"impressive silks and juniors are praised for their strength in depth"
Serle Court “offers a variety of skill sets that others can’t provide, and houses some of the biggest names at the Bar”
David Blayney KC and Sophie Holcombe, instructed by Pinsent Masons, successfully obtained reverse summary judgment in relation to various claims dating back to 2005 brought by the liquidators of three venture capital trust companies against the investment manager and individual members of the investment manager. The Court held that the claimants were unable to show that they had real prospects of establishing that the limitation period was extended by section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 (deliberate concealment) in circumstances where the claimants had failed to articulate an arguable case on the elements that needed to be established by a claimant relying on section 32 (paragraph 96 of the Judgment), either in their evidence or in their response to a Part 18 request before the hearing. These necessary elements included the identification of allegedly concealed facts, and the claimants' own lack of knowledge of, and/or inability to discover, such facts, before they were placed in voluntary liquidation. The claimants alleged that the principle of "wrongdoer control" made it arguable that no knowledge could be attributed to them at the relevant time, but the court dismissed this argument because the claimants had directors at the time who were not said to have been wrongdoers, through whom knowledge and discoverability could be attributed (paragraphs 115-118 of the Judgment). The Judgment includes a useful review of the authorities relating to the operation of section 32(1)(b) in circumstances where it is alleged that wrongdoers were in control of a claimant company. It also demonstrates the valuable role that can be played by a Part 18 request in advance of a summary judgment hearing.
Read MoreArea of Law: Property
The Court of Appeal handed down judgments in the much anticipated BSA appeals in Triathlon Homes LLP v SVDP & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 846 and Adriatic v Long Leaseholders of Hippersley Point [2025] EWCA Civ 856. Michael Walsh KC acted for the Secretary of State in both cases.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Judgment was handed down in the High Court appeal of Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd v Bargain Busting Ltd [2025] EWHC 1629 (Ch). Michael Edenborough KC acted for the successful respondent in an appeal from the UK IPO to the High Court. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Hearing Officer’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a protectable goodwill that could be used to prevent the registration of the CRYSTAL BAR mark. This appeal forms part of the multi-faceted dispute between Bargain Busting and SKE over the CRYSTAL trade marks in the billion pound vape / e-cigarette UK market.
Read MoreIn Korek Telecom Co LLC v Iraq Telecom Ltd (DIFCA 16/2024, 16 June 2025), the DIFC Court of Appeal has recognised the existence of the Foreign Act of State doctrine in DIFC law, but found on the facts that it did not apply so as to justify the setting aside of an ICC arbitration award. The Court also held that new Article 8A of the amended Applications Law (which came into effect on 21 November 2024) does not apply retrospectively. Zoe O'Sullivan KC acted for Korek (instructed by Boies Schiller).
Read MoreJustin Higgo KC and Andrew Gurr, instructed by Andrew Dunn and Emily Higgins of CANDEY, acted for the successful defendants in Re Fifty Asset Management Ltd.
Read MoreThe UT dismissed Walkers Snack Foods Limited’s appeal against the FTT’s decision that Sensations Poppadoms are “similar to [a crisp]” and “made from the potato”.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court has handed down judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 in which it unanimously dismissed URS’s appeal on all four grounds. Michael Walsh KC acted for the Secretary of State who intervened on Ground 2. This is the first time the Supreme Court has considered claims arising under the Building Safety Act 2022.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Lorenz v Caruana [2025] EWCA Civ 606, overturning the decision to grant summary judgment against the Claimant’s claim that half of his brother’s residuary estate was held on secret trust for the Claimant and his two siblings. The Defendant argued that the contemporaneous documents established that the deceased’s intention was to give his estate outright to her in order to avoid inheritance tax and that the claim therefore had no prospect of success. The Court of Appeal noted, however, that the contemporaneous documents did not speak with one voice and accepted that an intention to avoid inheritance tax does not inevitably mean that the deceased cannot have intended to impose an enforceable obligation on the Defendant. The Court considered that there was a real prospect of further evidence being available at trial that would support the Claimant’s case, particularly in light of the limited evidence given by the Defendant as to the instructions given to her by the Deceased. The decision is a reminder that it is only in rare cases that summary judgment will be granted where there are disputed issues of fact, particularly where what lies at the heart of the claim is the content of oral discussions.
Read MoreArea of Law: Insolvency
By a judgment handed down on 19 February 2025, the UK Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the Invest Bank v El-Husseini litigation concerning the scope of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Read More
