"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: 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 MoreArea of Law: Company
James Mather and Mark Wraith appeared for the successful appellant in Malik v Hussain [2023] EWCA Civ 2, in which the Court of Appeal held that where there was a term requiring contracts to be exchanged within seven days of payment of the deposit by a successful bidder that only required the bidder to exchange within seven days of being presented with a contract in a form capable of being present with a contract in a form capable of being executed and exchanged. The issue arose in the context of a long-running partnership and company dispute concerning the ownership of a prominent restaurant business in Manchester. In previous trials James and Mark successfully established the disputed existence of the partnership and that the claimant was entitled to require an open market sale of the relevant assets rather than a buy-out at a valuation determined by the court.
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has handed down its advice in Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The Bahamas and ors [2022] UKPC 51. The decision establishes that a constitutional challenge may be made in an action for habeas corpus and that separate legal proceedings are not required.
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
On 30 November, Mr Justice Foxton sitting in the Commercial Court, KBD handed down judgment in the matter of Ticehurst & Ors v Harbour Fund II LP & Ors [2022] EWHC 3053 (Comm). Elizabeth Jones KC, instructed by Harcus Parker led Daniel Saoul KC (4 New Square), and Richard Hoyle and Lorraine Aboagye (Essex Court) on behalf of Harbour.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
The Privy Council has today handed down judgment allowing the appeals of Dr Winston Wong, Riley Wong and Tony Wang in the conjoined appeals of Grand View Private Trust Co Ltd and another (Respondents) v Wong and others [2022] UKPC 47. In one of the most important trusts law judgments in recent years the Board unanimously held that the exercise of a power adding and excluding beneficiaries was void on the basis that it was inconsistent with the purpose for which the power was conferred. The judgment has important implications for the exercise of fiduciary powers more generally. Of the eleven barristers from English chambers who appeared in the Privy Council, eight were from Serle Court: Dakis Hagen KC, Emma Hargreaves and Stephanie Thompson (instructed by Baker & McKenzie (London) and ASW Law Limited (Bermuda)) acted for the appellants in the first appeal; Richard Wilson KC, James Weale and Charlotte Beynon (instructed by Stewarts, MJM Limited (Bermuda) and Baker McKenzie (Taipei)) acted for the appellant in the second appeal; Jonathan Adkin KC and Adil Mohamedbhai acted for the respondent in both appeals (instructed by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (London) and Conyers Dill & Pearman (Bermuda)).
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
Five members of Serle Court appeared in the recent case of Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and Anor v ESMS Global Limited and Ors [2022] EWHC 2491 (Comm), on both sides of an application to strike out the Claim and for reverse summary judgment.
Read MoreArea of Law: Insolvency
On 11 November 2022 Mr Justice Zacaroli handed down judgment (available here) in respect of applications for directions by the office-holders of 10 failed energy suppliers.
Read MoreArea of Law: UAE & DIFC Litigation
Zoe O’Sullivan KC and Gregor Hogan acted in the DIFC Court for the successful respondent in Al Buhaira National Insurance Co v Horizon Energy LLC CFI 098/2021 (9 November 2022), obtaining the dismissal of Al Buhaira’s application for an anti-suit injunction preventing Horizon from pursuing parallel proceedings in Sharjah. This important judgment contains valuable consideration of the role of comity when the DIFC Court is called upon to address conflicts of jurisdiction between the different courts of the UAE.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
The Privy Council today handed down a landmark judgment in trusts law in the cases of ITG Ltd v Fort Trustees Ltd and Equity Trust (Jersey) Ltd v Halabi, holding that a trustee’s right of indemnity gives them a proprietary interest in the trust assets which survives cessation of trusteeship, but, by a 4 to 3 majority and allowing the appeals, that, if the trust assets are insufficient to satisfy the claims of all trustees, the liens of the trustees rank pari passu among themselves rather than on a first in time basis.
