Chambers & Partners 2018

Chancery Commercial

Serle Court has an excellent and well-deserved reputation for commercial chancery work and is regarded as a go-to set by a number of solicitors. Members are described as "top-class barristers who are ahead of the game for chancery work." They are admired for their "ability to balance technical, commercial and client care considerations." The set offers expertise in a wide range of major commercial chancery disputes, and its recent work highlights include Re Spartan Capital, Avonwick v Shlosberg and the RBS Rights Issue litigation. 

Client service: "The clerks make a real effort to get to know their solicitors. Matters are always promptly attended to – if you ask for things, you get them the same day." The head clerk, Steve Whitaker, leads the team. 

SILKS

Jonathan Adkin QC
A popular silk with a substantial commercial chancery practice. He has a significant international element to his work, and is regarded as a capable advocate and cross-examiner. 
Strengths: "A very robust advocate who is good on paper, and very powerful and persuasive when on his feet." "He's very charming, and people who instruct him just love working with him."

Lance Ashworth QC
An efficient and effective silk who works particularly in the areas of civil fraud and insolvency, and often has matters with an international flavour. He is respected for his ability to handle large cases with lots of factual detail.
Strengths: "Very thorough and very meticulous in his cross-examination. He's good at those document-heavy cases and dealing with those experts you have to chip away at over a couple of days."

David Blayney QC
Has a growing reputation in silk as a highly technically capable banking lawyer, who is involved at the centre of some of the most significant cases in the field. He is also noted for his expertise in relation to commercial chancery, company law and partnership disputes. Blayney receives plaudits for his significant trial experience and is appreciated for his imaginative and persuasive arguments.
Strengths: "David has an extraordinarily creative and lateral mind. He's able to see lines of argument others miss."

Alan Boyle QC
A powerful advocate and a leading figure of the Commercial Chancery Bar, who is head of chambers. He has a broad practice that takes in company law, fraud and insolvency matters.
Strengths: "He is magisterial and offers exceptional client service. One of his key strengths is his ability to get quickly to the heart of an issue, and to present complex advice in a clear and impressively structured way." "He takes no hostages and is the go-to silk at the Chancery Bar if you want an aggressive advocate." 

Dominic Dowley QC
Popular with solicitors, he has a strong fraud practice, and is also adept at handling large trust cases with important commercial implications. He is described as a measured advocate who interacts well with commercial clients.
Strengths: "Incredibly hands on and very approachable. He has a unique ability to identify the key issues from the noise that surrounds a case." "Dominic is incredibly fast working, efficient and incisive." 

Dakis Hagen QC
Has a broad commercial chancery practice, and a very good reputation in the marketplace. Sources particularly highlight him for his combination of client care skills with technical and commercial intelligence.
Strengths: "Because he's such a human barrister, he is absolutely fabulous to work with, and the clients find him wholly engaging." "He is technically excellent, and can deal with some very difficult fine points of law, but is also very commercial and doesn't get bogged down in the detail."

Elizabeth Jones QC
An excellent litigator, praised both for her formidable courtroom presence and for her ability to run a case. She has a broad commercial chancery practice, with a particular focus on company law.
Strengths: "Very good at strategy; she knows what she's doing, she moves the pieces and she wins." "She is a very clever and forthright opponent, who is a steely advocate." "When she walks into a room, people shut the hell up. She just has an aura." 

Philip Jones QC 
A considered and technically excellent QC, described by one source as "a chancery all-rounder." He has "encyclopaedic" legal knowledge, and is noted for his direct and effective advocacy. 
Strengths: "Philip Jones is proof that you can dominate with quiet submissions that are clear and thoughtful." "He has an enormous amount of knowledge, great advocacy skills, is someone who's very easy to communicate with - doesn't shy away from talking to the client."

Daniel Lightman QC
A very clever lawyer with particular expertise in company law. He is singled out by barristers and solicitors as an excellent choice for technically complicated matters.
Strengths: "Has an unparalleled grasp of the law and is technically superb." "If you've got something really complicated, undoubtedly you want him." 

John Machell QC
A strong commercial chancery silk with an excellent reputation for his partnership work. He carries out both advisory work and litigation, and is regarded as a hard-working and technically astute practitioner.
Strengths: "Works tremendously hard and has a good brain." "A very experienced advocate at all levels, he has a very wide and deep legal understanding." 

Philip Marshall QC
Highly experienced silk with a wide-ranging practice centred on commercial matters heard in the Chancery Division. He focuses on complex disputes turning on issues of company law, civil fraud and insolvency, as well as banking and finance. Marshall also appears regularly in complex and substantial arbitrations, particularly before the ICC and LCIA.
Strengths: "Philip is a superb advocate who balances aggression with excellent judgement."

