"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: Charities
Jonathan Fowles acted for the Attorney General in The Keepers and Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon, within the Town of Harrow-on-the-Hill v Attorney General [2024] EWHC 2857 (Ch). The case concerned Harrow School’s claim for a cy-près scheme to expand and update its objects originally set out in a Royal Charter of 1572. In his judgment, the Hon. Mr Justice Rajah rejected the claim. The judgment is important for its discussion of the cy-près jurisdiction and as the first authority on certain provisions of the Public Schools Act 1868 which was passed to reform the affairs of 7 leading public schools, including Harrow, following the report of the Clarendon Commission.
Read MoreArea of Law: Insolvency
Section 221(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that “any unregistered company may be wound up under this Act”. By section 220, ““unregistered company” includes any association and any company, with the exception of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 in any part of the United Kingdom.” Does the use of the word “includes” mean that entities other than associations and companies can be wound up under section 221(1)?
Read MoreArea of Law: Charities
Jonathan Fowles acted for the successful Respondents in Daji v Mohammed [2024] EWCA 1247, led by Mark Sefton KC of Falcon Chambers.
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
Thomas Elias (instructed by Andrew Head, Bryan Shacklady and David Young of Forsters LLP and led by John Wardell KC of Wilberforce Chambers) acted on behalf of the successful Defendants in this 3 week, multi-million pound Commercial Court fraud claim brought by the insolvency administrator of Wirecard.
Read MoreArea of Law: Private International Law
Thomas Fletcher acted on behalf of the successful Defendants in these appeals concerning, among other things, principles of private international law in the context of administration of estates and succession (instructed by James Hennah and Tom Cassels of Linklaters and led by Brian Kennelly KC black and Paul Luckhurst of Blackstone Chambers).
Read MoreArea of Law: Private International Law
On 18 September 2024, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30. The judgment of Lord Leggatt (with whom Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Burrows and Lady Rose agreed) sets out the reasons for the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal previously announced after the expedited hearing in mid-April. The case concerns proceedings brought in the Russian courts in breach of a clause contained in bonds providing for arbitration in Paris. Unicredit sought a final injunction in the English court to restrain the continuance of those proceedings. The Supreme Court determined two principal issues:
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
The High Court has delivered a landmark judgment in favour of the Republic of Mozambique, awarding damages and an indemnity for future losses totalling over $2 billion against the Privinvest Group in relation to events which have become known as the “tuna bonds” or “hidden debts” scandal. The proceedings concerned 3 sovereign guarantees purportedly granted by Mozambique to secure funding for maritime protection and tuna fishing supply contracts. The Republic of Mozambique contended that these guarantees had been procured by the bribery, amongst others, of the Minister of Finance, Mr Chang. Following a 13 week trial in the Commercial Court, the Hon. Mr Justice Knowles CBE held that payments made by or on behalf of the Privinvest Group and Mr Safa to or for the benefit of Mr Chang were bribes.
Read MoreArea of Law: UAE & DIFC Litigation
Permission to appeal was granted in China State Construction Engineering Corporation (Middle East) (L.L.C.) v Zaya Living Real Estate Development L.L.C and others [2023] DIFC ENF 316 (10 July 2024) this month, leaving the Court of Appeal of the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) to decide who can be forced to answer questions about a company’s means of satisfying an unpaid judgment debt. The appeal relates to the scope of RDC 50.2(2), which states that the court may require an “officer” of a corporate body to attend court to answer questions about its means or other matters about which information is needed to enforce a judgment or order against a corporate judgment debtor. The appeal is therefore expected to have implications for the interpretation of the identical English provision of CPR 71.2(b). The DIFC Court of Appeal will review the decision of the DIFC Court of First Instance that a partner in a UAE-incorporated LLC holding 99% of its share capital – who has also held herself out as its ‘CEO’ – was not an “officer” under RDC 50.2(2). The appeal will therefore determine the meaning of “officer” in that RDC 50.2(2), joining a line of authorities on its English equivalents including Société Générale du Commerce et De L’Industrie en France v Johann Maria Farina & Co[1904] 1 KB 794 and Vitol SA v Capri Marine Ltd [2009] Bus. L.R. 271 (QBD). Creditors seeking to enforce judgments against companies will no doubt be hoping that the result of this appeal, expected to be heard later this year, improves their overall chances. Rupert Reed KC and Max Marenbon represented China State in its application for permission to appeal in the DIFC Court of Appeal, instructed by Daniel Xu, Gillian Flannighan and Hala Haddad of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP.
Read MoreArea of Law: Commercial Litigation
The High Court gave guidance on the procedure for setting aside default judgment last week in Gilbert & BG Projects v Broadoak Private Finance [2024] EWHC 2046 (Comm). Andrew Hochhauser KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, confirmed that a draft Defence should be filed well in advance of the hearing. He did so in a costs judgment following his recent decision in Gilbert & BG Projects v Broadoak Private Finance (unreported, 28 June 2024) to affirm a substantial default judgment in part, rejecting an application by the Defendant to set it aside completely (the “Set-Aside Application”). The substantive proceedings concerned claims for repayment of various loans made by the Claimants to the Defendant for onward lending to a third party. The Claimants accepted that the defence to repayment of certain loans should be allowed to go to trial. However, they maintained that the Default Judgment should be preserved in relation to four loans, with a cumulative value of approximately 58% by value of the Default Judgment (the “Opposed Loans”).
Read More
