“Serle Court are commercial litigation superstars.”
"Very strong offering in commercial dispute resolution at all levels."
"You invariably receive user friendly, incisive and commercial advice and advocacy from this set."
“one of the very best commercial chancery sets, and one of the few that genuinely competes in both traditional chancery and commercial litigation”
"provide a range and depth of counsel that means they are a go-to set for any commercial chancery work"
Serle Court has a leading reputation in commercial litigation; having been involved in the most significant disputes in the market in recent years. Members of chambers are recommended by Chambers UK and the Legal 500 not only for commercial litigation but also in the commercial fields of banking and financial services, civil fraud, insolvency and company and partnership law. Chambers is said to “impress both as active participants in major pieces of litigation and as thought leaders in the international dispute resolution market.”
Members of Chambers are regularly instructed in commercial cases both in the Commercial Court and the Business and Property Courts. Our barristers are often instructed to attend court at short notice; for interim procedural hearings, and to obtain urgent freezing injunctions.
Chambers UK 2021
Instructing solicitors praise Serle Court as "a leading commercial chancery chambers," adding that "everyone at the set is sensible, collaborative and very easy to work with." It houses an enviable bench of senior and junior barristers, and is regularly called upon to undertake the most complex cases in the market. In addition to offering expertise in the handling of high-profile domestic disputes, the team is highly regarded for its expertise in litigation arising in offshore jurisdictions, and members are routinely instructed in cases in Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, the BVI and Bermuda.
Client Service: "The clerks are very responsive, helpful and commercial when it comes to negotiating fees." "The team is very good at identifying and matching needs for specific client requirements - they make sure that they match the right barrister with the right client." "The clerks understand the practicality of litigation and go the extra mile to help."
Silks
Elizabeth Jones QC: "She's very strong in court and is a truly formidable advocate." "She is very robust and impressive on her feet. A top performer."
Dominic Dowley QC: "Has a good bedside manner and is very easy to deal with."
Philip Marshall QC: "He's a mesmerising advocate and is utterly relentless - a very powerful performer." "He takes on enormous cases and will fight like a tiger. He is resilient in the extreme."
Philip Jones QC: "He's very strong all-round - very knowledgeable on the law and good at dealing with both solicitors and clients. He has the ear of the court and is a real team player." "He has astonishing problem-solving skills."
Lance Ashworth QC: "He is easy to work with, commercial and practical. He's always very involved in the detail right from the beginning." "He's a good cross-examiner and is very commercially minded and pragmatic."
John Machell QC: "Always very thorough, prepared and thoughtful - he is a brilliant appellate advocate and is sound in his approach." "He is a critical thinker and is innovative with his ideas. He is very responsive and user-friendly."
Hugh Norbury QC: "He is incredible - very engaging and excellent at dealing with clients. He also has a great command of the law and is incredibly hard-working." "He is really brilliant, approachable and good to work with. He is happy to get stuck into the case."
David Blayney QC: "He is exceedingly bright and very good on his feet." "He is immensely clever."
Jonathan Adkin QC: "A tenacious advocate. He's thoughtful and very good at considering the strategic aim of the case. He is very easy to work with."
Rupert Reed QC: "He has a brilliant bedside manner with clients and is very sympathetic and patient. He's a really good advocate and his written work is excellent. A class act." "He is an absolute mine of information and is technically and intellectually strong."
Daniel Lightman QC: "Very strong on paper." "He has an outstanding legal brain."
Dakis Hagen QC: "It's a delight to watch him and his team work together so effectively. He has great judgement and excellent client-handling skills." "He's incredibly good - cautious, and highly responsive to the judge. He's very adaptable in court."
Justin Higgo QC: "Very clever and gets good results."
Timothy Collingwood QC: "He is responsive, a good advocate and likeable as a person. He is switched on and sensible on his feet." "He is really capable and very knowledgeable on trusts law. He is tactically sensible and really hard-working."
Juniors
David Drake: "An absolutely fantastic junior - he's a great advocate and is fantastic on paper. He is incredibly easy to work with." "He is phenomenal at turning things around quickly and is incredibly hard-working."
Giles Richardson: "He's just brilliant - exceptionally clever, hard-working and responsive." "He's very user-friendly and is a measured advocate."
Simon Hattan: "He is incredibly thorough, and is able to master large volumes of material and tease out problems and opportunities. He is also an absolute pleasure to work with - he does not stand on ceremony and treats all team members as equals." "He is really measured, clear and sensible in his advocacy, and is also very good on paper."
Matthew Morrison: "An extremely bright barrister and a real people person. He is brilliant with clients and very commercial, but with a formidable intellect." "He is easy to work with, practical and commercial. He takes a collaborative approach."
James Mather: "He is absolutely phenomenally intelligent and very impressive. He gets on top of the case quickly and sees angles that others do not see. He is also brilliant in court."
Dan McCourt Fritz: "Clients absolutely love him and he's very good at drafting. He's also very strong technically and he knows this subject very well." "He's excellent - very easy to deal with and brilliant at what he does."
Gareth Tilley: "He is very sharp and practical. He works quickly and is very realistic in his judgement." "He is extremely thorough in his consideration of the evidence and when drafting pleadings and other documents. He has proven to be an excellent advocate in court."