Hugh Norbury QC
Focuses on cases involving fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. Sources single out his client skills and technical abilities for particular notice.
Strengths: "Hugely impressive technically and has a supreme ability to engage with clients. Hugh cuts straight through issues and provides very practical and focused advice." "He's got a very calm, unflappable style in court." 

Rupert Reed QC
A respected silk who is described by sources as pleasant, polished and smooth. His commercial chancery practice has an international thread running through it, and he has a particular specialism in work with a Middle Eastern aspect to it.
Strengths: "Destined for great things, and clever enough to make the work look easy." "He's someone who makes sure he gets the law and the facts right in advance, so that he's totally in control in court."

JUNIORS

Timothy Collingwood
Works in all areas of commercial chancery, especially those with a company law element. Sources describe him as being technically sharp and an effective advocate.
Strengths: "Highly engaging and is quick to work out strategies." "A guru because he's involved in writing the book on shareholder rights and remedies. He knows everything and is a very collaborative barrister to work with." 

David Drake
A senior junior whose commercial chancery practice includes fraud and breach of fiduciary duty matters. Sources highlight his experience acting in cases involving pharmaceuticals companies.
Strengths: "Displays excellent technical skill and the ability to quickly and succinctly drill down into the detail of a case." "He is in the top handful of juniors for fraud-related matters."

Nicholas Harrison
Acts in large and complicated matters, frequently focusing on one case at a time for long stretches. His practice sees him handle substantial frauds and commercial trusts, many of which have an international flavour.
Strengths: "Excellent to work with, he efficiently prepares first-rate written submissions and masters complex factual patterns." 

Simon Hattan
Enjoys a growing reputation as an accomplished banking junior and has a practice that has seen him appear in a number of headline cases in recent years. He is particularly well versed in civil fraud, trusts litigation, disciplinary proceedings and disputes arising out of breaches of fiduciary duties. Hattan has further noted expertise in contentious financial regulatory matters. 
Strengths: "Very thorough and very level-headed."

Justin Higgo
A personable and effective junior who is regarded as a sensible and capable litigator. He has a broad practice and acts on valuable, high-profile commercial chancery cases.
Strengths: "Very responsive and can really be relied upon to provide pragmatic and sensible commercial advice." "He's a good man, who rolls his sleeves up and is user-friendly." 

James Mather
As well as fraud and insolvency matters, Mather works on partnership and company law, and general commercial chancery litigation. He is well liked among solicitors for the contribution he brings to a team, and is especially praised for his written work.
Strengths: "Incredibly easy to talk to and very accessible. If I need a question answered, he will get back to me, and when you're involved in fast-paced litigation, that's what you need." "James has great skill and always stays calm and measured."

Matthew Morrison
Concentrates on company, partnership and insolvency law. He is regarded as a helpful and intelligent junior, who is easy to work with and put in front of clients.
Strengths: "Commercial in his understanding of how solicitors have to operate and the constraints they have." "He's a clever bloke, who is very nice and very hard-working." 

Giles Richardson
Does good work in fraud and company law cases, and also has a strong trusts practice. His work often has an international or offshore element. 
Strengths: "Very, very bright and very easy to deal with." "He is incredibly bright, responsive and commercial."

James Weale
A capable junior who wins approval from those who have worked with him. He is  strategically capable and a good advocate, who is praised for his interactions with clients.
Strengths: "The client has a huge amount of trust in his judgement, which is hugely deserved." "Both understanding and sympathetic," he's "a hard worker, who can think outside the box and always gets the best result for the client."

Chancery Traditional

Serle Court "fields a lot of very talented barristers" who are regularly involved in very significant and high-profile traditional chancery cases. Individuals here are particularly noted for their expertise in contentious and non-contentious trust matters, and regularly handle cases in international and offshore jurisdictions. Their broad diet of traditional chancery work also includes wills and probate and charity cases. Members of the set act for clients at all levels of the court system, including the Supreme Court, and are noted for their deft handling of sprawling pieces of litigation. The set as a whole "continues to bring in strong names year on year," as evidenced by the arrival in recent times of Richard Wilson QC and Constance McDonnell, who joined from a rival chancery set. 

Client service: "The clerks are all very accommodating and very professional; it's a very slick operation there so it is a pleasure to instruct the set." John Petrie is chief executive and Steve Whitaker is head clerk. 