Read MoreArea of Law: Insolvency
Lance Ashworth KC and Wilson Leung, instructed by Stephenson Harwood LLP, acted for the successful respondent in Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch).
Read MoreArea of Law: Insolvency
The High Court has found that myriad claims against the former directors of BHS fall to be struck out in the context of the high-value, complex litigation being brought by the joint liquidators of the BHS companies against the former directors of those companies.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
In The Executor of HRH the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh v HM Attorney General and Guardian News and Media [2022] EWCA Civ 1081 the Court of Appeal held that the President of the Family Division had been entitled to conclude that an application to have the will of His Royal Highness Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh sealed should be heard in private, and that he had been entitled to make that decision without inviting submissions from representatives of the media.
Read MoreArea of Law: Insolvency
People facing bankruptcy, and their advisers, will gain more clarity on the long-term legal risks involved thanks to an appeal judgment handed down this morning. In Kennedy v The Official Receiver [2022] EWHC 1973 (Ch), Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) clarified the Court’s approach to determining the length of a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (“BRO”) under S 281A and Schedule 4A of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
In a judgment handed down this morning, Deputy (former Chief) Master Marsh dismissed an application for summary judgment made by Dr Rohit Kulkarni, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who is a minority shareholder in the company which owns St Joseph’s Hospital in Newport, Gwent. The summary judgment application, which has been issued before the defendants had filed defences, was based in part on the compulsory share transfer provisions of a shareholders’ agreement between Dr Kulkarni and the majority shareholder, Gwent Holdings Limited. Dr Kulkarni claimed that Gwent had committed irremediable breaches of the shareholders’ agreement, thus triggering the compulsory transfer provisions. In his judgment in Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Limited and St Joseph's Independent Hospital Limited [2022] EWHC 1368 (Ch), Deputy Master Marsh refused to order the rectification of the company’s register of members under section 125 of the Companies Act 2006 with retrospective effect. He went on to refuse to grant relief entitling Dr Kulkarni to acquire Gwent’s shares compulsorily, noting at [92] that “the issue of remediability is unlikely to be suitable for determination in most cases on a summary basis because, as in this case, the court does not have all the evidence it needs to make a determination about the proper construction of the contract and whether on the specific facts the breach was remediable”.
Read MoreArea of Law: Charities
On 27 May 2022, The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to the London Borough of Merton Council from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Nuffield Health v Merton [2022] Ch 1.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC and Stephanie Wickenden (assisted by Stefano Braschi at trial and Anneliese Mondschein on appeal) acted for easyGroup in a case where for the first time a defendant was held liable for using a non-orange Sign in relation to non-travel services. The appeal on the scope of the declaratory relief and the issue of damage to complete the tort of passing-off was successful.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC leading outside junior counsel acted for the successful appellants on whether certain advertisements and offers for sale on amazon.com targeted the UK and the EU. The result meant that certain advertisements on the amazon.com site were held to constitute use of the infringing signs within the UK / EU27. Further, sales from the amazon.com site to customers located in the UK / EU27 also constituted actionable use. This result has far reaching consequences on how internet businesses who have customers located in several countries need to conduct their trade in those various jurisdictions. The Supreme Court heard Amazon’s appeal in November 2023.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Thomas Elias and John Eldridge appeared against each other in an IP licensing case concerning literary works posted on a website.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC acted pro bono publico in this case that dealt with the hitherto unresolved point about the assignment of the legal and equitable interest in an invention, prior to it being encapsulated in a patent application.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC and Stephanie Wickenden acted in this last appeal from the EUIPO to the General Court that was filed just before the UK left the EU on 31 December 2020 and that was signed by a UK advocate. It concerned the issue of targeted use in the context of a non-use allegation.
Read MoreArea of Law: EU Law
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-508/19 Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific) and Others v Commission: partial annulment the Commission decision finding non-taxation of royalty income in Gibraltar constituted unlawful State Aid.
