"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: Property
Mr Justice Richards' judgment in Prescott Place Freeholders Limited & Others v Batin & Donovan [2023] EHWC 435 is essential reading for those interested in tenants’ rights of first refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Michael Walsh acted for the successful Claimants.
Read MoreArea of Law: Civil Fraud
The Singapore International Commercial Court (International Judge Bergin) has today handed down judgment following the trial of the dispute between Bidzina Ivanishvili and other plaintiffs and Credit Suisse Trust Limited. The claim stemmed from the long-running fraud committed by Patrice Lescaudron, an employee of Credit Suisse Bank in Geneva.
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
Justin Higgo KC acted for the successful Claimant in Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Ltd v Hadley & Ors [2023] EWHC 1184 (Ch), both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Read MoreArea of Law: Property
In Healey v Fraine & Others [2023] EWCA Civ 549, the Court of Appeal has decided that Parliament did not intend to change the law of adverse possession in the Land Registration Act 2002 so that occupiers of land could be in possession with the consent of the owner and also be in adverse possession at the same time for the purposes of paragraph 5 of schedule 6 of the Act. The Court decided that the meaning of adverse possession had not changed.
Read MoreArea of Law: Civil Fraud
The Court of Appeal handed down judgment on Tuesday 25th April 2023 in Floreat Investment Management Limited v Churchill & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 440, in which it reversed a finding of dishonesty made at first instance and entered judgment in favour of the appellants. The decision also provides useful guidance as to the appropriate content and structure of trial closing submissions.
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
The Court of Appeal handed down judgment on Wednesday, 19th April 2023, in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 in which it reiterated that the default rule is that applicants for freezing orders, including office holders, must provide unlimited cross undertakings in damages and that a departure from the default rule must be justified.
Read MoreArea of Law: Civil Fraud
Mrs Justice Cockerill has recently handed down judgment in PJSC National Bank Trust v Mints [2023] EWHC 118 (Comm) in which she considered the effect of the Russian sanctions on various litigation issues. In short, she held that sanctioned claimants can sue for damages and judgment can be entered in their favour without the regulations being contravened; and payment of costs to and by sanctioned persons (i.e. adverse and favourable) and security for costs to be provided by sanctioned persons are licensable activities.
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
On 18th January 2023, Fancourt J handed down judgment in the ongoing unfair prejudice petition Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited v. THG plc [2023] EWHC 65 (Ch), after the Court of Appeal had in 2021 struck out complaints that Zedra’s shareholding had been diluted [2021] EWCA Civ 904.
Read MoreArea of Law: Civil Fraud
In Frain (aka Reeves) v Reeves [2023] EWHC 73 (Ch), Elizabeth Jones KC and Paul Adams successfully opposed the grant of permission to bring committal proceedings in relation to alleged false statements made in pleadings and witness statements containing a statement of truth, and in disclosure statements. Significant aspects of the judgment include (a) confirmation at [26]-[32] that where it can be seen at the permission stage that more than one inference may reasonably be drawn in relation to evidence advanced in support of a committal application, the claimant will be unable to establish a strong prima facie case to the criminal standard at trial, so that permission should not be granted, (b) confirmation at [37]-[39] of the importance of the applicant’s case on a committal application being clearly and fully set out within the four corners of the application and (c) the Judge’s decision at [42] that a judgment made at the trial of underlying proceedings out of which a committal application arises is not admissible in the committal application against a person who was a witness in but not a party to the original proceedings.
Read More