SILKS

Alan Boyle QC
Senior silk and head of chambers who is known for his long-standing experience at the Chancery Bar. His practice focuses on trusts and probate litigation and he is noted for his involvement in some of the most high-profile cases in recent times.
Strengths: "A real heavyweight of the Chancery Bar, who has massive courtroom presence and is an extremely serious advocate. He has seen it all and done it all in every jurisdiction imaginable, and is a big gun you roll out for special occasions." 

Dakis Hagen QC
Focuses his practice on cases concerning trust disputes, wills and estates. He also acts in divorce matters which feature property or trust law, and is further noted for his expertise in offshore disputes.
Strengths: "Knows everything there is to know about trust law, and is very good at strategising and winning arguments. He is very thoughtful and comes up with these great and inventive solutions." "Very lively and energetic, he is very appealing in court and is further known for producing absolutely outstanding skeleton arguments."

Frank Hinks QC 
Traditional chancery specialist with decades of experience in trust and probate matters. He provides advice and handles litigation both domestically and offshore, and is known for representing some very high-profile clients.
Strengths: "Top, top drawer and the most experienced counsel you could meet. He handles some of the biggest clients and handles matters with incredible savvy." "Has incredibly quick turnaround time and is very user-friendly. He always gives practical advice and is a good strategist."

Elizabeth Jones QC
Has a long-established practice in contentious trust and probate work, and is particularly good in cases concerning issues of fraud, asset tracing and insolvency. She has a wealth of international experience, having many cases in overseas jurisdictions.
Strengths: "Phenomenally clever as well as phenomenally effective, she is an extremely forceful advocate. She's also acquired a really strong reputation as a mediator for trust and estate matters." "A class act who is incredibly well trusted by both her clients and opposing counsel. She has the utmost integrity and people have confidence in her."

John Machell QC
Well-regarded barrister with wide ranging expertise in chancery matters. He is often instructed in cases involving issues connected to trusts, partnerships and commercial contracts. He also has significant offshore experience.
Strengths: "His legal expertise is exemplary and his brain works very logically. He can process and understand very complex matters and explain them to the client well." "A fabulous, thoughtful and considerate advocate, who is very commercially aware and takes his roles and duties very seriously. He ensures he achieves equitable results and is a pleasure to work with."

Richard Wilson QC
Has a strong traditional chancery practice involving a substantial amount of international work. He frequently advises landed estates and institutional trustees and is further recognised for his expertise in offshore trusts.
Strengths: "A very good advocate who is excellent at legal analysis, and whose written work is always of a high standard." He is very engaging and the epitome of a modern barrister as he is not stuffy, is au fait with social media and really knows the marketplace." 

JUNIORS

James Brightwell
Well-established traditional chancery barrister with recognised expertise in trust and offshore matters. He is highly rated for his in-depth knowledge of obscure trust law.
Strengths: "Has very insightful knowledge of trust law and is involved in many high-profile proceedings." "Without doubt he is held in extremely high regard by the clients. He has consistently dealt extremely diplomatically with some very difficult situations and has never faltered in his approach."

Emma Hargreaves
Instructed in a number of substantial high-profile trust cases, both in the UK and offshore. She also deals with civil fraud, commercial and company disputes and is further noted for her international experience.
Strengths: "Provides very detailed and technical legal advice. Her written advice is excellent and confident, and she has a full understanding of the issues in a case." "She gets things done very quickly and is always very thorough and very organised."

William Henderson
Highly esteemed practitioner who is praised for his work with private clients, trustees and trust companies. His practice typically involves trusts, probate, estate administration, charities and professional negligence matters. 
Strengths: "Very understated but hugely intelligent and thoughtful. He is particularly excellent on charity points and is a go-to person on such matters." "William is technically phenomenal and clients are enamoured by him."

Constance McDonnell
Her practice focuses on contentious trusts and probate cases and she also handles 1975 Act claims and Court of Protection matters. Other areas of interest include claims relating to the administration of estates and the removal of personal representatives.
Strengths: "A consummate performer on her feet, she really knows her stuff and you can't get one over on her." "She is very in-demand, is incredibly bright, and has great commercial instincts."

Giles Richardson
Has a particularly strong focus on restructuring, insolvency and company law, and also a very active trusts practice. He handles large cases both domestically and internationally.
Strengths: "Has the ability to master a vast range of documents in a very short space of time and come up with some very effective arguments to strengthen claims." "He is very bright and very articulate."

Instant Access Properties Limited (in liquidation) v Mr Bradley John Rosser and 6 others:

On the facts of this case, Morgan J held that neither Mr Rosser nor Mr Moore (whom he found to have been shadow directors for certain purposes) were in breach of any fiduciary duty they might have owed to the company, neither was dishonest or fraudulent, and that whatever fiduciary duty might be imposed on them, it would not place upon them a liability to account for profits when a de jure director in the same position would have been relieved from such a liability.

