"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: International and Offshore
In Attorney General v Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 2988 (Ch), Will Henderson acted for the Attorney General. This involved ‘The National Fund’ which was settled with £500,000 of cash and securities in 1928 on trust to accumulate income and profits until the date fixed by the trustee as being the date when, either alone or together with other funds then available for the purpose, the fund was sufficient to discharge the National Debt. The fund was then to be transferred to the National Debt Commissioners to be applied by them in reduction of the National Debt. The Fund is now worth about £0.5 billion. Zacaroli J held that there was a valid charitable trust and that the court had jurisdiction to order a cy-pres scheme. He adjourned the question of what (if any) scheme to order.
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
Rupert Reed KC and James Weale acted for the Claimant bank in a US$30m fraud claim against various defendants in proceedings in the DIFC in SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd v Renish Petroleum FZE (CFI 054/2018). Having successfully obtained summary judgment against the first two defendants, the trial against the third defendant has been listed in December 2021. A committal application against the first two defendants took place in January 2021. Please click here to view the judgment.
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
In Re Global-IP Cayman, Daniel Lightman QC, representing the majority shareholder in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, successfully argued before Parker J that (i) the case was an exception to the usual rule that the petitioning creditor should be awarded its costs of a winding-up petition (unrep, 21 July 2020) and (ii) the majority shareholder’s appointees to the company’s board had not been removed from office because on a proper interpretation of the company’s articles the relevant board meeting had been inquorate (unrep, 31 December 2020).
Read MoreArea 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 More
