trusts) (2014)
Citywealth Power Women List (2014)
Citywealth Prominent Figure (Lawyer, Contentious Trusts) (2013)  
Citywealth IFC Power Women Hot 100 (2013)
Who’s Who Legal: Asset Recovery (2014) 

Quotes

"Kathryn is a top-notch advocate to have on your side in complex trust and commercial disputes.  She is level-headed and calm but knows when to fight on certain points and never loses focus on the overall stragegy and what the client wants to achieve." (Citywealth Leaders List, 2016)
"Fearless advocate" and "outstanding lawyer" (Legal 500, 2014)
"An excellent lawyer who never drops the ball" (Chambers & Partners, 2014)
"Diligent, conscientious and knowledgeable" (Legal 500, 2013)
"One of Jersey's young stars" (Legal 500, 2011)
"Highly regarded" with "sharp intellect and excellent organisational skills" (Chambers & Partners, 2011)
"Combines the intellectual capacity of a specialist Chancery counsel with tremendous commercial nous" (Legal 500, 2010)

Offshore

Kathryn was called to the Jersey Bar in 2008 and practised there as an advocate until her departure in June 2014, at which time she ceased to practice Jersey law.

Accordingly, most of the cases referred to here under their subject headings are offshore work. She also taught on the Jersey trusts law course at the Institute of Law in Jersey from 2012 to 2014. 

O’Keefe and others v Caner and others (2016): acting for a defendant in proceedings under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 where issues arise as to Jersey company law and the Jersey law of prescription for claims against directors for breach of duty.

Trusts and Probate

Re Application of H (2013/4): Acting on an application to set aside the creation of two EBTs, and dispositions into them, on the grounds of mistake pursuant to Arts 16 and 47E of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984. Legal and tax advice had been given on the issue of structuring to avoid CGT on succession. The advice was negligent in terms of the tax consequences of the settlements and because the terms of the EBTs themselves operated to benefit people the settlor had no intention of benefitting and excluded those she intended to benefit.

Re Application of S (2013-14): Acting on behalf of the sole beneficiary of a trust to obtain injunctive relief and disclosure against incumbent and former trustees and a protector, and then trust administration directions. There had been a fraud on a power in appointing the new trustees and potential breaches of trust by them.

Dalemont v Senatorov (2012-3): Instructed by a Moscow firm to assert the lack of Mr Senatorov’s interest in a Jersey foundation, to defend it from the enforcement by the Plaintiff (a bank subsidiary) of certain Russian judgment debts obtained against Mr Senatorov . The foundation’s assets were ultimately Russian real estate, though held in Cypriot companies owned by BVI companies. This was the first case under the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009 and would, but for settling at trial, have involved an argument about piercing the veil of a foundation in light of Petrodel v Prest

Alhamrani v Alhamrani (2006-2009): One of two trial advocates acting for Sheikh Abdullah Alhamrani in the Jersey limb of this long-running family trust and fraud dispute, defending him from claims of breach of fiduciary duty as protector of two large Jersey trusts. The trial settled after 8 months.

Civil Fraud

Dalemont v Senatorov (2012-3): Instructed by a Moscow firm to assert the lack of Mr Senatorov’s interest in a Jersey foundation, to defend it from the enforcement by the Plaintiff (a bank subsidiary) of certain Russian judgment debts obtained against Mr Senatorov. The foundation’s assets were ultimately Russian real estate, though held in Cypriot companies owned by BVI companies. This was the first case under the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009 and would, but for settling at trial, have involved an argument about piercing the veil of a foundation in light of Petrodel v Prest.  Interesting interlocutory matters included getting an adjournment of the trial on the grounds that the Bank had obtained, and asserted it could not lift, a travel ban on Mr Senatorov, meaning he had to give video evidence when his probity was in issue, and defending an application for indemnity costs of the trial.

