"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 Client Trusts and Probate
In Hagen v Hagen [2017], Dakis Hagen QC and Charlotte Beynon acted for the respondent husband in the substantial and much publicised divorce involving the family behind Viking River Cruises, in financial remedy proceedings in the High Court. Alan Boyle QC, Nicholas Harrison and Jonathan McDonagh acted for the daughter and Emma Hargreaves appeared unled for another respondent in these proceedings. Jonathan Adkin QC and Adil Mohamedbhai had appeared for a corporate party at an earlier stage of the litigation. The case settled confidentially mid-trial.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
In A v A; A v Line Trust Corporation Corporation & Ors (2017/CACIV/01) (Gibraltrar), Dakis Hagen QC, Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) and James Weale represented the applicant and Richard Wilson QC represented the respondent husband in one of highest value divorce cases in recent years. The dispute involved two complex overseas trust structures and generated six claims in three different jurisdictions (England, Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands). The proceedings in Gibraltar concerned the court’s jurisdiction to determine matters relating to the validity of actions taken by the trustee of a Gibraltar trust when those issues had been raised in English matrimonial proceedings and gave rise to complex issues of private international law.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
Emma Hargreaves acted as Chancery counsel for the husband in financial remedy proceedings before Moor J, involving an offshore foundation and issues of "nuptial settlements", in which the wife alleged the husband was worth over £95 million but was awarded around £2 million following trial. Jonathan McDonagh acted for the Husband's father.
Read MoreArea of Law: Chancery
Professor Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) and Sophie Holcombe acted for the defendant company trading in Carbon Credits in successfully discharging an ex parte injunction obtained in support of Polish proceedings on the basis, inter alia, that the relevant EU jurisdiction rules were arguably infringed.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC acted for Simba in this successful appeal to the General Court of the European Union, which decided that the black outline of the Rubik's Cube was permissible as a Community Trade Mark. Subsequently overturned on appeal where Simba was represented by different counsel.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Thomas Elias acted for The United Kingdom Ukelele Orchestra (‘TUKUO’). The trial of the dispute between the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain (‘UOGB’) and TUKUO. UOGB succeeded in their passing off action, but TUKUO succeeded on their counterclaim in invalidating UOGB’s trade mark and in resisting UOGB’s claim for infringement of copyright in an alleged dramatic work consisting of the format of their concerts.
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
Alan Boyle QC and Giles Richardson act in proceedings in the BVI and Bermuda for trustees holding the proceeds of commission payments made by Madoff feeder funds to their investments adviser in defending claims by the liquidators of the funds.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
The appeal in Barker v Baxendale Walker, a professional negligence action concerning a fiscally ineffective employee benefit trust was heard by the Court of Appeal in October. The judgment is likely to provide clarity on the meaning of section 28(4) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. Dakis Hagen QC was among the counsel who appeared for the appellant and was assisted by Oliver Jones and Eleni Dinenis.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In C v C, Daniel Lightman QC represented the son in a successful application to set aside an ex parte order obtained by the husband in matrimonial proceedings which had the effect of restraining his wife and son from performing their duties as directors of two family-owned companies. In a landmark judgment ([2016] Fam Law 20), Roberts J held that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to make such an order under either section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or the court's inherent jurisdiction.
Read More
