In C v C, in matrimonial proceedings the husband obtained an ex parte order in the Family Court which had the effect of restraining his wife and son from performing their duties as directors of two family-owned companies,  Representing the son, Daniel successfully applied to set aside the ex parte injunction with indemnity costs, persuading Roberts J, in a landmark judgment ([2016] Fam Law 20), to hold that established company law principles apply in the Family Court, that previous Family Court decisions (notably of Thorpe J in Poon v Poon [1994] 2 FLR 857) that all disputes within the family should be litigated in the Family Court should not be followed, and that accordingly the Family Court had no jurisdiction under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief either (i) against company directors who are not the spouses in the matrimonial proceedings or (ii) in respect of assets of the companies of which the spouses are the sole shareholders.  Please click here to view the judgment. 

Munday v Hilburn [2015] BPIR 684: represented the appellants in their successful appeal against the striking out of their fraud claim as an abuse of process, the lower court having struck out their claim on the basis that when the claim was issued the cause of action was vested not in Mr Munday but in his trustee in bankruptcy. In allowing their appeal, Nugee J held that an abuse of process requires not merely that the claimant ought to have known that he did not have a cause of action but that he had actual knowledge of the lack of title to sue. Please click here to view the jugdment.

Mahdavi v Sterling Avram and Healys LLP: represent the claimant, the victim of a fraudulent phantom sale of a property, in claims against both the purported vendor’s and the purchaser’s solicitors for breach of duty in failing to prevent a fraudulent transfer of a substantial sum, transferred by one solicitors’ firm to another for the purpose of the purchase of a property but which were misappropriated by being paid out to third parties by a fraudster working as a consultant at the purported purchaser’s law firm.  Norris J ([2014 EWHC 4103 (Ch)) directed that the purported vendor’s solicitors pay over to the claimant sums recovered through the banking system.

HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Apex Global Management Ltd [2015] 2 All ER 206, [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 1183, [2014] 1 WLR 4495, The Times, December 8, 2014: represented the respondents in the Supreme Court successfully opposing an appeal by a Saudi Arabian Prince against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal ([2014] EWCA Civ 1106) of his appeals against an unless order and the entry of judgment against him for US$ 7.7m. The Supreme Court stated that the standard form of disclosure by a party requires personal signing by that party. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from New Law Journal.

Sukhoruchkin v van Bekestein [2014] EWCA Civ 399 (Court of Appeal) and [2013] EWHC 1993 (Ch) (Morgan J): the High Court and Court of Appeal considered whether a worldwide freezing injunction should be set aside because the claim might be barred by reason of the no reflective loss principle. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Fi Call Ltd [2014] EWHC 779 (Ch): successfully opposed an application for security for costs before Newey J on the basis that the costs associated with a section 994 petition and a cross-petition could not satisfactorily be disentangled. Please click here to view the judgment.

Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd [2014] BCC 286: before Vos J, successfully opposed an application by two Saudi Arabian Princes to set aside the grant of permission to serve them out of the jurisdiction. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from JIBF. 

Re Fi Call Ltd [2013] 1 WLR 2993, [2013] EMLR 29: the Court of Appeal decided that interlocutory hearings in a section 994 petition should not be heard in private to protect the reputations of two Saudi Arabian Princes against whom allegations of serious misconduct had been made.

In Petrodel Resources v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415, [2013] 3 WLR 1, [2013] 4 All ER 673, [2014] 1 BCLC 30, [2013] BCC 571, [2013] 2 FLR 732, [2013] 3 FCR 210, [2013] WTLR 1249, [2013] Fam Law 953, The Times, June 24, 2013, 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. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Trusts & Trustees.

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry [2013] 1 AC 182, [2012] 3 WLR 379, [2012] 4 All ER 795, [2012] 5 Costs LO 668, [2013] 1 Cr App R 6, The Times, August 17, 2012 (Supreme Court); [2011] 1 WLR 2817, [2011] 4 All ER 470, [2011] CP Rep 36, [2011] 3 Costs LO 292, [2011] Lloyd's Rep FC 387, The Times, June 10, 2011 (Court of Appeal); [2010] 1 WLR 2761, [2011] 1 Costs LR 22, The Times, July 22, 2010 (Mitting J): represented Mr Perry in his successful appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided that there is no jurisdiction to make a civil recovery order or a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of property located outside the jurisdiction. Please click here for the judgment, and here for an article from New Law Journal.

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry [2013] 1 AC 182, [2012] 3 WLR 379, [2012] 4 All ER 795, [2012] 5 Costs LO 668, [2013] 1 Cr App R 6, The Times, August 17, 2012 (Supreme Court); [2011] 1 WLR 542, [2010] CP Rep 43, [2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 606, The Times, October 13, 2010 (Court of Appeal); [2010] 1 WLR 910 (Foskett J): represented Mr Perry in his succesful appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided that there is no jurisdiction under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for SOCA to give information notices to persons outside the jurisdiction.

Ovlas Trading SA v Strand (London) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3236 (Ch): appeared for the claimants before Sir Donald Rattee in their successful opposition to an application for security for costs made by the defendants to a fraud claim. Please click here to view the judgment.

Fraser v Oystertec plc [2006] 1 BCLC 491, [2005] BPIR 381: represented the claimants in their successful application that an interim third party debt order be made final notwithstanding the existence of competing creditors. Please click here to view the judgment.

Oystertec v Davidson [2005] BPIR 401: represented the claimant in a case where Patten J considered the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the defendant for failing to comply with the asset disclosure requirements of a freezing order. Please click here to view the judgment. 

Uzor v Chinye [2004] EWHC 827 (Ch): represented the defendant, who, after setting aside an ex parte worldwide freezing order, recovered damages under the cross-undertaking in damages. Please click here to view the judgment.

Verjee v CIBC Bank and Trust Co (Channel Islands) Ltd [2001] Lloyd's Law Rep (Banking) 279, [2001] BPIR 1149: represented the creditor in his successful opposition to an application to set aside a statutory demand.  In his judgment Hart J considered the scope of the duty owed by a bank to consult its customer before honouring a fraudulently-presented cheque. Please click here to view the judgment. 