James Weale: "He is super bright, hard-working and responsive. He's bursting with great ideas and energy. He is a superb draftsman and a strong oral advocate. He is also a real team player and a pleasure to deal with." "His written work is just absolutely excellent and he is very, very sensible in his approach."
Paul Adams: "He has a phenomenal memory and can pull out an obscure case at a moment's notice. He works extremely quickly and produces substantial and lucid pleadings at an incredible speed. He is really, really impressive and a joy to work with."
Sophie Holcombe: "She is extraordinarily hard-working, very thorough and always fully prepared. She's brilliant."
Adil Mohamedbhai: "An excellent junior who is very good value for money. He goes above and beyond to make sure the drafting is in top shape, and he's very nice to deal with." "He grasps complicated concepts quickly and has a very practical approach to complex legal problems. He simplifies issues and gets to the results."
Legal 500 2023
‘Standout set‘ Serle Court is consistently involved in the market’s most significant disputes, including heavyweight commercial cases before both the Commercial Court and the Business and Property Courts. In Kea v Watson, Elizabeth Jones KC, leading a team of six juniors against three separate teams for the defendants, is representing New Zealand businessman and philanthropist Sir Owen Glenn in various proceedings concerning BVI joint venture company, Spartan Capital. In The Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Rajaan, Philip Marshall KC, leading Simon Hattan, represents one of the defendants in a $800m-plus fraud claim, arising out of alleged bribery involving Kuwait’s state pension fund’s investments, while Hugh Norbury KC is acting for the claimant. Senior junior and business disputes specialist, Jennifer Meech, joined chambers in October 2022 from Enterprise Chambers, and in April 2023, head clerk Steve Whitaker retired after 48 years at chambers, with management of the clerking team passed to senior clerks Nick Hockney and Dan Wheeler, who are ‘real assets for the set‘.
Silks
Elizabeth Jones KC: "Fabulous attention to detail, combined with outstanding strategic and legal advice - one of the very best. Total authority in court." - Ranked: Tier 1
Dominic Dowley KC: Ranked: Tier 6
Philip Marshall KC: "Philip is a hugely impressive advocate. He combines a deep command of the law with an innate sense of the tactics needed to achieve the client's objectives. His advocacy makes the difference between winning and losing the case."- Ranked: Tier 1
Philip Jones KC: Ranked: Tier 2
Lance Ashworth KC: Ranked: Tier 4
John Machell KC: "John is excellent on every level. He is kind and easy to work with, but tough when he needs to be. He is very efficient, an excellent advocate, and great with difficult clients." - Ranked: Tier 5
Hugh Norbury KC: "Consistently excellent judgement and the ability to see the real issues in the case and develop effective strategies. He is an effective team leader and gets the best out of his juniors. His advocacy is calm and persuasive, he is not afraid to go into battle on difficult issues, and he reads judges well." - Ranked: Tier 3
David Blayney KC: "David is fiercely intelligent and has a natural ability to convey complex ideas straightforwardly and persuasively. Perhaps unusually for someone so intelligent, David also takes a practical and pragmatic approach to litigation." - Ranked: Tier 4
Jonathan Adkin KC: "A star in every respect. Brilliant on his feet, with wonderful lateral thinking and an engaging nature that makes every case together an absolute joy, whatever the challenges." - Ranked: Tier 2
Rupert Reed KC: "Rupert is extremely bright, hardworking and a team player. A true specialist in the Middle East, and a fluent speaker of Arabic. There are few like him." - Ranked: Tier 4
Zoe O'Sullivan KC: "Zoe is a leading commercial litigation silk. She is passionate about her cases and communicates 100% conviction within the most difficult arguments. A tenacious and highly effective cross-examiner." - Ranked: Tier 4
Daniel Lightman KC: "Daniel is a master of litigation strategy. His attention to detail and strategic nous are excellent, and clients inevitably benefit from an early stage of the litigation as a result. He is well-known as a superb black-letter lawyer and that reputation is more than justified." - Ranked: Tier 3
Justin Higgo KC: "Justin is an excellent strategist, a strident and effective advocate, and incredibly easy to work with." - Ranked: Tier 6
Juniors
David Drake: "David is probably one of the smartest people at the Bar. Clients go to him with the most difficult issues that require super brain power." - Ranked: Tier 2
Simon Hattan: Ranked: Tier 1
Matthew Morrison: "Matthew is an excellent written advocate with great litigation sense. He is well liked by clients and a great team member. A star of the future." - Ranked: Tier 2
James Weale: "James's advocacy is astute, carefully prepared, and always hits the mark. He is highly persuasive and effective at achieving the desired end result for the client. He is also extremely responsive and provides sound input on a strategic level. Certainly a KC in the making." - Ranked: Tier 3
Paul Adams: "Very bright, brilliant attention to detail, very accessible, and always happy to help - a real team player."- Ranked: Tier 3
Jennifer Meech: "Jennifer is an excellent all-round barrister. Calm and very easy to deal with, her advice is always spot-on and she is great on her feet in court." - Ranked: Tier 4
Thomas Elias: "Thomas has a strikingly good eye for detail and his advocacy is perfectly judged - never overplaying a point but always pressing the point home until it lands. Thomas radiates calm, and many a crisis passes unnoticed thanks to his grip on the situation. He is the perfect foil for a silk, who prefers to concentrate on the big picture, but is strategically very capable himself." - Ranked: Tier 4
Adil Mohamedbhai: "Adil is one of the best juniors at the Commercial and Chancery Bar, and plainly destined for great things. He is highly intelligent, has excellent legal knowledge and experience, and wonderful litigation instincts. He also works ferociously hard." - Ranked: Tier 3
Emma Hargreaves: "Exceptionally intelligent, even in the context of the commercial Bar. Her emotional intelligence, and her ability to understand people and motivations is a rare attribute in a barrister with her legal acumen." - Ranked: Tier 5
Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and Others v Jardine Strategic Holdings Limited [2024] CA (Bda) 7 Civ:
Jonathan Adkin KC and Adil Mohamedbhai continue to act for the dissenters in Re Jardine Strategic Holdings Limited, a multi-billion-dollar shareholder appraisal action in Bermuda concerning the Jardine group of companies, a Fortune Global 500 group of companies and one of the largest conglomerates in the world.