This judgment shows that there can be no blanket rules for the duties owed by shadow directors (as the law now stands before in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 89 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, the Secretary of State makes regulations which define the duties of a shadow director).  Whether a particular shadow director owes fiduciary duties and the extent of those duties will be highly fact sensitive.

Lance Ashworth QC and Matthew Morrison represented Mr Rosser, the First Defendant.

Bestfort Developments LLP and Ors v Ras Al Khaimah Investment:

Successful in the Court of Appeal establishing the correct rest to be applied by the courts under CPR 25.13(2)(1) for an order for security for costs against a defendant resident outside the jurisdiction and the EU/Lugano Convention area.

Grupa Ozarow v Clean Energy Trading CL:

Acted for the defendant company trading in Carbon Credits in successfully discharging an ex parte injunction obtained in support of Polish proceedings on the basis, inter alia, that the relevant EU jurisdiction rules were arguably infringed.

Barker v Baxendale Walker Solicitors & Anor:

Represented the claimant in a substantial professional negligence action concerning an allegedly defective EBT structure.  The trial of the claim took place in the Chancery Division in January 2016.  Oliver Jones also assisted on the case.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd:

The long-running dispute between Network Rail and road users’ insurers over who should bear the economic costs of drivers crashing into or onto railways may have reached a conclusion, reaffirming in the process that there is no bar to recovery of pure economic loss in cases of trespass concurrent with negligence.  David appeared for Network Rail.

Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA (Trustee of the Tchenguiz Settlement) v ITG Ltd and Bayeux Trustees Ltd (Trustees of the Techenguiz Discretionary Trust):

Successfully opposing the claimant's application for permission to serve proposed re-amended particulars of claim out of the jurisdiction on the basis that the application was barred by issue estoppel or amounted to an abuse of process.  Subsequent argument about whether the court should order an immediate assessmet of costs.

Glenn v Watson:

Representing the interests of New Zealand businessman and philanthropist  Sir Owen Glenn in 3 sets of proceedings arising from the breakdown of a property joint venture with Eric Watson, set down initially for a 12-week trial commencing in May 2017. Glenn v Watson seeks accounts of profits for brach of fiduciary duty and rescission of over £100m of loans to the joint venture company on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd v Confiance Ltd and Ors.:

Acted for defendant Guernsey trustees in a c.£20m claim in the Chancery Division relating to an alleged partnership/joint venture concerning London real estate.

Perry and others v National Crime Agency:

Acted for the applicants in a very substantial compensation claim in the region of £200m against the government body for loss said to have been caused by a property freezing order.

FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino:

Acting for the principal defendant in this substantial commercial and civil fraud dispute in the Commercial Court relating to the operation of a fund manager.  The claim includes allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance and unlawful means conspiracy.

Flanagan v Liontrust Investment Partners LLP:

Henderson J gave the first judgment on the question whether the doctrine of termination by acceptance of repudiatory breach applies to LLP agreements.

Kaneria v Kaneria - Re Guidezone Ltd:

Represented the defendant in a 21 day trial of preliminary issues in a section 994 petition in the Chancery Division, about the Ambassador’s Hotel in Euston.  The defendant succeeded on all preliminary issues, defeating a claim for approximately £7m.

Re Tadros:

Acted for and advised the second defendant, a multi-million probate claim which related to, among other things, real property in central London, the Netherlands, and Sudan.  The case was the subject of a decision of Morgan J ([2014] EWHC 2860 (Ch)), on an anti-suit application contested at the hearing by the claimant and the ninth defendant charity.

Bank of St Petersburg v Vitaly Arkhangelsky & Anor:

A claim to enforce a series of guarantees afforded to a defaulting oligarch and for declaratory relief to exonerate the Bank from accusations of corporate raiding made against it by the Defendant.

CR v MZ:

A sham trust/forgery case relating to the ownership of a substantial London property and its holding company.

Tchenguiz-Imerman v Imerman:

In an important decision, Moylan J overrode the wishes of the Jersey court and ordered that documents generated for the purposes of a Jersey trustee's Beddoe application held by beneficiaries intervening in English proceedings should be disclosed to him in those proceedings.