Docklock Ltd v Christo & Co Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 45: represented the successful appellant in the Court of Appeal, which held that the rule in Clayton’s Case (the first in, first out rule) operates in the case of a running account between a property management company and its client.  Accordingly, payments out of the account were automatically appropriated to sums standing to the credit of the account at the time and were not available to set off against other sums received in a later period.  Neither a subsequent Family Division order nor a related settlement agreement between the companies should be construed so as retrospectively to undo that prior appropriation.  Please click here to read the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71: represent Mr Chandler, one of the former directors of the BHS group of companies, in proceedings brought by the liquidators for alleged breach of duty and wrongful trading. In an important judgment ([2024] 1 BCLC 71) allowing Mr Chandler’s appeal against the decision of Deputy ICC Judge Schaffer (Re BHS Group Ltd [2022] 2 BCLC 145; [2022] BCC 457), Edwin Johnson J reaffirmed that causation and quantum are essential elements of a cause of action under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as they are for breach of duty claims under section 212, and that it is essential for liquidators to plead these elements. Further, given the scale of the claims and complexity of the BHS litigation, Edwin Johnson J held, it is not acceptable for a case on the date of knowledge for the purposes of a claim under section 214 to be left “at large” on the pleadings. A specific date or dates must be identified – and it is “essential that the relevant pleading identifies what the case is on causation and quantum for each of the alternative dates relied upon as the Knowledge Date”. Please click here to read the judgment of Edwin Johnson J in In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71 and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Charlotte Beynon in the New Law Journal considering this judgment.  Edwin Johnson J’s judgment ordering the liquidators to pay Mr Chandler’s costs, to be subject to an immediate detailed assessment as well as an interim payment of 60%, is reported at [2023] Costs LR 69. 

Re Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd [2023] EWHC 2451 (Ch): represented the two shareholder respondents to a section 994 petition presented against them by a former shareholder, who had been removed from the company’s register of members on the basis of a resolution that he was a “bad leaver”.  The respondents applied to strike out the petition on the grounds that the petitioner lacked standing, as he was no longer a member of the company.  In a landmark judgment, the court made novel use of its case management powers to order a split trial to determine at the first trial whether the register of members should be rectified and whether the petition was well founded.  Please click here to read the judgment.

Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Limited & St Joseph’s Independent Hospital Limited [2022] EWHC 1368 (Ch): representing Gwent Holdings Limited, successfully opposed 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.   In a judgment handed down in June 2022, the Court refused either to order the rectification of the company’s register of members under section 125 of the Companies Act 2006 with retrospective effect or 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”. Please click here to read the judgment.

Taylor Goodchild Ltd v Taylor [2022] 2 BCLC 27; [2022] BCC 1155: represented the appellant in its successful appeal against the striking out of its claim for damages for breach of fiduciary duty against a former shareholder and director who had also been the respondent to a section 994 petition.  The Court of Appeal considered, for the first time, how the guidelines laid down in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2008] 1 WLR 748 (which require a party which intends to bring an additional claim in subsequent proceedings against the same defendant to draw that fact to the attention of the court in the first set of proceedings) should be applied in the context of unfair prejudice petitions.  In allowing a law firm’s appeal against the decision of Snowden J to strike out as an abuse of process claims it brought against its former director and 50% shareholder who had been found in an earlier unfair prejudice petition to have acted in breach of fiduciary duty, the Court of Appeal queried whether the decision in Aldi had in mind “the rather special position relating to section 994 petitions”.  Please click here to view the judgment.

King v Stiefel [2022] 1 All ER (Comm) 990; The Times, June 4, 2021: represented a firm of solicitors and four of its lawyers, five of ten defendants to a £58 million claim in unlawful means conspiracy brought in the Commercial Court by the claimants to previous (discontinued) litigation against the same defendants, their solicitors and QC.  Successfully applied to strike out the claim - a rare example of a court striking out a fraud claim.  In her judgment, Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE addressed a number of significant legal and procedural issues.  These include whether the CPR require a defendant to file a defence before applying for summary judgment (the Judge found that they don’t), the purposes and requirements of a pleading (in particular when pleading fraud), that abuse of process can arise where the relevant issue could have been raised during a costs assessment in relation to previous proceedings and that (save in relation to actions for negligence) an advocate’s immunity from suit has not been abolished. Please click here to view the judgment of Cockerill J.  Subsequently, Jacobs J ([2023] PNLR 18; [2023] Costs LR 559) considered the requirements for a wasted costs application to pass the "stage 1" test under CPR PD 46 para.5.7(a). 

Re Dinglis Properties Ltd [2021] 1 All ER 685, [2020] 2 BCLC 607, [2020] 2 BCLC 574 and [2020] 1 BCLC 107: represented the respondents to a section 994 petition.  In his judgment following a trial of preliminary issues ([2020] 1 BCLC 107; [2019] Bus LR 3100), Adam Johnson QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) rejected the petitioner’s quasi-partnership claim and ordered his shares to be purchased subject to a minority discount.  Successfully argued that the costs of that trial should be reserved until after the quantum trial: [2019] Costs LR 1909.  Subsequently ([2020] 2 BCLC 574) Mr Johnson QC determined the date of valuation of the shares, what adjustments (whether in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondents) should be made to the value of petitioner’s shareholding, and the correct approach to the calculation of the minority discount to be applied to the petitioner’s shares.  In a further landmark judgment ([2021] 1 All ER 685; [2021] 1 All ER (Comm) 649; [2020] 2 BCLC 607) Mr Johnson QC considered the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the share purchase order which he had previously made. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Gregor Hogan in the New Law Journal considering this judgment. 

Re G&G Properties Ltd [2020] Bus LR 762; [2020] 1 BCLC 1; [2020] BCC 236: represented the respondents in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which, in an important judgment, examined the pleading requirements in section 994 petitions. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Bankside Hotels Ltd (No 2) [2019] 2 BCLC 174: represented parties who successfully opposed before Sir Nicholas Warren an application by the petitioner to join them as respondents to a section 994 petition. Striking out the claim to a share purchase order against the trustees, Sir Nicholas Warren found that even if the settlor of a trust holding 50% of the shares in a company is guilty of unfairly prejudicial conduct in relation to that company as a director of it, the trustees of the settlement are not thereby automatically themselves responsible for or implicated in such conduct or exposed to relief being granted against them in an unfair prejudice petition. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Edwardian Group Ltd, Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd v Singh [2019] 1 BCLC 171; [2019] EWHC 873 (Ch); [2020] WTLR 127: represented the principal respondent to a section 994 petition presented by his brother and by a trust company connected to him at two trials before Fancourt J.  Fancourt J’s judgment following Trial 1 ([2019] 1 BCLC 171), is significant in numerous areas, including the law of fiduciary duties of directors, the requirements needed for a quasi-partnership to arise in relation to a family business, the effect of delay by the petitioner on the grant of relief in an unfair prejudice petition, and the issue whether a petitioner’s shares should be valued subject to a minority discount.  Fancourt J’s judgment following Trial 2 ([2019] EWHC 873 (Ch)) addressed the questions of the amount of the discount to be applied to a minority shareholding and the award of quasi-interest in section 994 petitions.  In a further judgment ([2020] WTLR 127; [2019] STI 1554; [2019] STC 1814), Fancourt J refused to restructure the share purchase order he had made to improve the petitioners' tax position in the face of objection from the respondents.  Important issues concerning redaction of documents for legal advice privilege and control of expert evidence were addressed, respectively, in judgments of Morgan J ([2017] EWHC 2805 (Ch)) and Nugee J ([2017] EWHC 3112 (Ch)). Please click here to view the judgment.