In December 2023, Adil assisted the dissenters in successfully resisting the company’s appeal challenging the well-established principle that a company cannot claim privilege against existing or former shareholders other than where the documents are brought into existence for the purpose of a dispute between a company and its shareholders. At first instance, Hargun CJ had recognised the principle.
The Bermuda Court of Appeal (Clarke P, Bell JA and Kawaley JA) confirmed the existence of the principle.
The judgment can be found here
Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse Trust Limited [2023] SGCH(I) 9:
The Singapore International Commercial Court (International Judge Bergin) has today handed down judgment following the trial of the dispute between Bidzina Ivanishvili and other plaintiffs and Credit Suisse Trust Limited. The claim stemmed from the long-running fraud committed by Patrice Lescaudron, an employee of Credit Suisse Bank in Geneva.
In a detailed judgment spanning 257 pages, the Court upheld the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendant acted in breach of trust. Of particular interest:
The Court has determined the basis for the assessment of loss and ordered that the calculations of loss be updated following the judgment. The total loss is expected to be in excess of USD 900 million.
Sophie Holcombe and Jamie Randall acted for the successful Plaintiffs with Drew & Napier LLC.CIVI
To read the judgment, please click here.
Ticehurst & Ors v Harbour Fund II LP & Ors [2022] EWHC 3053 (Comm):
On 30 November, Mr Justice Foxton sitting in the Commercial Court, KBD handed down judgment in the matter of Ticehurst & Ors v Harbour Fund II LP & Ors [2022] EWHC 3053 (Comm). Elizabeth Jones KC, instructed by Harcus Parker led Daniel Saoul KC (4 New Square), and Richard Hoyle and Lorraine Aboagye (Essex Court) on behalf of Harbour.
The judgment considered various important factors with respect to the treatment of trusts in a commercial setting, and in particular, the use of trust structures in litigation financing. Foxton J considered the powers and obligations of funded parties under a Litigation Funding Agreement who became trustees on receipt of proceeds of the funded litigation, set against the background of relevant provisions of the Trustee Acts 1925 and 2000.
Background
Harbour provided litigation funding to the claimants in the Orb v Ruhan Litigation. The funding agreement contained a declaration of trust that any “Proceeds” would be held “as Trust property on bare trust absolutely” in favour of Harbour, Orb and Messrs Thomas & Taylor, with entitlements set out in a waterfall allowing for the first tranche of recoveries to be paid to Harbour as funder. At para 10 of the judgment, Foxton J considered Elizabeth Jones KC’s arguments regarding the difficulties with the definition of ‘Proceeds’, and at paragraphs 36-38 held that the obligations and powers of the trustees were limited to little more than holding the Proceeds, and that the form and purpose of the litigation funding agreement meant that the extensive powers under the Trustee Act were excluded.
To read the full judgment click here.
Grand View Private Trust Co Ltd and another (Respondents) v Wong and others:
The Privy Council has today handed down judgment allowing the appeals of Dr Winston Wong, Riley Wong and Tony Wang in the conjoined appeals of Grand View Private Trust Co Ltd and another (Respondents) v Wong and others [2022] UKPC 47. In one of the most important trusts law judgments in recent years the Board unanimously held that the exercise of a power adding and excluding beneficiaries was void on the basis that it was inconsistent with the purpose for which the power was conferred. The judgment has important implications for the exercise of fiduciary powers more generally. Of the eleven barristers from English chambers who appeared in the Privy Council, eight were from Serle Court: Dakis Hagen KC, Emma Hargreaves and Stephanie Thompson (instructed by Baker & McKenzie (London) and ASW Law Limited (Bermuda)) acted for the appellants in the first appeal; Richard Wilson KC, James Weale and Charlotte Beynon (instructed by Stewarts, MJM Limited (Bermuda) and Baker McKenzie (Taipei)) acted for the appellant in the second appeal; Jonathan Adkin KC and Adil Mohamedbhai acted for the respondent in both appeals (instructed by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (London) and Conyers Dill & Pearman (Bermuda)).
The judgment can be found here.
Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and Anor v ESMS Global Limited and Ors:
Five members of Serle Court appeared in the recent case of Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and Anor v ESMS Global Limited and Ors [2022] EWHC 2491 (Comm), on both sides of an application to strike out the Claim and for reverse summary judgment.
