"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”
Area of Law: Civil Fraud
Philip Marshall QC and Oliver Jones continue to represent Emmerson International Corporation and several other defendants and claimants by way of counterclaim and ancillary claim in proceedings in the BVI in a dispute worth circa US$1bn between two prominent Russian businessmen and associated parties concerning a joint venture in relation to power generation and distribution assets in Russia (Renova Industries Ltd & Ors v Emmerson International Corporation & Ors). The proceedings involve contractual claims and claims for breach of trust and dishonest assistance, deceit, conspiracy to injure and other economic torts. There were numerous interlocutory hearings and appeals in 2020, including a successful appeal by Emmerson against the lower court’s decision to set aside certain amendments to its claims (BVIHCMAP 2019/0017), applications made by Emmerson for anti-suit injunctions in relation to proceedings brought in Russia (currently subject to appeal) and Cyprus, and an application by the Renova parties for an order that Emmerson be required to share legal representation with certain other parties notwithstanding that there is a conflict of interests between them. Judgment of the ECCA is also pending on Emmerson’s appeal against the lower court’s decision to impose a confidentiality club in relation to disclosure ordered to be given ancillary to a freezing injunction obtained by Emmerson, which will be the first appellate decision on the subject in the BVI.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In AF v SF (Dynastic Trust: Needs-based awards) [2020] 1 F.L.R. 121, Dakis Hagen QC and James Weale represented the successful respondent husband before Moor J in complex matrimonial proceedings concerning a wealthy aristocratic family. The case raised a novel question concerning the application to family trusts of the principle established in Blight v Brewster [2012] 1 WLR 2841 (in which James had also acted).
Read MoreArea of Law: Partnership and LLP
Lance Ashworth QC and Dan McCourt Fritz acted for the successful Appellants in Loveridge v. Loveridge [2020] EWCA Civ 1104 overturning injunctions in an unfair prejudice petition and in partnership proceedings which had granted the running of the companies and partnerships to a minority shareholder and partner. The Court of Appeal effectively put the majority back in charge. Both the petition and the partnership proceedings continue and will come on for trial in 2022.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
In a decision of general importance for all civil litigators, the Court of Appeal confirmed the extent of the personal liability of a litigation friend for adverse costs. The litigation friend was unsuccessful in the litigation, but was not liable for the successful parties’ costs. The Court was exercising a discretion and had to have regard to the particular circumstances. A claimant’s litigation friend should ordinarily bear the costs of successful defendants. However, lack of success would not of itself generally make it just to make an adverse costs order against a defendant's litigation friend. Factors which might justify such an order included bad faith, improper or unreasonable behaviour and prospect of personal benefit. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from Morgan J’s decision.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
James Weale acted for the successful applicant in a committal application against the managing partner of an international law firm in Schwartz v VGV (UK) Ltd, Vivanco and Ors [2020] EWHC 2227 (Ch). Following a 5-day trial, Roth J found that Clemente Vivanco had been complicit in forging trust documents and, in breach of a court order, had failed to produce an original electronic version of one such document. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the Court imposed an immediate custodial sentence of 4 months [2020] EWHC 3500 (Ch).
Read MoreMatthew Morrison successfully resisted an application to set aside an order permitting service out of the jurisdiction on Dubai Islamic Bank (DIB) in proceedings before the Commercial Court which seek mandatory injunctive relief aimed at securing an end to Mr Ridley’s ongoing imprisonment in Dubai ([2020] EWHC 1213 (Comm)). Mr Ridley was imprisoned under Dubai’s Law 37 of 2009 which allows certain types of judgment creditors to apply for the imprisonment of debtors for up to twenty years. Mr Ridley claims that DIB’s ability to seek an order under Law 37 was compromised by a settlement agreement governed by English law with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of England. Matthew also successfully opposed DIB’s attempts to obtain an order allowing the costs awarded to Mr Ridley to be set off against monies said to be due to DIB under an earlier Commercial Court judgment: [2020] EWHC 2088 (Comm).
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
James Weale acted for the successful claimant in a dispute over the ownership of company which held a valuable Chelsea property in Moutreuil v Andreewitch [2020] EWHC 2068 (Fam). Following a 4-day trial, Cobb J held that the transfer of shares by Mr Andreewitch to his partner in order to insulate the property against creditors took effect as an outright gift. In related committal proceedings, which also formed the subject of hearing in the Court of Appeal [2020] 4 W.L.R. 54, James succeeded in an application to commit Mr Andreewitch for contempt of court [2020] 2 F.L.R. 812 for which he received a suspended sentence of 6 months [2020] EWHC 2068 (Fam).
Read MoreArea of Law: Charities
In Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General [2020] UKSC 33, the Claimant charitable company had agreed to make a grant of US$360m to another English charity conditionally on the approval of the court. The payment of the grant required the approval of the members under section 217 Companies Act 2006. The Supreme Court held that the members owed fiduciary duties and that the court had an exceptional jurisdiction to order them how to vote, even if they had not and were not threatening to vote in breach of duty. The majority of the Supreme Court also held that by reason of the High Court having, on the directors’ surrender of discretion, held that it was in the best interests of the charity for the grant to be paid; the members, who were parties to that decision were bound by it and, absent a substantial change in circumstances were bound to vote in favour of it, even if, but for the judicial decision, they could reasonably have voted against it. Will Henderson acted for the charitable company.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
In Cowan v Foreman, Richard Wilson QC and Gregor Hogan acted for the trustee-executors in this high-profile Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 litigation, which was brought to a successful settlement in Spring 2020.
Read More