Okritie Bank v Urumov et al:

Jonathan McDonagh acted for the Urumov and Pinaev defendants, in Otkritie Bank v Urumov et al [2014] EWHC 191 (Comm), a claim for more than $170m in an alleged Russian banking fraud.  The case was the subject of considerable international media attention, and was heard over the course of 12 weeks in the Commercial Court. In addition to the usual issues arising from a civil fraud action, this case raised questions of international private law, foreign law, priviliege and the doctrine of ex turpi causa, Jonathan Adkin QC was involved at earlier stages in the proceedings. Hugh Norbury QC also acted for a third party in relation to the claim at an early stage of the proceedings.

Stiftung Salle Modulable v Butterfield Trust (Bermuda) Limited:

Instructed on behalf of the Plaintiffs in a high value dispute as to the contractual liability of a Bermuda trust to fund the construction of an opera house in Lucerne.

Earl of Durham v Lady Lucinda Lambton & Ors:

Instructed by the claimant in a dispute between siblings as to the succession to their father's estate.  The Earl of Durham was the sole beneficiary under his father's will.  His father died domciled in Italy.  Three of his sisters claimed shares of their father's assets under Italian law and asserted that the value of their shares should include valuable English land disposed of during the deceased's lifetime.  The Earl of Durham sought declaratory relief in England that the sisters had no claim on the English assets.  The challenge by the three sisters to the jurisdiction of the English courts was dismissed.  The case was widely covered in the national press.

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov, Zharimbetov & Ors:

Large fraud trial in which the Bank successfully obtained Judgment for over $1billion in relation to a series of banking frauds.

Philip Marshall QC acted for the Bank at trail; Hugh Norbury QC represented the second Defendant, Mr Zharimbetov at trial. Philip Jones QC, Matthew Morrison were also involved for the Bank during the litigation; Justin Higgo acted for Mr Zharimbetov; Dan McCourt Fritz acted for Mr Ablyazov.

Ullah v Ullah:

Andrew Bruce successfully represented the Defendants in a substantial High Court claim brought by a family member seeking an interest in a portfolio of properties based upon a constructive trust

Aeroflot v Berezovsky, Glushkov, Forus Holdings SA & Ors:

Aeroflot is suing its former Deputy Director General, Nikolai Glushkov, Boris Berezovsky and a number of companies in which they allegedly held interests in relation to a number of loans which allegedly had no proper commercial justification and resulted in the payment of fees and interest and misappropriation of fees due to Aeroflot.  Aeroflot claims to have suffered loss in the sum of US$102m.  Philip Marshall QC and Simon Hattan act for Aeroflot and Philip Jones QC and Jennifer Haywood are acting for Nikolai Glushkov.

Re H:

This was the first reported case on the test for making statutory wills under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

Portsmouth Holdings Ltd v JL Homes Ltd Anor:

A mortgagee brought possession proceedings against a corporate mortgagor and the proceedings were settled on terms whereby if the mortgagor did not pay a certain sum by a certain date the mortgagee would be entitled to call for a transfer of the mortgaged properties.  The settlement was embodied in a Tomlin order.  The mortgagor did not pay, and the mortgagee made an application for the agreement scheduled to the Tomlin order to be enforced by way of an order requiring a transfer of the properties.  The mortgagor defended the application on the ground that the settlement agreement had been signed without its authority.  The mortgagee, represented by Paul Adams, maintained (i) that the mortgagor was estopped from denying the validity of the settlement agreement, (ii) that the settlement agreement had been executed with the actual or apparent authority of the mortgagor, and (iii) that, alternatively, the mortgagor had subsequently ratified the agreement.  Lesley Anderson QC, sitting as a Deputy, granted the mortgagee's application to enforce the agreement.

C v D:

Certain beneficiaries of a civil law Foundation and a Bermuda trust purportedly settled by the Foundation brought proceedings in two jurisdictions seeking declarations that the Foundation and the trust were invalid ab initio.  In the Bermuda proceedings the claimant beneficiaries also made a number of alternative claims, including breach of trust claims, claims for declarations as to the fiduciary nature of certain powers, a claim for the removal of the trustees from office and a claim seeking to force a reorganisation of the structure.  The Foundation was joined as a party to the Bermuda proceedings but sought a stay of those proceedings and, in the alternative, disputed jurisdiction.  Before the Foundation's application came to be heard, a settlement was reached between the various beneficiaries.  An application was then made to the Supreme Court of Bermuda for approval of the settlement and such approval was granted.  Frank Hinks QC and Paul Adams acted for the claimant beneficiaries.

This case was unusual in that the structure which the claimants were seeking to have declared invalid had been in existence for a great many years. It also raised interesting issues as to the interplay between civil and common law. Then, once a settlement had been reached, the parties had to grapple with difficult issues as to (i) how the settlement could be approved notwithstanding that there were persons who might have been interested in the assets if the structure was invalid who had not signed up to the settlement, and (ii) how the settlement as approved by the court could be made fully binding on the Foundation notwithstanding that the Foundation was not willing to enter an appearance in Bermuda.

