"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: Private International Law
On 18 September 2024, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30. The judgment of Lord Leggatt (with whom Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Burrows and Lady Rose agreed) sets out the reasons for the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal previously announced after the expedited hearing in mid-April. The case concerns proceedings brought in the Russian courts in breach of a clause contained in bonds providing for arbitration in Paris. Unicredit sought a final injunction in the English court to restrain the continuance of those proceedings. The Supreme Court determined two principal issues:
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
The High Court has delivered a landmark judgment in favour of the Republic of Mozambique, awarding damages and an indemnity for future losses totalling over $2 billion against the Privinvest Group in relation to events which have become known as the “tuna bonds” or “hidden debts” scandal. The proceedings concerned 3 sovereign guarantees purportedly granted by Mozambique to secure funding for maritime protection and tuna fishing supply contracts. The Republic of Mozambique contended that these guarantees had been procured by the bribery, amongst others, of the Minister of Finance, Mr Chang. Following a 13 week trial in the Commercial Court, the Hon. Mr Justice Knowles CBE held that payments made by or on behalf of the Privinvest Group and Mr Safa to or for the benefit of Mr Chang were bribes.
Read MoreArea of Law: UAE & DIFC Litigation
Permission to appeal was granted in China State Construction Engineering Corporation (Middle East) (L.L.C.) v Zaya Living Real Estate Development L.L.C and others [2023] DIFC ENF 316 (10 July 2024) this month, leaving the Court of Appeal of the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) to decide who can be forced to answer questions about a company’s means of satisfying an unpaid judgment debt. The appeal relates to the scope of RDC 50.2(2), which states that the court may require an “officer” of a corporate body to attend court to answer questions about its means or other matters about which information is needed to enforce a judgment or order against a corporate judgment debtor. The appeal is therefore expected to have implications for the interpretation of the identical English provision of CPR 71.2(b). The DIFC Court of Appeal will review the decision of the DIFC Court of First Instance that a partner in a UAE-incorporated LLC holding 99% of its share capital – who has also held herself out as its ‘CEO’ – was not an “officer” under RDC 50.2(2). The appeal will therefore determine the meaning of “officer” in that RDC 50.2(2), joining a line of authorities on its English equivalents including Société Générale du Commerce et De L’Industrie en France v Johann Maria Farina & Co[1904] 1 KB 794 and Vitol SA v Capri Marine Ltd [2009] Bus. L.R. 271 (QBD). Creditors seeking to enforce judgments against companies will no doubt be hoping that the result of this appeal, expected to be heard later this year, improves their overall chances. Rupert Reed KC and Max Marenbon represented China State in its application for permission to appeal in the DIFC Court of Appeal, instructed by Daniel Xu, Gillian Flannighan and Hala Haddad of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP.
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
The High Court gave guidance on the procedure for setting aside default judgment last week in Gilbert & BG Projects v Broadoak Private Finance [2024] EWHC 2046 (Comm). Andrew Hochhauser KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, confirmed that a draft Defence should be filed well in advance of the hearing. He did so in a costs judgment following his recent decision in Gilbert & BG Projects v Broadoak Private Finance (unreported, 28 June 2024) to affirm a substantial default judgment in part, rejecting an application by the Defendant to set it aside completely (the “Set-Aside Application”). The substantive proceedings concerned claims for repayment of various loans made by the Claimants to the Defendant for onward lending to a third party. The Claimants accepted that the defence to repayment of certain loans should be allowed to go to trial. However, they maintained that the Default Judgment should be preserved in relation to four loans, with a cumulative value of approximately 58% by value of the Default Judgment (the “Opposed Loans”).
Read MoreIn a judgment handed down this morning, Mrs Justice Cockerill has given important guidance on the effect and scope of a submission to the jurisdiction by a defendant in proceedings.
Read MoreArea of Law: Group Litigation
The Court of Appeal has given guidance on the circumstances in which a group of claimants can together issue one claim form.
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
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.
Read MoreArea of Law: Civil Fraud
Dan McCourt Fritz KC and Andrew Gurr act in successful committal application
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC and Thomas St Quintin (Hogarth Chambers) (instructed by Brandsmiths) acted for the successful Respondent in the Supreme Court, which dismissed Amazon’s appeal on whether its amazon.com site had targeted customers in the UK. This now becomes the leading judgment on targeting and will provide helpful, detailed guidance on the matter.
Read More
