Cases


"impressive silks and juniors are praised for their strength in depth"
Chambers UK
Serle Court “offers a variety of skill sets that others can’t provide, and houses some of the biggest names at the Bar”
Chambers UK

Crafts Group LLC v M/S Indeutsch International, [2023] FSR 23 and 24

Area of Law: Intellectual Property

Michael Edenborough KC acted for Crafts on this important procedureal case about whether post IP Completion Day amendments can relate back to an action started before then. Permission to appeal to the CoA has been granted.

Read More
Marks and Spencer Plc v Aldi Stores Ltd, [2023] FSR 17

Area of Law: Intellectual Property

Thomas Elias acted for Aldi in this registered design case concerning the Christmas illuminated snow-globe Gin Bottle. Permission to appeal to the CoA has been granted, and Michael Edenborough KC will lead Thomas in that appeal.

Read More
Entertainment One UK Ltd v Cong Ty Tnhh Tu Cong Nghe Va Dich Vu Sconnect Vietnam, [2023] ECDR 10, [2023] 1 WLR 233

Area of Law: Intellectual Property

Michael Edenborough KC, leading Gwilym Harbottle of Hogarth Chambers and John Eldridge of Serle Court, acted for the successful claimant in securing service of the originating documents by email. This case provided clear guidance of what previously was an unclear procedure.

Read More
Mohammed v Daji

Area of Law: Charities

Jonathan Fowles, led by Mark Sefton KC of Falcon Chambers and instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP, acted for the successful claimants in Mohammed v Daji [2023] EWHC 2761 (Ch). The successful claim was to establish that a very substantial site at Abbey Mills in East London is held by the claimants on a charitable trust associated with a particular Sunni Muslim community in the London region. The judgment of HHJ Cadwallader, sitting as a Chancery Judge, is of significance for trusts and charities lawyers. In particular, the judgment sets out and applies the law relating to trusts established by charity appeals to a complicated factual history, and further develops the principle of delegated authority to declare charitable trusts in Attorney-General v Mathieson  [1907] 2 Ch 383.

Read More
easyGroup v Nuclei (and others) [2023] EWCA Civ 124

Area of Law: Intellectual Property

Stephanie Wickenden (led by outside leading counsel) represented easyGroup in the Court of Appeal (having also appeared at trial). The appeal gave significant guidance on non-use, confusion and the defence of honest concurrent use.

Read More
DNA Nudge Limited v Ventura Capital GP Limited

Area of Law: Company

On 9 October 2023 the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in DnaNudge Ltd v Ventura Capital GP Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1142.

Read More
easyGroup v Easy Life

Area of Law: Intellectual Property

Stephanie Wickenden and Stefano Braschi acted for easyGroup against the band Easy Life that was using imagery redolent of the airline. The band undertook to change its name. The case was widely reported in the popular press.

Read More
Freeholders Limited v Batin & Donovan

Area of Law: Property

The High Court (Richards J) has handed down its second judgment in Prescott Place Freeholders Limited v Batin & Donovan [2023] EWHC 1445 (Ch), in which Michael Walsh acted for the successful Claimants. This judgment deals with the consequential matters arising from the findings of fact at trial (see [2023] EHWC 435) (the “Trial Judgment”).

Read More
M L Technology v B.E.A.T. SAM

Area of Law: Intellectual Property

Thomas Elias acted for the claimants in this cross-jurisdictional trade mark dispute arising in the context of a sale of shares in one of the defendant companies.  At an interim hearing, the claimants resisted applications for a stay and for security for costs, and obtained an unless order against the defendants.

Read More
Prescott Place Freeholders Limited & Others v Batin & Donovan [2023] EHWC 435

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 More
Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse Trust Limited [2023] SGCH(I) 9

Area 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 More
Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Ltd v Hadley & Ors

Area 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 More
Healey v Fraine & Others

Area 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 More
Floreat Investment Management Limited v Churchill & Ors

Area 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 More
Hunt v Ubhi

Area 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 More
PJSC National Bank Trust v Mints

Area 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 More
Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited v. THG plc

Area 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 More
Frain (aka Reeves) v Reeves

Area 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