Wah v Grant Thornton International Ltd:

An application under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in relation to the enforceability of ADR provisions in an international firm governing document.

Re The F Trust:

The corporate trustee of a Jersey trust decided that the trust should be wound up with the assets being distributed among certain of the beneficiaries in particular proportions.  One of the beneficiaries, K, objected to the size of her share as determined by the trustee.  The trustee made an application to Court for approval of its decision and the application was opposed by K.  Subsequently, K amended her pleading so as to introduce breach of trust claims against the trustee.  K also argued that the trustee ought to be removed from office.  The matter then proceeded as contested litigation until shortly prior to trial, when a negotiated settlement was reached.  The trustee subsequently applied to the Court for approval of the settlement.  The Court granted approval and also acceded to an application that its judgment be fully anonymised.

Moraes v Paulista Ltd & Ors:

Instructed to advise the defendants in an ongoing multi-million dollar minority shareholders' dispute, breach of fidiciary duty and derivative claim relating to the ownership of a Brazillian bank that is being litigated in the Bahamas.

Re: Williams:

The claimant sought to challenge a will over 10 years after the estate of the deceased had been fully administered, alleging undue influence and proprietary estoppel.  The defendant succesfully applied to have the claim struck out.  The claimant then applied to set aside the order striking out his claim but that application was successfully resisted by the defendant.  Paul Adams acted for the defendant.

Pamela Thornhill & ors v Nationwide Metal Recylcing:

Sucessfully defended a first instance judgment which determined that his client's scrapyard in Cambridge was not creating a noise nuisance

Re BBB, Re D retirement Trust:

Advised a corporate trustee in proceedings in the Royal Court of Jersey concerning trustees de son tort, invalid appointments and ratification.

Company Developments (Finance) Ltd v Coffee Club Restaurants Ltd:

The case concerned the construction of guarantee obligations in a lease, where (it was common ground) something had gone wrong in the drafting.  As drafted part of the definition of the "liability period" applicable to the guarantors had been omitted.  At first instance, the Judge had paid particular regard to a precedent which had clearly been used by the landlord's solicitors when they had drafted the lease.  This showed what the omitted words were.  However the Court of Appeal held that this material was not admissible.  Nonetheless the Court of Appeal held that, as a matter of construction, the omitted words from the precedent ought to be read into the lease having regard to the “context” of the operative provisions.

This case emphasises the point made explicit in Chartbrook v. Persimmon Homes [2009] 1 AC 1101 that the Court, in correcting an error by construction, will not have regard to evidence which only goes to the subjective states of mind of the parties.

BQ v DQ:

Ground CJ accepted that two inter vivos trusts were void as testamentary dispostiions with a consequential tax saving.

Lexi Holdings v Pannone:

Philip Marshall QC and Ruth Holtham continued to appear on behalf of Lexi Holdings plc in the fall out following its collapse in circumstances of fraud.  Philip appeared in front of Briggs J on a summary judgment application against solicitors in respect of a claim for breach of mandate. The Court considered the scope of the actual and apparent authority of a managing director to give instructions to solicitors leading to misapplication of company funds.

Vercoe v Rutland:

Acted for the victorious entrepreneurs in which the private equity standard form non-disclosure agrement was considered and found on the facts to protect the claimants' confidential information, resulting in a payment of more than £3m calculated on a Wrotham Park basis.

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry:

two significant cases concerning the territorial ambit of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) arose.  Foskett J ([2010] 1 WLR 910) and the Court of Appeal ([2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 606) decided that SOCA can give infromation notices under POCA to persons outside the jurisdiction.  Mitting J ([2010] 1 WLR 2761) decided that property freezing orders and civil recovery orders can be made under POCA in respect of property located outside the jurisdiction.  The Court of Appeal heard the appeal against his decision in December 2010.

North Shore Venture v Anstead Holdings:

Acting for the defendants in a case which raises important issues of principle on the scope of the pre-guarantee duty of disclosure and conclusive evidence clauses.

Aritsan H Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd & Ors:

A dispute arose between two property developers specialising in urban regeneration projects as to construction of the agreement governing their joint venture LLPs. The defendant LLP member had claimed that it was entitled to act without the consent of the claimant member in causing the LLP to enter into contracts where the claimant had, in its view, acted in breach of its fiduciary duty, and had acted without consent in entering into a contract with a public body to its own advantage. The defendant LLP member further claimed that it could choose whether to procure financing from elsewhere or advance funding to the LLP itself.

