"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: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC leading Adil Mohamedbhai and Sophie Holcombe in an unsuccessful attempt to get a pro bono costs award from the Appointed Person.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Philip Jones KC successfully acted for HMRC in this appeal that concerned the treatment of unregistered trade marks in an assignment that formed part of a tax avoidance scheme.
Read MoreArea of Law: Property
An important decision which, in upholding an aspect of the decision of Hildyard J, determined for the first time that a riparian owner cannot moor a vessel alongside his riparian land simply by virtue of riparian ownership of the river bank. Also concerned the construction and application of the British Waterways Acts. Christopher Stoner QC acted for the Defendant (instructed by Shoosmiths)
Read MoreLand Adjudication proceedings on the issue of whether the Port of London Authority could establish paper title to a part of the River Thames opposite Kew Gardens.
Read MoreArea of Law: Civil Fraud
Michael Edenborough KC and David Drake are two of the four counsel acting for the SoS in this claim to recovery the monopolistic profits made by Servier based upon its invalid patent for perindopril (an ACE inhibitor used to combat high blood pressure). Part of the claim involves an allegation that SErvier improperly obtained a European Patent by deceiving the EPO as to the allegedly novelty of the invention. There is satellite litigation before the CJEU on the competition aspects and various issues concerning the disclosure being purported prevented by the French criminal code.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC was instructed by AIPPI UK to intervene in the Supreme Court case that ruled on the issue of whether legal advice privilege should be extended to tax accountants when advising on tax matters. AIPPI was concerned to ensure that no adverse consequences inadvertently arose for the protection of advice given by patent and trade mark attorneys.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
Daniel Lightman QC represented Mrs Prest, the successful appellant, in a landmark Supreme Court decision on the circumstances in which the court can pierce the corporate veil to make orders requiring the transfer to a former wife of assets and property held by offshore companies connected to the husband.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In UL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735, the leading authority in the Family Courts in respect of freezing injunction principles and without notice applications, Dakis Hagen QC represented the husband before Mostyn J.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Elizabeth Jones KC acted for EMI in relation to a dispute as to whether EMI could licence third parties to make Pink Floyd’s recorded music available on a track by track basis, or whether they were only entitled to licence complete albums.
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In Granatino v Radmacher [2011] 1 AC 534, Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) represented the successful respondent in a landmark appeal heard by nine judges in the Supreme Court which concerned the weight to be given to a pre-nuptial agreement in ancillary relief proceedings.
Read MoreArea of Law: Property
HXRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney (Re Cloth Hall Court) [2010] (High Court, Leeds) (Injunction and damages for interference with rights of light).
Read MoreArea of Law: Property
Successful claim by the Crown Estate to adverse possession of the bed of the River Severn, including a determination of the constitutional ability of the Crown to acquire title by adverse possession. Upheld on appeal.
Read MoreArea of Law: Property
Whether valid notice served pursuant to section 17 of the Landlord & Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 and whether the original tenant’s financial support for the occupying tenant disentitled it from relying on the covenant of indemnity implied by section 24 of the Land Registration Act 1925. Christopher Stoner QC acted for the Respondents (Instructed by Eversheds LLP).
Read MoreArea of Law: Matrimonial Finance: Trusts and Company law
In Charman v Charman [2005] 1 FLR 1246, the leading authority on the treatment of a discretionary trust as a “resource” within the meaning of section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Alan Boyle QC and Dakis Hagen QC represented the husband in the Court of Appeal and Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) also acted for the husband on the wider international elements.
Read More
