"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: Partnership and LLP
Please click here to view the judgment.
Read MoreArea of Law: Regulatory and Disciplinary
David Blayney QC and Sophie Holcombe are instructed by PGMBM in relation to the easyJet data breach involving around 9 million of their customers, which was announced by easyJet last month.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
James Weale appeared for the successful claimant in an application to commit the respondent for systematic breaches of a freezing order in the context of a dispute as to the ownership of shares. The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the payment of solicitors fees related to company expenditure on the basis that, among other matters, the same solicitors could not have acted for the company as well as the respondent in a personal capacity in view of the conflict of interest which would arise.
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
In SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd v Renish Petroleum FZE, Rupert Reed QC and James Weale act for the claimant bank in respect of an alleged $30 million fraud. Having successful resisted a jurisdiction challenge brought by one of the defendants before the joint Judicial Committee (Cassation No.5 of 2018) a final hearing in the DIFC is to be listed in 2020.
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
Grand Valley General Trading LLC v GGICO Sunteck Ltd DIFC CFI 044/2018, DIFC CA 007/2019 concerns a joint venture dispute in relation to a property development in the Burj Khalifa area in on-shore Dubai. Rupert Reed QC and Sophia Hurst have obtained judgments from the DIFC courts on issues as diverse as whether a non-party 50% joint venture partner had standing to apply to set aside a default judgment for the dissolution of the joint venture company; the test of desirability under RDC 20.7 O for joining a new party; and whether the DIFC Courts had jurisdiction over the dispute, including the power to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration under Article 13 of the Arbitration Law.
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
In IMMS v BankMed SAL [2019] DIFC CA 013, Rupert Reed QC and Gregor hogan acted on the appeal of an interim refusal to grant an injunction freezing assets to the value of USD 755 million. Although the Court declined to find a sufficient risk of dissipation, it is likely to confirm the putative jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts to grant interim relief in support of foreign court and arbitral proceedings.
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
Rupert Reed QC and Zoe O'Sullivan QC represented the successful claimant in YYY Ltd v ZZZ Ltd [2017] DIFC ARB 005, a landmark decision of the DIFC Court refusing to recognise a decision of the highest Dubai national court on public policy grounds. The DIFC Court held that the Dubai Court of Cassation had breached its obligations under the New York Convention by applying its own law to determine the validity of the clause, rather than the law chosen by the parties. This reaffirms the pro-arbitration bias of the common law courts, and will have importance for arbitration practitioners beyond the DIFC.
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
In Larmag v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2019] DIFC CA 010, the DIFC Court of Appeal significantly extended the party jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts under Article 5(A)(1)(a) of the Judical Authority Law, ordering disclosure by a UAE bank on the basis that, in being 'recognised' by the Dubai Financial Services Authority in order to trade on NASDAQ Dubai, the Bank was 'authorised' to carry on financial services in the DIFC and therefore a 'Licensed DIFC Establishment'. Rupert Reed QC and Sophia Hurst act for First Abu Dhabi Bank.
Read MoreArea of Law: Property
Christopher Stoner QC appeared in Horsford v Horsford, a 10-day Chancery Division trial, acting for a son who had been sued by his mother for £2.5m for her share in the family farming partnership. The son counterclaimed on the grounds of proprietary estoppel alleging he had given his life over to the farm following a lifetime of assurances it would one day be his.
Read More