The Claim arose from the sale of a business operated by Guy’s & St Thomas’s to ESMS Global Limited (‘ESMS’). The Second to Fifth Defendants were directors and shareholders, and the Sixth and Seventh Defendants shareholders only, of ESMS. The Business Purchase Agreement (‘BPA’) imposed an obligation on ESMS to establish an employee benefits trust (‘EBT’) to which 20% of its share capital was to be transferred. The EBT was duly settled and some 800,000 shares were transferred to it. It was common ground that the requirement for 20% of ESMS’s share capital to be held by the EBT had not been fulfilled.
The first limb of the Claim was an attempt (by way of amendment) to enforce the obligation to transfer the 20% of ESMS’s share capital directly against the Second and Third Defendant on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Miss Julia Dias KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) concluded that that aspect of the Claim failed at the first hurdle. First, the Second and Third Defendants had made no representations to the employees in their personal capacities; rather, all their statements had been made on behalf of their existing investment vehicle which had approached Guy’s about the purchase or, latterly, on behalf of ESMS. Secondly, there was no evidence to show that the Second or Third Defendants had made any specific assurances to employees orally about the establishment of an EBT or its mechanics nor that they had relied upon any such representations. The evidence of the only witness who was an employee at the relevant time was that she and the other employees had relied upon the advice of their own solicitors to ensure the necessary contractual arrangements for the EBT were put in place. The Judge further held that even if there were a representation, it was exhausted when the BPA, with its obligation to establish the EBT, was executed.
The second and third limbs rested on assertions that the Second and Third Defendants owed the employees a fiduciary duty in respect of the transfer of 20% of the shares in ESMS, which the Judge likewise held had no real prospect of success. She found there would be an inherent tension between the fiduciary duties the Second and Third Defendants undoubtedly owed ESMS as directors and any duty to the employees as counterparties to ESMS when the employees’ and ESMS’s interests might not coincide. Moreover, the Judge did not accept that the employees were in a position of particular vulnerability vis-à-vis the Second and Third Defendants who had, in any event, assumed no personal responsibility to them. Indeed, the employees at all times had a contractual entitlement to enforce ESMS’s obligations under the BPA.
Lance Ashworth KC and Gregor Hogan, instructed by Ben Gold at RPC, acted for the successful applicants, the Second to Seventh Defendants.
Patrick Talbot KC, Zahler Bryan and Max Marenbon, instructed by David Grinstead at Bingham Mansfield, acted for the Claimants.
View the judgment here.
Kea Investments Ltd v Watson:
Lord Justice Nugee handed down judgment yesterday in Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2022] EWHC 5 (Ch), rejecting a committed contemnor’s argument that his costs should be paid by the successful applicant. This judgment will be of interest to parties considering committal as a means to secure compliance with court orders as well as to those whose clients are in breach of those orders.
During a 4 week committal hearing Kea established a serious breach in relation to 5 of the 10 sub-counts tried before Lord Justice Nugee (Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch)). One of these 5 serious breaches was a contumacious breach which merited an immediate term of 4 months’ imprisonment (Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2796 (Ch)).
In yesterday’s judgment, Lord Justice Nugee rejected Mr Watson’s argument that Kea should pay part of his costs because it had not succeeded on all the counts included in the application. He held that Kea was the successful party for the purposes of CPR r44.2(2) as it had succeeded in establishing a sufficiently wilful breach of an order to require punishment by way of committal. It did not matter that the committal application was supported by a number of counts or sub-counts: it was still a single application with a single objective, namely Mr Watson’s committal. Under the general rule Kea was therefore entitled to its costs, subject to the court’s discretion to make a different order under CPR r44.2(2)(b).
The judgment contains a useful analysis of the appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion under CPR r.44.2(2)(b) where a party has not succeeded on all counts underlying an application. Although Kea had been unsuccessful in relation to some of the counts supporting its application, it had not acted unreasonably in pursuing those counts. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, Mr Watson was ordered to pay 50% of Kea’s costs on the indemnity basis.
The judgment is available here.
Elizabeth Jones QC, Justin Higgo QC, Gareth Tilley and Zahler Bryan (instructed by Toby Graham of Farrer & Co) acted for Kea.
Barclays Bank Plc v Shetty:
On 10 January 2022, Mr Justice Henshaw handed down judgment in Barclays Bank Plc v Shetty [2022] EWHC 19 (Comm) which is of interest to litigators facing adjournment applications and those seeking to enforce foreign judgments in England at common law.
The Claimant obtained judgment for $131 million against the Defendant in the DIFC Court in Dubai and then brought a claim to enforce that judgment in England. The Defendant applied to adjourn the summary judgment hearing on the basis that he was unable to obtain legal representation, saying that all of his assets were frozen pursuant to worldwide freezing orders granted in India. The court rejected the adjournment application and granted summary judgment on the Claimant’s claim.
Mr Justice Henshaw held that the same overriding principle of fairness that applies where an adjournment is sought for medical reasons also applies where a party seeks an adjournment to obtain legal representation. However, considerations of fairness do not entitle a defendant to fail to take steps that are obviously necessary as soon as the claim is commenced and then succeed on a late adjournment application.
The second part of the judgment contains a useful summary of the principles that apply on a claim to enforce a DIFC judgment in England (from [72]), including where a defendant seeks to rely on a counterclaim by way of set-off to resist summary judgment in enforcement proceedings.
The judgment is available here.