Dinglis v Dinglis [2019] EWHC 738 (Ch): represented the respondent in a successful application for permission to amend his defence to a section 994 petition concerning a family property development company shortly before trial. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Bankside Hotels Ltd [2019] 1 BCLC 434; [2018] BCC 617: represented the respondents before Sir Nicholas Warren, who in a landmark judgment accepted their argument that even though their defence to a section 994 petition had been struck out, the petitioner was nonetheless unable to obtain judgment under CPR r. 3.5, but was required to establish the pleaded allegations of unfair prejudice on which he relied at a trial at which he needed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that there had been unfairly prejudicial conduct. Please click here to view the judgment.

Griffith v Gourgey [2017] EWCA Civ 926: in the context of the striking out of defences to three unfair prejudice petitions for failure to comply with an unless order, the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which a court should entertain a second application for relief from sanctions.  Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Pedersen (Thameside) Ltd [2018] BCC 58: represented a 5% shareholder in his successful application to strike out the claim to relief (a share purchase order) sought against him in an unfair prejudice petition. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from JIBFL.

Griffith v Gourgey [2017] EWCA Civ 926: the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which the court can and should entertain a second application for relief from sanctions. Please click here to view the judgment.

In C v C, in matrimonial proceedings the husband obtained an ex parte order in the Family Court which had the effect of restraining his wife and son from performing their duties as directors of two family-owned companies,  Representing the son, Daniel successfully applied to set aside the ex parte injunction with indemnity costs, persuading Roberts J, in a landmark judgment ([2016] Fam Law 20), to hold that established company law principles apply in the Family Court, that previous Family Court decisions (notably of Thorpe J in Poon v Poon [1994] 2 FLR 857) that all disputes within the family should be litigated in the Family Court should not be followed, and that accordingly the Family Court had no jurisdiction under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief either (i) against company directors who are not the spouses in the matrimonial proceedings or (ii) in respect of assets of the companies of which the spouses are the sole shareholders.  Please click here to view the judgment. 

Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v ITG Ltd [2015] EWHC 1664 (Ch); [2015] EWHC 1924 (Ch): for the defendants, the former trustees of a Tchenguiz family trust, successfully opposing before Morgan J on the grounds of abuse of process an application to reintroduce by way of re-amendment of the Particulars of Claim the same claims which the defendants had successfully contended could not properly be served out of the jurisdiction. Please click here to view the judgment.

Munday v Hilburn [2015] BPIR 684: represented the appellants in their successful appeal against the striking out of their fraud claim as an abuse of process, the lower court having struck out their claim on the basis that when the claim was issued the cause of action was vested not in Mr Munday but in his trustee in bankruptcy. In allowing their appeal, Nugee J held that an abuse of process requires not merely that the claimant ought to have known that he did not have a cause of action but actual knowledge of a lack of title to sue. Please click here to view the judgment.

Solland International Ltd v Clifford Harris & Co: decisions of Master Bowles ([2015] EWHC 2018 (Ch)) and (on appeal) Arnold J ([2015] EWHC 3295 (Ch)): the issue arose as to whether a professional negligence claim should be struck out as an abuse of process. Please click here to view the judgment. 

HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Apex Global Management Ltd [2015] 2 All ER 206, [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 1183, [2014] 1 WLR 4495, The Times, December 8, 2014: represented the respondents in the Supreme Court successfully opposing an appeal by a Saudi Arabian Prince against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal ([2014] EWCA Civ 1106) of his appeals against an unless order and the entry of judgment against him for US$ 7.7m.  The Supreme Court stated that the standard form of disclosure by a party requires personal signing by that party. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from New Law Journal.

Mahdavi v Sterling Avram and Healys LLP: represent the claimant, the victim of a fraudulent phantom sale of a property, in claims against both the purported vendor’s and the purchaser’s solicitors for breach of duty in failing to prevent a fraudulent transfer of a substantial sum, transferred by one solicitors’ firm to another for the purpose of the purchase of a property but which were misappropriated by being paid out to third parties by a fraudster working as a consultant at the purported purchaser’s law firm.  Norris J ([2014] EWHC 4103 (Ch)) directed that the purported vendor’s solicitors pay over to the claimant sums recovered through the banking system.

Sukhoruchkin v van Bekestein [2014] EWCA Civ 399 (Court of Appeal) and [2013] EWHC 1993 (Ch) (Morgan J): the High Court and Court of Appeal considered whether a worldwide freezing injunction should be set aside because the claim might be barred by reason of the no reflective loss principle. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Fi Call Ltd [2014] EWHC 779 (Ch): successfully opposed an application for security for costs before Newey J on the basis that the costs associated with a section 994 petition and a cross-petition could not satisfactorily be disentangled. Please click here to view the judgment.

Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd [2014] BCC 286: before Vos J successfully opposed an application by two Saudi Arabian Princes to set aside the grant of permission to serve them out of the jurisdiction. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from JIBF. 

Re Fi Call Ltd [2013] 1 WLR 2993, [2013] EMLR 29: successfully opposed before Morgan J and in the Court of Appeal applications by two Saudi Arabian Princes, against whom allegations of serious misconduct had been made, in which they sought orders that interlocutory hearings in a section 994 petition should be heard in private to protect their reputations. Please click here to view the judgment.

In Petrodel Resources v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415, [2013] 3 WLR 1, [2013] 4 All ER 673, [2014] 1 BCLC 30, [2013] BCC 571, [2013] 2 FLR 732, [2013] 3 FCR 210, [2013] WTLR 1249, [2013] Fam Law 953, The Times, June 24, 2013, 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. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Trusts & Trustees.

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry [2013] 1 AC 182, [2012] 3 WLR 379, [2012] 4 All ER 795, [2012] 5 Costs LO 668, [2013] 1 Cr App R 6, The Times, August 17, 2012 (Supreme Court); [2011] 1 WLR 2817, [2011] 4 All ER 470, [2011] CP Rep 36, [2011] 3 Costs LO 292, [2011] Lloyd's Rep FC 387, The Times, June 10, 2011 (Court of Appeal); [2010] 1 WLR 2761, [2011] 1 Costs LR 22, The Times, July 22, 2010 (Mitting J): represented Mr Perry in his succesful appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided that there is no jurisdiction to make a civil recovery order or a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of property located outside the jurisdiction. Please click here for the judgment, and here for an article from New Law Journal.

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry [2013] 1 AC 182, [2012] 3 WLR 379, [2012] 4 All ER 795, [2012] 5 Costs LO 668, [2013] 1 Cr App R 6, The Times, August 17, 2012 (Supreme Court); [2011] 1 WLR 542, [2010] CP Rep 43, [2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 606, The Times, October 13, 2010 (Court of Appeal); [2010] 1 WLR 910 (Foskett J): represented Mr Perry in his succesful appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided that there is no jurisdiction under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for SOCA to give information notices to persons outside the jurisdiction. Please click here to view the judgment.