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
Minority shareholders in plcs will welcome a judgment handed down this morning which has broadened their options. For the first time in this jurisdiction, the Court has ordered the winding up of a listed plc on the just and equitable ground under section 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for loss of substratum. In a reserved judgment following a two-week trial in February 2022, in Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch) the High Court clarified and modernised English law in line with more recent Australian authorities. HH Judge Cawson QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) held that the identification of a company’s purpose or substratum is a matter of equity between the company – even a listed plc – and its shareholders, rather than a formalistic exercise in construing the corporate constitution. The purpose is lost, potentially triggering winding-up by the Court, not only where carrying it out is “practically impossible” for the company, but also where it has been, or will be, abandoned. Judge Cawson QC applied the dictum of Jenkins J in Re Eastern Telegraph Co., Ltd [1947] 2 All ER 104 that “if a shareholder has invested his money in the shares of the company on the footing that it is going to carry out some particular object, he cannot be forced against his will by the votes of his fellow shareholders to continue to adventure his money on some quite different project or speculation”.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
On 31 January, judgment was handed down by Michael Green J in Reeves v Drew & Ors [2022] EWHC 159 (Ch), one of the most valuable probate claims ever determined in this jurisdiction. The Court held that the wealthy but illiterate testator had not known or approved of the contents of a will which left 80% of his estate to a daughter (the claimant), and inexplicably omitted a son and two grandchildren of whom he was very fond. The Court held that the claimant had likely engineered the will-making process so that she would get the bulk of the estate. The will was prepared by a solicitor with whom the claimant was already familiar, and who was prepared to create a false trail of evidence in the will file.
Read MoreArea of Law: Civil Fraud
On 26 January, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in The Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan & others [2022] EWCA Civ 29. The Court dismissed the Claimant’s appeal, which was heard over three days in December 2021, and confirmed that the English court has no jurisdiction to hear bribery and money-laundering claims against a number of Swiss-domiciled individuals and entities.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
In 1928 £500,000, referred to as the "National Fund", was settled on trust to accumulate income and profits until the date fixed by the trustees as being the date when, either alone or together with other funds then available for the purpose, it was sufficient to discharge the National Debt. At that time, the Fund was to be transferred to the National Debt Commissioners to be applied by them in reduction of the National Debt. A special Act had been passed to permit such indefinite accumulations for that purpose. Since 1928 the Fund has had many large and small additional gifts made to it.
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
Lord Justice Nugee handed down judgment yesterday in Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2022] EWHC 5 (Ch), rejecting a committed contemnor’s argument that his costs should be paid by the successful applicant. This judgment will be of interest to parties considering committal as a means to secure compliance with court orders as well as to those whose clients are in breach of those orders.
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
On 10 January 2022, Mr Justice Henshaw handed down judgment in Barclays Bank Plc v Shetty [2022] EWHC 19 (Comm) which is of interest to litigators facing adjournment applications and those seeking to enforce foreign judgments in England at common law.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Stephanie Wickenden acted for the successful Claimant on the Defendant’s application to strike out the claim so far as it sought pan-EU27 relief, arguing that the UK court had no jurisdiction to grant EU-wide remedies after 1 January 2021. While permission to appeal was granted by the Chancellor, Sir Julian Flaux, the Defendants eventually abandoned its appeal before it was heard and paid the Claimant’s costs.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC appeared in the appeal to the General Court on whether it was permissible to re-orientate figurative marks to increase the likelihood of confusion.
Read MoreArea of Law: UAE & DIFC Litigation
Zoe O’Sullivan KC and Gregor Hogan acted for the successful claimants in the first Dubai International Financial Centre Court case to establish definitively that the DIFC Court has jurisdiction to grant freezing and asset disclosure orders in support of foreign proceedings: Lateef v Liela [ARB 17 2020], 13 December 2021.
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
The Court of Appeal has today handed down an important judgment on committal applications in Navigator Equities Limited and Vladimir Chernukhin v Oleg Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799. The court set aside the order of Andrew Baker J (striking out the committal application against Mr Deripaska as an abuse of process) and has remitted the matter back to the Commercial Court for trial.