Adrian de Froment acted for the successful claimant (led in the DIFC proceedings by Zoe O’Sullivan KC), instructed by Payam Beheshti, David McDonald and Jon Malik of Simmons & Simmons LLP.
Navigator Equities Limited and Vladimir Chernukhin v Oleg Deripaska:
The Court of Appeal has today handed down an important judgment on committal applications in Navigator Equities Limited and Vladimir Chernukhin v Oleg Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799. The court set aside the order of Andrew Baker J (striking out the committal application against Mr Deripaska as an abuse of process) and has remitted the matter back to the Commercial Court for trial.
The judgment is available below.
James Weale (led by Jonathan Crow QC) represented the successful appellants, instructed by Ted Greeno and Greg Pantlin of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.
Key Points
The claimants brought committal proceedings against Mr Deripaska in respect of alleged breaches of his undertakings to the court in June 2018 relating to a portion of shares in EN+ Plc (Jersey), of which Mr Deripaska was the ultimate beneficial owner. The alleged breaches consisted of Mr Deripaska procuring (or, alternatively, failing to block) a vote of EN+ Plc in December 2018 in favour of “redomiciliation” from Jersey to a special administrative region of Russia. The Claimants alleged that the effect of such redomiciliation was to destroy the true value of the undertakings by cancelling the shares which formed their subject matter and replacing them with shares in a company located in Russia (where enforcement was extremely difficult if not impossible).
At first instance, Andrew Baker J struck out the committal application as an abuse of process on the basis the Claimants had brought committal proceedings in order to vex and harass Mr Deripaska and that the Claimants were motivated by personal animus.
However, the Court of Appeal held that Andrew Baker J’s judgment depended upon “fundamental misapprehensions” as to the factual basis of the alleged breaches as well as errors of law relating to the duties owed by an applicant bringing contempt proceedings and the relevance of an applicant’s subjective motives. The key points arising out of the court’s judgment are as follows.
The court (Carr LJ giving the lead judgment) held that there was an important distinction between “civil contempt” (i.e. committal proceedings arising out of breaches of orders/undertakings) and “criminal” / “public law” contempt (i.e. committal proceedings arising out of matters other than such breaches) (see paras 81 and 120). In the context of civil contempt:
Watson v Kea Investments:
Elizabeth Jones QC, Justin Higgo QC, Gareth Tilley, Paul Adams, Zahler Bryan, and Oliver Jones continue to act for Kea Investments in the ongoing litigation against Eric Watson, following the substantial judgment obtained against Mr Watson for deceit and breach of fiduciary duty in 2018. This year resulted in notable decisions on the circumstances in which a defendant can have resort to assets subject to a freezing or proprietary injunction when there is an unsatisfied judgment debt ([2020] EWHC 472 (Ch)), a judgment creditor’s right to be subrogated to the position of a bank that had used money held on trust for the judgment creditor to satisfy debts of its customer, the judgment debtor ([2020] EWHC 309 (Ch)) and, in a judgment reaffirming the risk taken by litigants who deliberately breach court orders, Mr Watson was committed to prison for 4 months for failing to disclose assets which were made available for his use ([2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch); [2020] EWHC 2796 (Ch)). Mr Watson’s application to stay the committal order was refused.
Please click here for the most recent judgment.
Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2020] SGCA 62:
Jonathan Adkin QC, Sophie Holcombe, and Jamie Randall act on behalf of the former Prime Minister of Georgia and his family as beneficiaries of a Singapore Trust in Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2020] SGCA 62. Claims have been commenced against Credit Suisse entities for losses arising from the mismanagement of an investment portfolio said to be worth over US$1bn. In July 2020 the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Credit Suisse Trust’s jurisdiction challenge, bringing an end to a long-running jurisdiction battle.
Click here to view the most recent judgment.
Kelly v Baker & Braid:
Lance Ashworth QC acts for the claimant in Kelly v Baker & Braid, a commercial court claim for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and/or breach of fiduciary duty leading to the sale of a group of companies at an undervalue of over £110m.
Grove Park Properties v Royal Bank of Scotland:
Lance Ashworth QC acts for the claimant in Grove Park Properties v Royal Bank of Scotland, which is due for a 10-day Commercial Court trial in January 2021, in which it is alleged that the defendant bank fraudulently amended a loan agreement to halve the term of the loan.
Gens v Goldenberg:
Hugh Norbury QC was instructed in Gens v Goldenberg, in which a battle between Russian investors in a Russian software business was briefly before the English High Court; the case was compromised before the interesting issue of jurisdiction was resolved.
Athene v Siddiqui, Cernich & Caldera:
Hugh Norbury QC has been working on the Bermudian element of the international battle waged by the private equity firm Apollo and its subsidiary Athene against their former partner /employees who have set up a competitive business (Athene v Siddiqui, Cernich & Caldera).
PPRS v Tecar:
In PPRS v Tecar Justin Higgo QC represents the defendant in multiple claims for breach of warranty arising out of the sale of a Romanian paper business.
Khalifeh v Blom Bank [2020] EWHC 2427(QB):
In Khalifeh v Blom Bank, Zahler Bryan is acting for the claimant who seeks the return of monies held in a Lebanese bank account and, in a high-profile decision earlier this year, successfully resisted the Lebanese bank’s jurisdiction challenge by establishing that the claimant was a consumer for the purposes of the European rules of jurisdiction ([2020] EWHC 2427(QB)).