Solland Projects LLP v Nautiloides Comercio International E Servicos Sociedade Unipessoal LDA [2012] EWHC 1957 (TCC): represented the claimant in successfully opposing before Coulson J the defendant’s application to strike out a claim for damages in a dispute concerning a management contract. Please click here to view the judgment.

Ovlas Trading SA v Strand (London) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3236 (Ch): appeared for the claimants before Sir Donald Rattee in their successful opposition to an application for security for costs made by the defendants to a fraud claim. Please click here to view the judgment.

Havai v Solland [2008] EWHC 2514 (Ch): whether an order for the provision of security for costs should be varied to enable security to be provided by way of a charge over real property. Please click here to view the judgment.

BBC v Sugar [2008] 1 WLR 2289: the first Court of Appeal decision interpreting the requirements of a decision notice by the Information Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please click here to view the judgment.

Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] 1 WLR 1099, [2008] CP Rep 22, [2008] BPIR 314, [2008] NPC 16, The Times, March 10, 2008: first Court of Appeal decision considering the extent of a party’s right under CPR rule 31.14 to disclosure of documents mentioned in another party’s witness statement. The first-instance decision of Patten J is reported at [2009] BCC 443. Please click here to view the judgment.

Tritton Development Fund Ltd v Fortis Bank (Cayman) Ltd and others [2006] CILR 268: decision of Cayman Chief Justice Smellie in which he adopted as a matter of Cayman law the doctrine of the application by analogy of statutory limitation periods to claims in equity. Please click here to view the judgment.

Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd [2006] EMLR 21: successful defence at trial before Lewison J of claim brought by former members of The Wailers alleged to have been in partnership with Bob Marley; an earlier decision of Laddie J on abuse of process was reported in The Times, 24 April 2003. Please click here to view the jugdment.

Fraser v Oystertec plc [2006] 1 BCLC 491, [2005] BPIR 381: represented the claimants in their successful application that an interim third party debt order be made final notwithstanding the existence of competing creditors. Please click here to view the judgment.

Oystertec v Davidson [2005] BPIR 401: represented the claimant in a case where Patten J considered the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the defendant for failing to comply with the asset disclosure requirements of a freezing order. Please click here to view the judgment. 

Arrow Trading & Investments Est 1920 v Edwardian Group Ltd [2005] 1 BCLC 696 (Blackburne J), [2004] BCC 955 (Sir Francis Ferris): represented the minority shareholder in an unfair prejudice petition about a prominent hotel company. Obtained an injunction from Sir Francis Ferris preventing the company from using its money to fund the defence of the majority shareholders, and a subsequent order from Blackburne J requiring the company to disclose (i) the usually privileged legal advice on the basis of which it had unsuccessfully defended the injunction application and (ii) confidential company financial documentation. Please click here to view the judgment, here for one article from New Law Journal, here for another article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Thomson Reuters Legal Ltd.

Uzor v Chinye [2004] EWHC 827 (Ch): represented the defendant, who, after setting aside an ex parte worldwide freezing order, recovered damages under the cross-undertaking in damages. Please click here to view the judgment.

Eid v Al-Kazemi [2004] EWCA Civ 1811: represented the applicant before Neuberger LJ in a rare successful application under CPR rule 52.9 to set aside the grant of permission to appeal. Please click here to view the judgment.

Al-Fayed v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2004] 148 SJLB 1405: represented Mohammed Al-Fayed in an appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning his claim for damages for false imprisonment. Please click here to view the judgment.

Sykes v Taylor-Rose [2004] 2 P & CR 30, [2004] NPC 34, The Times, 2 March 2004, The Independent, 2 March 2004: the Court of Appeal considered whether the vendors of a house had a duty to inform the purchasers that a particularly horrific murder had taken place there. Please click here to view the judgment.

Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 640, [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 635 (Court of Appeal: judgment of Longmore LJ); [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 645, The Times, 19 June 2003, The Independent, 13 June 2003 (Court of Appeal: judgment of Clarke LJ); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 42, [2003] Lloyd's Rep 1, [2003] 2 Costs LR 175, The Times, 27 December 2002 (all Aikens J); [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 193, [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 76 (Court of Appeal); [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 591 and [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 554 (both Thomas J): represented the defendants in 5 years of litigation concerning a contract to provide oil to the only oil refinery in Macedonia. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from Solicitors Journal.

Gil v Baygreen Properties Ltd, [2003] HLR 12, [2003] L & TR 1 [2002] 3 EGLR 42, (2002) 49 EG 126, The Independent, 7 October 2002, The Times, 17 July 2002: represented the defendant in her successful appeal to the Court of Appeal, which set aside a consent order on the ground that the court only has jurisdiction to make a possession order under the Housing Act 1988 if it finds that the statutory criteria for the exercise of that jurisdiction are satisfied. Please click here to view the judgment.

Verjee v CIBC Bank and Trust Co (Channel Islands) Ltd [2001] Lloyd's Law Rep (Banking) 279, [2001] BPIR 1149: represented the creditor in his successful opposition to an application to set aside a statutory demand.  In his judgment Hart J considered the scope of the duty owed by a bank to consult its customer before honouring a fraudulently-presented cheque. Please click here to view the judgment.

Peskin v Anderson [2001] 1 BCLC 372, [2001] BCC 875 (Court of Appeal); [2000] 2 BCLC 1, [2000] BCC 110 (Neuberger J): represented the claimants (former full members of the RAC) in their claim against the committee of the RAC.  The landmark judgment of the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which directors owe fiduciary duties directly to shareholders. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Israel-British Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2001] CP Rep 91: Sir Andrew Morritt V-C considered whether English proceedings should be stayed or dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens in the light of proceedings commenced in Israel. Please click here to view the judgment.

The University of Nottingham v Dr Simon Fishel [2001] RPC 22, The Times, 31 March 2000, [2000] IRLR 471, [2000] ICR 1462, [2000] ELR 385, [2000] EdCR 505: represented the defendant in his successful defence of claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty brought against him by the university by which he had been employed as a lecturer.  Elias J’s important judgment considered the circumstances in which an employee owes fiduciary duties to his employer and the ambit of any such duties. Please click here to view the judgment.

Mealey Horgan plc v Timothy Horgan, The Times, 6 July 1999: an early post-CPR decision concerning the use of sanctions under the CPR for breaches of court orders. Please click here to view the judgment.