At a trial that took place 2 weeks after issue of the claim (following an application for a speedy trial) Kitchin J determined that, as a matter of construction, the only acts which the partnership board representatives of one member could carry out without the consent of the other member were limited to those provided for by the LLP agreement (essentially the bringing of a claim against, or defence of a claim by, the other member). He further found that the defendant was obliged to use all reasonable endeavours in procuring external funding before advancing funding itself to the LLP. Kitchin J granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from acting without consent of the claimant, pending determination of the remaining issues and ordered the defendant to provide an account of relevant information.

Estate of Edward St George v Sir Jack Hayward & Ors:

A multi-million litigation in the Bahamas involved a dispute between the estate of Edward St George and his former business partner Sir Jack Hayward. 

Pitt v Holt:

Regarding the settlement of a patient's assets made by his receiver acting under the authority of the Court of Protection and a failure to consider the IHT impact. This was the first case to come to trial in which HMRC have been joined to argue against the application of the rule in Hastings-Bass.

Re: Q Trusts:

The trustees of a Bermuda trust made an application to the Supreme Court of Bermuda for approval of a proposed division and reorganisation of the trust.  The application was heard in two stages and at each stage evidence and submissions were presented on behalf of various adult beneficiaries and the guardians ad litem to certain minor beneficiaries.  Paul Adams, led by Robert Ham QC, acted for one of the guardians ad litem.

Cawdron v Merchant Taylors’ School:

Members of Chambers appeared for all the various parties in which issues as to the nature of trusts created during the First World War were resolved to enable the land to be sold for development and replacement sports facilituies to be provided for the benefit of the School and its Old Boys.  Philip Jones QC and Dakis Hagen QC appeared for the applicant trustees, Will Henderson appeared for HM Atthorney General, Jonathan Adkin QC for the school, James Mathers for the Merchant Taylors' Livery Company and Robin Rathmell for a representative old boy.

Yugraneft v Roman Abramovich:

Reverse summary judgment obtained against a Russian company which claimed that the dilution of its interest in another company (from 50% to 1%) had been procured by fraud.

Richard Walford is a member of the counsel team which obtained reverse summary judgement.  The case involved wide issues of Russian company and insolvency law, conflicts of laws, problems of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens and residence as well as points involving res judication in other countries.

Harding v HM Revenue & Customs Commissioners:

An appeal to the Court of Appeal relating to the construction of section 117(1)(b) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The issue was whether a lapsed foreign currency provision in a loan note constituted a security 'in respect of which no provision is made for redemption in a currency other than sterling' for the purposes of the section 117(1)(b) definition of qualifying corporate bonds.

Ruth Jordan

Harding v Revenue and Customs Commissioners:

An appeal to the Court of Appeal on the construction of s.117(1)(b) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The issue was whether a loan note in respect of which a foreign currency redemption provision had lapsed was "a provision in respect of which no provision is made for redemption in a currency other than sterling"  and as such could be classified as a qualifying corporate bond for the purposes of exemption from a charge to capital gains tax. 

Appeal dismissed. The appeal could be disposed of without any departure from the plain meaning of the words in s. 117(1)(b). The key to the interpretation of s. 117(1)(b) was the word "provision". If one were to ask whether, on the date of issue, provision was made "in respect of" the security, meaning the agreement represented by the loan notes and the terms embodied in them, there would be no doubt on any possible view that provision was made for conversion. If the same question were to be asked at the date when the currency conversion right lapsed or when the loan notes were redeemed the answer would be the same, namely that "provision " was made, even though the right could no longer be exercised. The word "provision" was a reference to the terms of the agreement, and not simply to subsisting rights. There was no need for s. 117(1)(b) to have the phrase "at all times" because it was looking to the terms of the agreement and not to rights which might have existed under it from time to time. The distinction between "debt on the security" and "security" in s. 117(1)(a) and (b) did not determine the outcome of the appeal, Weston v Garnett (Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 742, [2005] S.T.C. 1134 considered. There was no contrast between a literal construction and the purpose of the legislation, nor any need for a special construction to avoid anomalies.

Yugraneft v Abramovich:

Alan Boyle QC and Richard Walford appeared in the continuing saga of Yugraneft v Abramovich (2008, Christopher Clarke J), a major multi jurisdiction case concerning the affairs of a Russian oil company.