Read MoreArea of Law: Company
The Court of Appeal has handed down a second judgment in the case of Loveridge v Loveridge [2021] EWCA Civ 1697. Lance Ashworth QC and Dan McCourt Fritz (instructed by Stephen Rome and Georgia Morris at Thursfields Solicitors) were again successful. The judgment contains an interesting discussion about the proper treatment of informal loan finance within family companies, the outer limits of the unfair prejudice jurisdiction under ss.994-996 of the Companies Act 2006, and on the costs consequences of abortive committal applications.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
In this case, Thomas Braithwaite blended IP and company law when he appeared in the IPEC for the defendants who were accused of breach of a trade mark licence. A summary judgment application was defeated on the grounds that the claimant arguably did not have good title to the trade mark, having acquired it by way of an unlawful return of capital and disguised distribution by a company to its shareholder.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Stephanie Wickenden acted as sole counsel for the successful appellants in the Court of Appeal that created new precedent in respect of solicitors’ conflicts. The Appellants/Defendants’ solicitors previously acted for another defendant in a case brought by the same claimant where the facts had some overlap, and which was resolved by a confidential mediation. The Court found that the principles to be applied were not the same as those in former clients, but that there was a potential for a conflict of duties owing to the confidential information received through the previous mediation. On the facts, the solicitors had not breached any duty as they had implemented an appropriate information barrier.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC appeared in the appeal to the High Court on the validity of the Babybel red colour trade mark.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough KC successfully maintained the registration of a 3D trade mark for a glass bottle in the shape of a human skull. This bottle and that of a competitor are shown in the banner at the top of this section.
Read MoreArea of Law: Intellectual Property
Michael Edenborough QC appeared in the appeal to the General Court on whether a comma could save an application from offending against article 7(1)(c).
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
An award under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 can include a lump sum to enable the claimant to discharge all or part of a success fee payable under a CFA.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private Client Trusts and Probate
Andrew Francis acted for the Applicant in an application to modify a restrictive covenant in Ealing, West London, and succeeded on payment of compensation to the objectors. The decision is significant in terms of:
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
Elizabeth Jones QC, Justin Higgo QC, Gareth Tilley, Paul Adams, Zahler Bryan, and Oliver Jones continue to act for Kea Investments in the ongoing litigation against Eric Watson, following the substantial judgment obtained against Mr Watson for deceit and breach of fiduciary duty in 2018. This year resulted in notable decisions on the circumstances in which a defendant can have resort to assets subject to a freezing or proprietary injunction when there is an unsatisfied judgment debt ([2020] EWHC 472 (Ch)), a judgment creditor’s right to be subrogated to the position of a bank that had used money held on trust for the judgment creditor to satisfy debts of its customer, the judgment debtor ([2020] EWHC 309 (Ch)) and, in a judgment reaffirming the risk taken by litigants who deliberately breach court orders, Mr Watson was committed to prison for 4 months for failing to disclose assets which were made available for his use ([2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch); [2020] EWHC 2796 (Ch)). Mr Watson’s application to stay the committal order was refused.
Read MoreArea of Law: International and Offshore
Dakis Hagen QC (assisted by Emma Hargreaves) acts for the Plaintiffs and Jonathan Adkin QC (assisted by Adil Mohamedbhai) acts for the Defendant trustee in Wong & Anor v Grand View Private Trust Company Ltd, a claim to recover substantial trust property transferred to a trustee of a purpose trust. The Plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining summary judgment at first instance on the ground that powers of addition and exclusion cannot be exercised in a manner which alters or destroys the substratum of the trust ([2019] SC (Bda) 37 Com (5 June 2019)), but this was overturned by the Bermuda Court of Appeal in April 2020 (Civil Appeal No. 5A of 2019, 20 April 2020). Richard Wilson QC (assisted by James Weale) acts for Tony Wang, an intervenor in the appeal. The Plaintiffs and Tony Wang have each been granted leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Read More