In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71: represent Mr Chandler, one of the former directors of the BHS group of companies, in proceedings brought by the liquidators for alleged breach of duty and wrongful trading. In an important judgment ([2024] 1 BCLC 71) allowing Mr Chandler’s appeal against the decision of Deputy ICC Judge Schaffer (Re BHS Group Ltd [2022] 2 BCLC 145; [2022] BCC 457), Edwin Johnson J reaffirmed that causation and quantum are essential elements of a cause of action under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as they are for breach of duty claims under section 212, and that it is essential for liquidators to plead these elements. Further, given the scale of the claims and complexity of the BHS litigation, Edwin Johnson J held, it is not acceptable for a case on the date of knowledge for the purposes of a claim under section 214 to be left “at large” on the pleadings. A specific date or dates must be identified – and it is “essential that the relevant pleading identifies what the case is on causation and quantum for each of the alternative dates relied upon as the Knowledge Date”. Please click here to read the judgment of Edwin Johnson J in In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71 and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Charlotte Beynon in the New Law Journal considering this judgment.  Edwin Johnson J’s judgment ordering the liquidators to pay Mr Chandler’s costs, to be subject to an immediate detailed assessment as well as an interim payment of 60%, is reported at [2023] Costs LR 69. 

Re Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd [2023] EWHC 2451 (Ch): represented the two shareholder respondents to a section 994 petition presented against them by a former shareholder, who had been removed from the company’s register of members on the basis of a resolution that he was a “bad leaver”.  The respondents applied to strike out the petition on the grounds that the petitioner lacked standing, as he was no longer a member of the company.  In a landmark judgment, the court made novel use of its case management powers to order a split trial to determine at the first trial whether the register of members should be rectified and whether the petition was well founded.  Please click here to read the judgment.

Boston Trust Co Ltd v Szerelmey Ltd [2023] Costs LR 123; [2023] Costs LR 129: represented the company on whose behalf derivative claims had been brought.  On the hearing of the claimant’s application to continue a costs indemnity order, successfully argued ([2023] Costs LR 123) that that there should be appropriately worded protection against the use of the costs indemnity to fund a separate partnership claim which the derivative claimant had issued after the initial costs indemnity order had been made.  The second judgment ([2023] Costs LR 129) concerned how the costs indemnity should operate with respect to (i) any consequentials hearing after trial and (ii) work which would benefit the claimant’s partnership claim.  Please click here and here to view the two judgments.

Re Klimvest plc [2023] 1 BCLC 388; [2022] BCC 747: represented the petitioner, who successfully petitioned to have a listed plc wound up on the just and equitable ground under section 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for loss of substratum, following the sale of its assets and business.   HH Judge Cawson QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) found 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, and that 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. Please click here to view the judgment. Daniel Lightman KC and Max Marenbon have written two articles analysing the judgment: Quasi-Partnerships in Public Companies (ThoughtLeaders4 Disputes Magazine, Issue 5, pp. 41 and 42) and Publicly listed company wound up for loss of substratum (Re Klimvest plc) (Lexis®PSL, 28 March 2022).  Please click here and here to view the two articles.

Duneau v Klimt Invest SA [2023] 1 BCLC 388; [2022] BCC 1258; [2022] Costs LR 1463: representing the petitioner who had obtained a winding-up order, successfully sought an order granting the liquidator permission to apply for an order that the majority shareholder, Klimt Invest SA, pay the company’s costs of participating in the petition.   Please click here to view the judgment.  

Re Prospect Place (Wimbledon) Management Co Ltd [2022] BCC 1176: instructed on appeal, represented the appellant petitioner in its appeal against the dismissal following trial of its section 994 petition complaining of unfairly prejudicial conduct in relation to the management company of an exclusive private estate in Wimbledon.  Mrs Justice Joanna Smith’s judgment on appeal considered the circumstances in which the court will grant declaratory relief under section 996 of the Companies Act 2006 which is intended to “send a message” to future directors of a company. 

Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Limited & St Joseph’s Independent Hospital Limited [2022] EWHC 1368 (Ch): representing Gwent Holdings Limited, successfully opposed 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.   In a judgment handed down in June 2022, the Court refused either to order the rectification of the company’s register of members under section 125 of the Companies Act 2006 with retrospective effect or 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”. Please click here to read the judgment.

Taylor Goodchild Ltd v Taylor [2022] 2 BCLC 27; [2022] BCC 1155: represented the appellant in its successful appeal against the striking out of its claim for damages for breach of fiduciary duty against a former shareholder and director who had also been the respondent to a section 994 petition.  The Court of Appeal considered, for the first time, how the guidelines laid down in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2008] 1 WLR 748 (which require a party which intends to bring an additional claim in subsequent proceedings against the same defendant to draw that fact to the attention of the court in the first set of proceedings) should be applied in the context of unfair prejudice petitions.  In allowing a law firm’s appeal against the decision of Snowden J to strike out as an abuse of process claims it brought against its former director and 50% shareholder who had been found in an earlier unfair prejudice petition to have acted in breach of fiduciary duty, the Court of Appeal queried whether the decision in Aldi had in mind “the rather special position relating to section 994 petitions”.  Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Dinglis Properties Ltd [2021] 1 All ER 685, [2020] 2 BCLC 607, [2020] 2 BCLC 574 and [2020] 1 BCLC 107: represented the respondents to a section 994 petition.  In his judgment following a trial of preliminary issues ([2020] 1 BCLC 107; [2019] Bus LR 3100), Adam Johnson QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) rejected the petitioner’s quasi-partnership claim and ordered his shares to be purchased subject to a minority discount.  Successfully argued that the costs of that trial should be reserved until after the quantum trial: [2019] Costs LR 1909.  Subsequently ([2020] 2 BCLC 574) Mr Johnson QC determined the date of valuation of the shares, what adjustments (whether in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondents) should be made to the value of petitioner’s shareholding, and the correct approach to the calculation of the minority discount to be applied to the petitioner’s shares.  In a further landmark judgment ([2021] 1 All ER 685; [2021] 1 All ER (Comm) 649; [2020] 2 BCLC 607) Mr Johnson QC considered the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the share purchase order which he had previously made. Please click here to read the judgment of Edwin Johnson J in In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] Bus LR 1510; [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch) Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Gregor Hogan in the New Law Journal considering this judgment. 

In the matter of Global-IP Cayman: representing the majority shareholder and principal creditor in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, successfully argued before Raj Parker J that (i) the case was an exception to the usual rule that the petitioning creditor should be awarded its costs of a winding-up petition (unrep, 21 July 2020) and (ii) the majority shareholder’s appointees to the company’s board had not been removed from office because on a proper interpretation of the company’s articles the relevant board meeting had been inquorate ([2021] (1) CILR 228).  Please click here to read the judgment of Raj Parker J in In the matter of Global-IP Cayman [2021] (1) CILR 228.