Stow v Stow:

The trustees brought a claim for declaratory relief to which they joined HMRC and the widow on the basis of their intimated claims against the estate.  HMRC's challenge to the High Court's jurisdiction on the basis that the fact sought to be decided was also in issue in disputed tax assessments raised against the trustees directly, was rejected by Warren J on the basis that the case fell outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Commissioners.

David Drake appeared as junior counsel representing trustees whose administration of a settlement had been paralysed by their anticipation of claims, inter alia from a potentially insolvent estate of which there were no personal representatives.

Organ and another v McKechie and others:

The deceased testatrix had three sons and one daughter. The claimants were two of her sons. The first defendant was her daughter and the second defendant her remaining son. On 6 February 2002, the testatrix had a meeting with P, the managing director of a company (CLG) providing will drafting services, with a view to having a will drawn. CLG's operation involved the completion of a standard form questionnaire. The information given was then entered into a computer employing software which produced a will corresponding to the answers given in the questionnaire. During the meeting, G recorded the testatrix's answers to the questionnaire. Although G himself was not a qualified lawyer, the testatrix was given advice to the effect that the creation of a nil-band discretionary trust held potential benefits for the purposes of inheritance tax. Subsequently, the testatrix was sent a draft will. It was common ground that that will was never executed. Between 27 February and 11 March 2002, CLG received a letter, written by the first defendant purportedly at the request of the testatrix, and purportedly signed by the latter, which changed the terms of the draft will. A second will, reflecting the terms of that letter, was subsequently executed. The effect of that will was effectively to disinherit the claimants save for the provision of fixed pecuniary legacies. The will contained clauses relating to the intended discretionary trust. However, the manner in which those clauses were drafted was such that no such trust could properly take effect. In any event, the trust would not have conferred the intended tax benefit. The defendants were appointed executors of the will. The testatrix died on 20 March 2003. Subsequently, the claimants issued proceedings alleging that the will was invalid for want of knowledge and approval on the part of the testatrix and alleging that the testator’s signature on the letter changing the direction of the will had been forged. Alternatively, they sought rectification of the clauses pertaining to the creation of the discretionary trust, thereby giving them a beneficial entitlement to the residuary estate.

Two principal issues fell to be determined, namely: (i) whether the signature, purporting to be that of the testatrix, on the letter of instruction, had been forged; and (ii) whether the failure of the discretionary trust had resulted in the will failing to reflect the testamentary wishes of the testatrix.
The claim was dismissed. Held by HHJ Pelling QC that on the evidence, the claimants had failed to establish to the required standard of proof that the signature on the letter purportedly stating the testatrix's testamentary wishes had been forged. Furthermore, the purpose of the discretionary trust had been to obtain potential tax benefits, not to enable the claimants to take a beneficial interest in the residual estate.The clauses dealing with the creation of the trust had been drafted in such a way so as to fail. However the hoped-for tax advantages had not in fact been available. In those circumstances it could not be said that the will had failed properly to reflect the testamentary wishes of the testatrix, nor that the will had been executed with want of knowledge and approval on her part.

Alhamrani v Alhamrani:

The case revolved around a very substantial family trust and involved extensive allegations of breaches of trust and fiduciary duty.  The litigation involved innumerable interlocutory hearings over a number of years which ruled on significant trust law issues, including the availability of 'dog leg' claims [2007] JRC 026 and trustees' rights to indemnification for legal costs incurred by them [2007] JLR 527. 

Eid v Al Kazemi (No 2):

At first instance the applicant had obtained an order for the transfer of shares. The respondent had resisted the application on the ground of undue influence but the trial judge had found that there had been no undue influence and, in any event, that the respondent had affirmed the contract. The respondent had obtained permission to appeal. The applicant sought reconsideration of the decision to grant permission to appeal on the basis that he had not been provided with a copy of the respondent's skeleton argument and had not had an opportunity to make representations as to the respondent's submissions. The defendant had obtained permission to appeal from Neuberger LJ on paper, without allowing the claimant to see the skeleton argument she had filed with the Court of Appeal.

Neuberger J reconsidered the decision he had reached on paper in light of the applicant's submissions and found that there was no reasonable prospect of an appeal succeeding. He therefore set aside the grant of permission to appeal.

Eid v Al Kazemi (No 1):

The claimant sought an order for the transfer of shares pursuant to an agreement with the first defendant. The respondent resisted the application on the ground of undue influence.

John Martin QC found that the claimant had not unduly influence the defendant and that, in any event, the defendant had, with the benefit of legal advice, affirmed the contract.

Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederosterreich-Wien AG v Maxfold Contracts LLP & Ors:

A multi-jursidictional dispute concerning allegations of international money-laundering and shortcomings in the governance of off-shore corporate nominee directors.