Toucan Energy Holdings Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd:
Sophia Hurst represented the Claimants in Toucan Energy Holdings Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd in a five-week trial in the Commercial Court before Henshaw J. The US$60m dispute related to the sale, construction, and financing of 19 solar farms in the UK. Judgment is awaited.
SPI North Ltd v Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 3268 (Ch):
David Drake acted for the successful defendants in SPI North Ltd v Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 3268 (Ch), where the court had to consider the practical limits to the permission, frequently given to respondents to an amendment application, to make “consequential” amendments to their own responsive statement of case.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Social Security of Kuwait v Al-Rajaan and Ors [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm):
Jonathan Adkin QC and Charlotte Beynon act for the fourth defendant and Philip Marshall QC and Simon Hattan for the fifth defendant in Public Institution for Social Security of Kuwait v Al-Rajaan and Ors, one of the largest fraud claims ever heard in the Commercial Court. PIFSS alleges that the defendants are liable for over US$800m as a result of a large-scale fraud perpetrated by its former director general, Mr Al-Rajaan, in conjunction with the other defendants. The Serle Court contingent recently successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear the claims against their clients, with the Court directing that the claims should be heard in Switzerland, a decision which the Claimant has been given permission to appeal.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Shanghai Shipyard Co Ltd v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Ltd [2020] EWHC 803 (Comm):
Zoe O’Sullivan KC acted for the successful defendant in a US$170m guarantee claim brought by the Shanghai Shipyard, in which Robin Knowles J held that the guarantee given by it to the Shipyard in respect of the final installment of a shipbuilding contract was not a performance bond but gave rise only to secondary liability: Shanghai Shipyard v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Ltd [2020] EWHC 803 (Comm). She is also acted for the shipowner in its 2021 LMAA arbitration claim under the shipbuilding contract.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Taylor v Rhino Overseas Inc. [2020] EWCA Civ 353:
Lance Ashworth QC and Dan McCourt Fritz represented the Respondents in an appeal from the decision of Julia Dias QC as a High Court Judge [2019] EWHC 1951 (Ch). The Court of Appeal held that the Judge had been right to say that agency did not extend to allow the party to enter into the contract as agent for an undisclosed principal. Further, it upheld the Judge’s findings that the relevant agent was not, in any event, intended to be a party to the contract. Appeal was dismissed.
Please click here to view the judgment.
The Union Castle Steamship Company Ltd v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 547:
In The Union Castle Steamship Company Ltd v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 547 a case concerning the use of derivative contract rules to engineer tax deductible losses exceeding £100m, the Court of Appeal clarified the meaning of ‘loss’ and ‘arising from’ and the nature of the ‘fairly represents’ test in that context. The earlier decision of the Upper Tribunal also extended the application of transfer pricing rules to certain shareholder transactions (bonus share issues). Ruth Jordan acted for HMRC.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Ang v Reliantco [2019] 3 W.L.R. 161:
Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) and Zahler Bryan successfully argued that an investor in Bitcoin futures was a consumer for the purposes of the European rules of jurisdiction in Ang v Reliantco [2019] 3 W.L.R. 161.
Anglia Autoglow North America LLC v Anglia Autoflow Ltd:
Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) and Adrian de Froment appeared in the trial of the governing law of an agency contract to distribute poultry equipment in North America.
O’Brien v Moneycorp:
Lance Ashworth QC and Dan McCourt Fritz successfully represented the Claimant in O'Brien v Moneycorp in Commercial Court proceedings concerning the sale and purchase of the entire share capital of a foreign exchange trading business.
Yukos Finance B.V & ors v Stephen Lynch & Ors:
Jonathan Adkin QC successfully acted for one of the Defendants in Yukos Finance B.V & ors v Stephen Lynch & Ors in a five-week Commercial Court trial arising out of the Yukos Oil saga, in which allegations of corrupt participation in a rigged Russian auction were dismissed.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Magdeev v Tsvetkov & Ors [2020] EWHC 887 (Comm):
Jonathan Adkin QC and Adil Mohamedbhai acted for the successful defendants in Magdeev v Tsvetkov & Ors, a high-profile piece of civil fraud and commercial litigation involving various Russian individuals who had invested in a jewellery business in the UAE and Cyprus. The trial lasted three weeks. Cockerill J’s judgment ([2020] EWHC 887 (Comm)) contains a detailed analysis of the law on foreign illegality.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Mahdavi v Sterling Avram:
Daniel Lightman QC and Zahler Bryan acted for the successful claimants in Mahdavi v Sterling Avram, a case arising from a multi-million-pound property fraud by a consultant engaged by a solicitors' firm. The proceedings raised novel questions about (i) the legal protection available against property fraud where the fraudster operates within a solicitors' firm and (ii) the availability of relief under s 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 to solicitors who have paid away client monies in breach of trust.
Spokane v CMS:
Justin Higgo QC and Stephanie Thompson acted for a private equity fund in proceedings for breach of fiduciary duty against its former solicitor in Spokane v CMS, billed as one of the top 10 commercial court trials for 2019.