Re G&G Properties Ltd [2020] Bus LR 762; [2020] 1 BCLC 1; [2020] BCC 236: represented the respondents in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which, in an important judgment, examined the pleading requirements in section 994 petitions. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Bankside Hotels Ltd (No 2) [2019] 2 BCLC 174: represented parties who successfully opposed before Sir Nicholas Warren an application by the petitioner to join them as respondents to a section 994 petition. Striking out the claim to a share purchase order against the trustees, Sir Nicholas Warren found that even if the settlor of a trust holding 50% of the shares in a company is guilty of unfairly prejudicial conduct in relation to that company as a director of it, the trustees of the settlement are not thereby automatically themselves responsible for or implicated in such conduct or exposed to relief being granted against them in an unfair prejudice petition. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Edwardian Group Ltd, Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd v Singh [2019] 1 BCLC 171; [2019] EWHC 873 (Ch); [2020] WTLR 127: represented the principal respondent to a section 994 petition presented by his brother and by a trust company connected to him at two trials before Fancourt J.  Fancourt J’s judgment following Trial 1 ([2019] 1 BCLC 171), is significant in numerous areas, including the law of fiduciary duties of directors, the requirements needed for a quasi-partnership to arise in relation to a family business, the effect of delay by the petitioner on the grant of relief in an unfair prejudice petition, and the issue whether a petitioner’s shares should be valued subject to a minority discount.  Fancourt J’s judgment following Trial 2 ([2019] EWHC 873 (Ch)) addressed the questions of the amount of the discount to be applied to a minority shareholding and the award of quasi-interest in section 994 petitions.  In a further judgment ([2020] WTLR 127; [2019] STI 1554; [2019] STC 1814), Fancourt J refused to restructure the share purchase order he had made to improve the petitioners' tax position in the face of objection from the respondents.  Important issues concerning redaction of documents for legal advice privilege and control of expert evidence were addressed, respectively, in judgments of Morgan J ([2017] EWHC 2805 (Ch)) and Nugee J ([2017] EWHC 3112 (Ch)). Please click here to view the judgment.

Dinglis v Dinglis [2019] EWHC 738 (Ch): represented the respondent in a successful application for permission to amend his defence to a section 994 petition concerning a family property development company shortly before trial. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Bankside Hotels Ltd [2019] 1 BCLC 434; [2018] BCC 617: represented the respondents before Sir Nicholas Warren, who in a landmark judgment accepted their argument that even though their defence to a section 994 petition had been struck out, the petitioner was nonetheless unable to obtain judgment under CPR r. 3.5, but was required to establish the pleaded allegations of unfair prejudice on which he relied at a trial at which he needed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that there had been unfairly prejudicial conduct. Please click here to view the judgment.

Griffith v Gourgey [2017] EWCA Civ 926: in the context of the striking out of defences to three unfair prejudice petitions for failure to comply with an unless order, the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which a court should entertain a second application for relief from sanctions.  Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Pedersen (Thameside) Ltd [2018] BCC 58: successfully applied on behalf of a 5% shareholder to strike out the claim to relief (a share purchase order) sought against him in an unfair prejudice petition. Please click here to view the judgment and here for an article from JIBFL.

Griffith v Gourgey [2017] EWCA Civ 926: in the context of the striking out of defences to three unfair prejudice petitions for failure to comply with an unless order, the circumstances in which a court should entertain a second application for relief from sanctions. Please click here to view the judgment.

In C v C, in matrimonial proceedings the husband obtained an ex parte order in the Family Court which had the effect of restraining his wife and son from performing their duties as directors of two family-owned companies,  Representing the son, Daniel successfully applied to set aside the ex parte injunction with indemnity costs, persuading Roberts J, in a landmark judgment ([2016] Fam Law 20), to hold that established company law principles apply in the Family Court, that previous Family Court decisions (notably of Thorpe J in Poon v Poon [1994] 2 FLR 857) that all disputes within the family should be litigated in the Family Court should not be followed, and that accordingly the Family Court had no jurisdiction under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief either (i) against company directors who are not the spouses in the matrimonial proceedings or (ii) in respect of assets of the companies of which the spouses are the sole shareholders.  Please click here to view the judgment. 

HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Apex Global Management Ltd [2015] 2 All ER 206, [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 1183, [2014] 1 WLR 4495, The Times, December 8, 2014: represented the respondents in the Supreme Court successfully opposing an appeal by a Saudi Arabian Prince against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal ([2014] EWCA Civ 1106) of his appeals against an unless order and the entry of judgment against him for US$ 7.7m.  The Supreme Court stated that the standard form of disclosure by a party requires personal signing by that party. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from New Law Journal.

Abouraya v Sigmund [2015] BCC 503: Richards J held that a multiple derivative claim can be brought at common law in respect of an overseas company. Please click here to view the judgment.

Sukhoruchkin v van Bekestein [2014] EWCA Civ 399 (Court of Appeal) and [2013] EWHC 1993 (Ch) (Morgan J): the High Court and Court of Appeal considered whether a worldwide freezing injunction should be set aside because the claim might be barred by reason of the no reflective loss principle. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Fi Call Ltd [2014] EWHC 779 (Ch): successfully opposed an application for security for costs before Newey J on the basis that the costs associated with a section 994 petition and a cross-petition could not satisfactorily be disentangled. Please click here to view the judgment.

Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd [2014] BCC 286: before Vos J successfully opposed an application by two Saudi Arabian Princes to set aside the grant of permission to serve them out of the jurisdiction. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from JIBF. 

Eckerle v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH [2014] Ch 96, [2013] 3 WLR 1316, [2014] 1 BCC 1, The Times, April 9, 2013: represented the defendant, who successfully applied to strike out the proceedings, Norris J holding that only a registered member (and not a holder of shares through a nominee) has locus standi to apply under section 98 of the Companies Act 2006 for an order cancelling a resolution for re-registration of a plc as a private company. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Fi Call Ltd [2013] 1 WLR 2993, [2013] EMLR 29: successfully opposed before Morgan J and in the Court of Appeal applications by two Saudi Arabian Princes, against whom allegations of serious misconduct had been made, in which they sought orders that interlocutory hearings in a section 994 petition should be heard in private to protect their reputations. Please click here to view the judgment.

In Petrodel Resources v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415, [2013] 3 WLR 1, [2013] 4 All ER 673, [2014] 1 BCLC 30, [2013] BCC 571, [2013] 2 FLR 732, [2013] 3 FCR 210, [2013] WTLR 1249, [2013] Fam Law 953, The Times, June 24, 2013, 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. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Trusts & Trustees.

Bamford v Harvey [2013] Bus LR 589, [2013] BCC 311, The Times, December 7, 2012: Roth J considered the weight to be given to the existence of an alternative remedy when the court considers an application for permission to continue a statutory derivative claim. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Dunstans Publishing Ltd, Fairclough v Dunstans Publishing Ltd [2012] BCC 515: represented the claimant, Sir Andrew Morritt, in his successful application for rectification of a company's register of members, holding that a share transfer notice was a valid notice under the articles notwithstanding that it had been entitled "without prejudice". Please click here to view the judgment.

Carlisle & Cumbria United Independent Supporters' Society Ltd v CUFC Holdings Ltd [2011] BCC 855: the Court of Appeal determined what costs orders should be made in respect of a derivative claim which had been compromised (save as to costs). Please click here to view the judgment.