Alhamrani v Alhamrani (2006-2009): One of two trial advocates acting for Sheikh Abdullah Alhamrani in the Jersey limb of this long-running family trust and fraud dispute. The fraud aspects included conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, forgery, perjury, suborning of witnesses and the doctoring of computers to thwart disclosure.

Federal Republic of Brazil v Maluf (2006-7): One of the team acting for Brazil to obtain judicial assistance from Jersey in respect of information relating to local bank accounts suspected to be the repository of bribes paid to a former mayor of Sao Paulo in relation to public works contracts. Norwich Pharmacal orders were also obtained against certain Jersey banks, which were appealed on a point of law by Maluf to the Jersey Court of Appeal and to the Privy Council. Appeared as junior to defend the Defendant’s application for special leave, which was refused.

UCC v Bender (2005-7): One of the team acting for the receiver of certain assets in which the defendants had interests, which had been frozen in the context of a $100m claim. There were contested issues of service and a forum conveniens application.

Barros Mattos v McDaniels (2004): Acted for the Plaintiffs in this multijurisdictional, $242m Nigerian fraud claim. The case encompassed the usual raft of pre-emptive orders, defending a jurisdiction challenge by one of the defendants in favour of Nigeria, and after succeeding in that, an application for summary judgment which established inter alia that the change of position defence is not open to those who have acted illegally.

Chancery

Harcourt Developments Ltd v Jersey Development Company and Minister for Treasury and Resources (2012-4): Acting for the Plaintiff, a major Irish construction company, which had heads of agreement to redevelop the Jersey waterfront. They believed that the States of Jersey deliberately interposed some impossible obstacles on the way towards a formal agreement, in order to extricate themselves from the deal so that development could then be taken over by States-owned JDC. Initially this involved resisting the striking out of the Plaintiff’s original claims and then re-pleading the claim, to include a claim against the Minister for the tort of procuring breach of contract. Success at first instance was not sustained in the Court of Appeal.

EVIC v Greater Europe DV Fund & Green Shoots Ltd (2012-13): Acting for a minority shareholder who was also the investment manager of a closed-ended investment fund, to defend the application of another shareholder for liquidation of the fund inter alia on the just and equitable ground, on the basis of a loss of substratum, alternatively as a remedy for unfair prejudice. The issues concerned the construction of the articles, and whether it had been possible thereunder for the directors to offer redemption in specie of certain devalued real estate assets. The concern was that a liquidator would perform a fire sale, which would in the circumstances have crystallized significant losses for the shareholders.

Property

Harcourt Developments Ltd v Jersey Development Company and Minister for Treasury and Resources (2012-4): Acting for the Plaintiff, a major Irish construction company, which had heads of agreement to redevelop the Jersey waterfront. They believed that the States of Jersey deliberately interposed some impossible obstacles on the way towards a formal agreement, in order to extricate themselves from the deal so that development could then be taken over by States-owned JDC. Initially this involved resisting the striking out of the Plaintiff’s original claims and then re-pleading the claim, to include a claim against the Minister for the tort of procuring breach of contract. Success at first instance was not sustained in the Court of Appeal.

Re a planning application (2013): Advising on a third party planning appeal against the grant of permission for development in the Jersey green belt.

Regulatory and Disciplinary

In re M (2013-14): Acting for a director of a Jersey trust company in an investigation by the Jersey Financial Services Commission into its collapse, and into her role as one of the directors. 

Qualifications

University of Cape Town - BA (Hons) (First Class) (1987)
Balliol College, Oxford - BA (Hons) (Juris) (1990)

Publications

Articles

Practice Note: Flee Clauses, Practical Law 2016
“Forced heirship in the British Isles” (forthcoming), New Law Journal (October 2016).
"Reports of the Death of the Rule in Hastings-Bass are Exaggerated", (2013) JGL Rev 17(3) pp 345-362
"Jersey", Litigation and Dispute Resolution, London: Global Legal Insights (2013 edition)


About cookies on our website

This site uses cookies to enhance and improve your experience when browsing. To find out more about the way we use cookies please see our Privacy Policy.