Public Institution for Social Security of Kuwait v Man Group PLC plus 37 other defendants:
Public Institution for Social Security of Kuwait v Man Group PLC plus 37 other defendants, involving Jonathan Adkin QC and Charlotte Beynon for the fourth defendant and Philip Marshall QC and Simon Hattan for the fifth defendant, is one of the largest fraud disputes ever heard in the commercial court. in its High Court claim, the Public Institution for Social Security alleges it is owed $847.7 million as a result of a large-scale fraud by its former director-general, Fahad Maziad Rajaan Al-Rajaan. With allegations of bribery and corruption spanning three decades. This case featured in The Lawyer's Top 20 Cases of 2020.
High Commissioner for Pakistan in the UK v National Westminster Bank Plc:
James Brightwell appeared for India and Jonathan McDonagh appeared for Prince Muffakham Jah in High Commissioner for Pakistan in the UK v National Westminister Bank Plc [2019] EWHC 2551 (Ch), where the Court ruled at trial that funds transferred in 1948 from a bank account held by the Government of Hyderabad had remained thereafter held on trust for the 7th Nizam of Hyderabad. Giles Richardson has also acted for the administrator of the Nizam's English estate.
Chernukhin v Danilina [2019] EWHC 173 (Comm):
John Machell QC, James Weale, and Stephanie Thompson acted for the successful Defendants following a 5-week trial before Teare J in Chernukhin v Deripaska [2019] EWHC 173 (Comm). The case involved a substantial property development in central Moscow and an alleged armed takeover by Oleg Deripaska.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Cobussen Principal Investment Holdings Ltd v Akbar & Ors [2020] EWHC 476 (QB):
James Weale acts for the claimant in an application for a charging order against a valuable property in London held through a trust structure to enforce a $20m judgment debt. Following a heavily contested application disclosure, James succeeded in obtaining an order for specific disclosure in respect of over 50 separate categories of documents.
In the course of his judgment handed down on 3 March 2020 [2020] EWHC 476 (QB), Edis J held that a solicitor’s professional duties required them to take possession, and carry out searches, of their clients documents themselves rather than to allow such searches to be conducted by their clients. The judgment also highlights the very limited weight which will be attached to witness statements from solicitors given on instructions.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding [2020] EWCA Civ 353:
Lance Ashworth QC and Dan McCourt Fritz acted for the successful Respondents in the Court of Appeal in Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding [2020] EWCA Civ 353, in a claim concerning agents for undisclosed principals. They are now instructed for the defendants in Taylor v Khodabaksh in which it is claimed that the original decision in Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding was obtained by fraud. That will come on for trial in 2022.
Please click here to view the most recent judgment.
Bowes v Panareti [2018]:
Prof. Jonathan Harris and Oliver Jones were instructed in Bowes v Panareti [2018] a jurisdiction dispute concerning alleged misselling of properties in Cyprus.
Punjab National Bank (PNB) v Srinivasan [2019] EWHC 3495 (Ch):
In Punjab National Bank (PNB) v Srinivasan [2019] EWHC 3495 (Ch), Matthew Morrison appeared for the Third Defendant in connection with an appeal from a judgment setting aside permission to serve the Defendants out of the jurisdiction. PNB's claims in respect of loans totaling US$37 m were based on personal guarantees and allegations that the loans had been produced by fraudulent misrepresentation. The decision to set aside permission on the grounds of non-disclosure of existing foreign proceedings, and the absence of viable claims in contract and deceit, was upheld on appeal.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Blackstar Advisors v Cheyne Capital [2019] EWCA Civ 2210:
Lance Ashworth QC and Matthew Morrison acted on behalf of the Claimant in Blackstar Advisors v Cheyne Capital [2019] EWCA Civ 2210 in a 10-day commercial court trial claiming €25 million of introducers' fees against a hedge fund.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Munkenbeck & Marshall v The Vinyl Factory [2019] EWHC 3255 (TCC):
In Munkenbeck & Marshall v The Vinyl Factory [2019] EWHC 3255 (TCC) Justin Higgo, assisted by Mark Wraith, successfully defended unjust enrichment claims commenced by an architect in respect of the redevelopment of the Marshall Street Baths in Westminister.
Please click here for the judgment.
Schillings International LLP v Scott [2019] EWHC 1335 (Ch):
James Mather, instructed by Cooke, Young & Keidan’s Sinead O’Callaghan, successfully obtained the dismissal of an injunction application brought by Schillings against a former partner of the firm and an indemnity costs order against Schillings, which was ordered to pay the full amount of the respondent’s costs on summary assessment. The Judge held that the application was in breach of a binding arbitration clause and reaffirmed the principle that costs will be awarded on the indemnity basis against a party who brings court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement. Schillings was represented by Jeremy Callman, instructed by Fox Williams.
Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd v Singh [2018] EWHC 1715 (Ch)):
In Estera Trust v Singh Daniel Lightman QC and Emma Hargreaves respresented Jasminder Singh, the chief executive of a prominent hotel chain, the principle respondent to the section 994 petition presented by his brother and a connected trust company. In 2018, Fancourt J ordered the purchase of their shares on a discounted basis ([2019] 1 BCLC 171). Following the second trial in 2019, Fancourt J fixed the purchase price of the shares and an award of quasi-interest ([2019] EWHC 873 (Ch)).
Please click here to view the judgment.
Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited v Conway Others:
Philip Marshall QC and Matthew Morrison represented the Independent Directors of Carlyle Capital Corporation defending liquidator claims seeking US$1bn for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and wrongful trading. The case involved a number of complex legal issues relating to directors' duties, wrongful trading, statutory remedies, causation and quantum not previously considered in Guernsey.