Harley Street Capital Ltd v Tchigirinsky [2006] BCC 209: Peter Smith J considered whether an independent report commissioned by company was privileged or should be disclosed to a shareholder bringing a derivative claim. Please click here to view the judgment.

Knox v Deane [2005] BCC 884: appeared for the respondents in the Privy Council successfully opposing an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Barbados concerning a shareholder's pre-emption rights under a company’s articles. Please click here to view the judgment.

Mumbray v Lapper [2005] BCC 990, The Times 31 May 2005: whether the existence of an alternative remedy precludes permission being given to continue a derivative claim on behalf of a company. Please click here to view the judgment.

Arrow Trading & Investments Est 1920 v Edwardian Group Ltd [2005] 1 BCLC 696 (Blackburne J), [2004] BCC 955 (Sir Francis Ferris): represented minority shareholder in an unfair prejudice petition about a prominent hotel company. Obtained an injunction from Sir Francis Ferris preventing the company from using its money to fund the defence of the majority shareholders, and a subsequent order from Blackburne J requiring the company to disclose (i) the usually privileged legal advice on the basis of which it had unsuccessfully defended the injunction application and (ii) confidential company financial documentation. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Thomson Reuters Legal Ltd.

Peskin v Anderson [2001] 1 BCLC 372, [2001] BCC 875 (Court of Appeal); [2000] 2 BCLC 1, [2000] BCC 110 (Neuberger J): represented the claimants (former full members of the RAC) in their claim against the committee of the RAC.  The landmark judgment of the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which directors owe fiduciary duties directly to shareholders. Please click here to view the judgment.

In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71: represent Mr Chandler, one of the former directors of the BHS group of companies, in proceedings brought by the liquidators for alleged breach of duty and wrongful trading. In an important judgment ([2024] 1 BCLC 71) allowing Mr Chandler’s appeal against the decision of Deputy ICC Judge Schaffer (Re BHS Group Ltd [2022] 2 BCLC 145; [2022] BCC 457), Edwin Johnson J reaffirmed that causation and quantum are essential elements of a cause of action under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as they are for breach of duty claims under section 212, and that it is essential for liquidators to plead these elements. Further, given the scale of the claims and complexity of the BHS litigation, Edwin Johnson J held, it is not acceptable for a case on the date of knowledge for the purposes of a claim under section 214 to be left “at large” on the pleadings. A specific date or dates must be identified – and it is “essential that the relevant pleading identifies what the case is on causation and quantum for each of the alternative dates relied upon as the Knowledge Date”. Please click here to read the judgment of Edwin Johnson J in In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71 and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Charlotte Beynon in the New Law Journal considering this judgment.  Edwin Johnson J’s judgment ordering the liquidators to pay Mr Chandler’s costs, to be subject to an immediate detailed assessment as well as an interim payment of 60%, is reported at [2023] Costs LR 69. 

Re Klimvest plc [2023] 1 BCLC 388; [2022] BCC 747: represented the petitioner, who successfully petitioned to have a listed plc wound up on the just and equitable ground under section 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for loss of substratum, following the sale of its assets and business.   HH Judge Cawson QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) found 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, and that 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. Please click here to view the judgment. Daniel Lightman KC and Max Marenbon have written two articles analysing the judgment: Quasi-Partnerships in Public Companies (ThoughtLeaders4 Disputes Magazine, Issue 5, pp. 41 and 42) and Publicly listed company wound up for loss of substratum (Re Klimvest plc) (Lexis®PSL, 28 March 2022).  Please click here and here to view the two articles.

Duneau v Klimt Invest SA [2023] 1 BCLC 388; [2022] BCC 1258; [2022] Costs LR 1463: representing the petitioner who had obtained a winding-up order, successfully sought an order granting the liquidator permission to apply for an order that the majority shareholder, Klimt Invest SA, pay the company’s costs of participating in the petition.   Please click here to view the judgment.  

In the matter of Global-IP Cayman: representing the majority shareholder and principal creditor in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, successfully argued before Raj Parker J that (i) the case was an exception to the usual rule that the petitioning creditor should be awarded its costs of a winding-up petition (unrep, 21 July 2020) and (ii) the majority shareholder’s appointees to the company’s board had not been removed from office because on a proper interpretation of the company’s articles the relevant board meeting had been inquorate ([2021] (1) CILR 228).  Please click here to read the judgment of Raj Parker J in In the matter of Global-IP Cayman [2021] (1) CILR 228.

Munday v Hilburn [2015] BPIR 684: represented the appellants in their successful appeal against the striking out of their fraud claim as an abuse of process, the lower court having struck out their claim on the basis that when the claim was issued the cause of action was vested not in Mr Munday but in his trustee in bankruptcy. In allowing their appeal, Nugee J held that an abuse of process requires not merely that the claimant ought to have known that he did not have a cause of action but actual knowledge of a lack of title to sue. Please click here to view the jugdment.

Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] 1 WLR 1099, [2008] CP Rep 22, [2008] BPIR 314, [2008] NPC 16, The Times, March 10, 2008: first Court of Appeal decision considering the extent of a party’s right under CPR rule 31.14 to disclosure of documents mentioned in another party’s witness statement. The decision of Patten J in this case is reported at [2009] BCC 443. Please click here to view the judgment.

Fraser v Oystertec plc [2006] 1 BCLC 491, [2005] BPIR 381: whether an interim third party debt order should be made final where there are competing creditors. Please click here to view the judgment.

Davidson v Stanley [2005] BPIR 279: whether IVA proposal sufficiently viable for the debtor to obtain an interim order. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re PNC Telecom Plc (in administration) [2004] BPIR 314: represented the company’s administrator in his successful application before Evans-Lombe J for an order requiring the company's former directors to provide him with information under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Please click here to view the judgment.

Warley Continental Services Ltd (in liquidation) v Johal [2004] BPIR 353, The Times, 28 October 2002: successful application to strike out a challenge to an IVA on the basis that the court should not extend the time limit for challenging that IVA. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from Solicitors Journal. 

Re Ciro Citterio Menswear Plc [2002] BPIR 903: administrators' prospective costs order. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Casterbridge Properties Ltd; Jeeves v Official Receiver [2002] BCC 453, [2002] BPIR 428: application to rescind an order for a public examination under section 133 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Assico Engineering Ltd [2002] BCC 481, [2002] BPIR 15: appeal against admission of proof of debt for purposes of voting at a meeting of a company’s creditors. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Duke Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2001] BPIR 459, [2001] BCC 144: Jonathan Parker J considered whether it would be oppressive for an English Court to give the assistance requested pursuant to a letter of request of an Australian Court.