Glenn v Watson [2018] EWCH 2016 (Ch):
Elizabeth Jones QC, Justin Higgo, Gareth Tilley, Paul Adams, Zahler Bryan and Oliver Jones continue to act for Sir Owen Glenn and his company, Kea Investments Limited in their dispute with New Zealand businessman Eric Watson, following the judgment in Glenn v Watson [2018] EWCH 2016 (Ch) in which Kea suceeded in establishing its entitlement to set aside agreements relating to a joint venture etween Sir Owen and Eric Watson on the baiss of (i) fraudulent misrepresentations made on behalf of Mr Watson, (ii) breach of Mr Watson's fiduciary duty to Kea. The court gave an important decision on equitable interest, awarding interest of 6.5% compounded annually, at [2018] EWCH 2016 (Ch). Litigation continues as Kea seeks to enforce its judgment againts Mr Watson's assets in the UK and internationally.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Accident Exchange Ltd & Anor v McLean & Ors [2018] EWHC 1533 (Comm):
In Accident Exchange v McLean & Ors, Hugh Norbury QC, Dan McCourt Fritz, and Charlotte Beynon continue to act for Keoghs, one of three firms of solicitors joined to Accident Exchange's £130m conspiracy claim relating to Autofocus' "perjury on an industrial scale". Following successful applications by Keoghs and the other firms for security for costs, the claim settled shortly before trial.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Chaggar v. Chaggar [2018] EWHC 1203 (QB):
In Chaggar v. Chaggar [2018] EWHC 1203 (QB), Richard Wilson QC and James Weale successfully respresented the Claimant following a week-long trial which raised issues of economic duress and the legality of an agreement by a company to purchase its own shares.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Aurora Developments Ltd v Delta Holdings Ltd [2018] EWHC 1047 (Ch):
Rupert Reed QC acted in Aurora Developments Ltd v Delta Holdings Ltd [2018] EWHC 1047 (Ch); [2018] EWHC 1836 (Ch) in obtaining summary judgment, after a three-day hearing, on complex fraud and commercial claims brought by two syndicates of European investors against the promoters of the North Kensington Gate development valued at £70m. The project can now proceed with the creation of over 200 new homes in the regeneration of Old Oak.
Please click here to view the judgment
Instant Access Properties v Rosser [2018] EWHC 756 (Ch):
Lance Ashworth QC and Matthew Morrison secured judgment secured judgment for the First Defendant , Mr Rosser in Instant Access Properties v Rosser successfully defeating a fraudulent trading and breach of fiduciary duty claim of £35 million.
Please click here to view the judgment.
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1176:
Philip Jones QC acted for the Kazakh bank BTA in its claim to recover in excess of $4bn from which it has been defrauded by Mukhtar Ablyazov. He was involved in a trial that sought to recover assets from Mukhtar Ablyazov's son.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Grupa Ozarow v Clean Energy Trading CL:
Professor Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) and Sophie Holcombe 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.
Please click here for the judgment.
First Peninsula Trustees Limited v Picard & others:
Alan Boyle QC and Giles Richardson act in proceedings in the BVI and Bermuda for trustees holding the proceeds of commission payments made by Madoff feeder funds to their investments adviser in defending claims by the liquidators of the funds.
Barker v Baxendale Walker [2018] 1 WLR 1905:
The appeal in Barker v Baxendale Walker, a professional negligence action concerning a fiscally ineffective employee benefit trust was heard by the Court of Appeal in October. The judgment is likely to provide clarity on the meaning of section 28(4) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. Dakis Hagen QC was among the counsel who appeared for the appellant and was assisted by Oliver Jones and Eleni Dinenis.
Please click here for the judgment.
Her Majesty’s Solicitor General v Dodd [2014] FSR 27:
Michael Edenborough KC acted for the Defendants on the application for committal for contempt of court. In a design right and registered design right infringement case (which was successful [2014] ECCC 34), the claimant's principal witnesses had given false evidence repeatedly about another, but eventually not pursued, cause of action. The principal deponent was sent to prison for 6 months, and the other for 2 months.
Constantin Medien [2017] EWHC 131 (Comm):
Philip Marshall QC and James Mather acted for Constantin Medien in a claim against Bayerische Landesbank for US$130m arising out of the sale in 2006 of the bank's stake in Formula One under the influence of a bribe paid to its senior official.
Please click here for the judgment.
SerleShare:
'Judgment in PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov and others [2020] EWHC 2437(Comm)' article by Zoe O'Sullivan QC
The Global Legal Post:
Serle Court launches 'off-the-shelf' arbitration service to bypass Covid-19 court delays, 27th April 2020
Welcome to SerleShare
SerleShare is an up-to-date digital marketing initiative that came to life in July 2020 when our Business Development and... Read More
A stellar year for Serle Court in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025 guide
We are thrilled to announce another outstanding year of rankings and testimonials in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025. Serle Court... Read More
“the most commercial of the chancery sets”
Welcome to SerleShare
SerleShare is an up-to-date digital marketing initiative that came to life in July 2020 when our Business Development and... Read More
A stellar year for Serle Court in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025 guide
We are thrilled to announce another outstanding year of rankings and testimonials in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025. Serle Court... Read More