Re Israel-British Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2001] CP Rep 91: Sir Andrew Morritt V-C considered whether English proceedings should be stayed or dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens in the light of proceedings commenced in Israel. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Lummus Agricultural Services Limited [2001] 1 BCLC 137, [1999] BCC 953: winding-up order made despite opposition of most creditors. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re a Company No. 007356/98 (ITC Infotech Ltd) [2000] BCC 214: represented the applicant in its successful application before Hart J to set aside a statutory demand and obtain an order for costs. Please click here to view the judgment.

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v North West Holdings Limited and North West Holdings Plc [1999] 1 BCLC 425, [1998] BCC 997: the Court of Appeal considered the consequences of a public interest winding-up petition having been prematurely advertised. Please click here to view the judgment.

In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71: represent Mr Chandler, one of the former directors of the BHS group of companies, in proceedings brought by the liquidators for alleged breach of duty and wrongful trading. In an important judgment ([2024] 1 BCLC 71) allowing Mr Chandler’s appeal against the decision of Deputy ICC Judge Schaffer (Re BHS Group Ltd [2022] 2 BCLC 145; [2022] BCC 457), Edwin Johnson J reaffirmed that causation and quantum are essential elements of a cause of action under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as they are for breach of duty claims under section 212, and that it is essential for liquidators to plead these elements. Further, given the scale of the claims and complexity of the BHS litigation, Edwin Johnson J held, it is not acceptable for a case on the date of knowledge for the purposes of a claim under section 214 to be left “at large” on the pleadings. A specific date or dates must be identified – and it is “essential that the relevant pleading identifies what the case is on causation and quantum for each of the alternative dates relied upon as the Knowledge Date”. Please click here to read the judgment of Edwin Johnson J in In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71 and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Charlotte Beynon in the New Law Journal considering this judgment.  Edwin Johnson J’s judgment ordering the liquidators to pay Mr Chandler’s costs, to be subject to an immediate detailed assessment as well as an interim payment of 60%, is reported at [2023] Costs LR 69. 

King v Stiefel [2022] 1 All ER (Comm) 990; The Times, June 4, 2021: represented a firm of solicitors and four of its lawyers, five of ten defendants to a £58 million claim in unlawful means conspiracy brought in the Commercial Court by the claimants to previous (discontinued) litigation against the same defendants, their solicitors and QC.  Successfully applied to strike out the claim - a rare example of a court striking out a fraud claim.  In her judgment, Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE addressed a number of significant legal and procedural issues.  These include whether the CPR require a defendant to file a defence before applying for summary judgment (the Judge found that they don’t), the purposes and requirements of a pleading (in particular when pleading fraud), that abuse of process can arise where the relevant issue could have been raised during a costs assessment in relation to previous proceedings and that (save in relation to actions for negligence) an advocate’s immunity from suit has not been abolished. Please click here to view the judgment of Cockerill J.  Subsequently, Jacobs J ([2023] PNLR 18; [2023] Costs LR 559) considered the requirements for a wasted costs application to pass the "stage 1" test under CPR PD 46 para.5.7(a). 

Solland International Ltd v Clifford Harris & Co: decisions of Master Bowles ([2015] EWHC 2018 (Ch)) and (on appeal) Arnold J ([2015] EWHC 3295 (Ch)) on whether a professional negligence claim should be struck out as an abuse of process. Please click here to view the judgment.

Mahdavi v Sterling Avram and Healys LLP: represent the claimant, the victim of a fraudulent phantom sale of a property, in claims against both the purported vendor’s and the purchaser’s solicitors for breach of duty in failing to prevent a fraudulent transfer of a substantial sum, transferred by one solicitors’ firm to another for the purpose of the purchase of a property but which were misappropriated by being paid out to third parties by a fraudster working as a consultant at the purported purchaser’s law firm.  Norris J ([2014 EWHC 4103 (Ch)) directed that the purported vendor’s solicitors pay over to the claimant sums recovered through the banking system.

Gladstar Ltd v Layzells [2014] EWHC 1449 (Ch): Sales J decided whether proceedings brought for damages for breach of a solicitor’s undertaking should be struck out as an abuse of process. Please click here to view the judgment.

Tritton Development Fund Ltd v Fortis Bank (Cayman) Ltd and others [2006] CILR 268: decision of Cayman Chief Justice Smellie in which he adopted as a matter of Cayman law the doctrine of the application by analogy of statutory limitation periods to claims in equity. Please click here to view the judgment.

Verjee v CIBC Bank and Trust Co (Channel Islands) Ltd [2001] Lloyd's Law Rep (Banking) 279, [2001] BPIR 1149: represented the creditor in his successful opposition to an application to set aside a statutory demand.  In his judgment Hart J considered the scope of the duty owed by a bank to consult its customer before honouring a fraudulently-presented cheque. Please click here to view the judgment. 

Docklock Ltd v Christo & Co Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 45: represented the successful appellant in the Court of Appeal, which held that the rule in Clayton’s Case (the first in, first out rule) operates in the case of a running account between a property management company and its client.  Accordingly, payments out of the account were automatically appropriated to sums standing to the credit of the account at the time and were not available to set off against other sums received in a later period.  Neither a subsequent Family Division order nor a related settlement agreement between the companies should be construed so as retrospectively to undo that prior appropriation.  Please click here to read the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Christoforou v Christoforou [2020] EWHC 1196 (Ch): represented the claimant, who claimed that a London property was held on trust for him pursuant to a common intention construction trust, in a successful application to strike out allegations of dishonesty, fraud, and illegality from the defendants’ Amended Defence and to exclude those allegations from consideration (and cross-examination) at trial. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Stephanie Thompson in the New Law Journal considering this judgment.

Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd v Singh [2020] WTLR 127: represented the principal respondent to a section 994 petition presented by his brother and by a trust company connected to him at two trials before Fancourt J, who refused to restructure the share purchase order he had made to improve the petitioners' tax position in the face of objection from the respondents. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Bankside Hotels Ltd (No 2) [2019] 2 BCLC 174: represented parties who successfully opposed before Sir Nicholas Warren an application by the petitioner to join them as respondents to a section 994 petition. Striking out the claim to a share purchase order against the trustees, Sir Nicholas Warren found that even if the settlor of a trust holding 50% of the shares in a company is guilty of unfairly prejudicial conduct in relation to that company as a director of it, the trustees of the settlement are not thereby automatically themselves responsible for or implicated in such conduct or exposed to relief being granted against them in an unfair prejudice petition. Please click here to view the judgment.

Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v ITG Ltd [2015] EWHC 1664 (Ch); [2015] EWHC 1924 (Ch): for the defendants, the former trustees of a Tchenguiz family trust, successfully opposing before Morgan J on the grounds of abuse of process an application to reintroduce by way of re-amendment of the Particulars of Claim the same claims which the defendants had successfully contended could not properly be served out of the jurisdiction. Please click here to view the judgment.

Singh v Singh [2014] EWHC 1060 (Ch) & [2014] EWCA Civ 1650: represented Jasminder Singh in (i) his successful defence before Sir William Blackburne after a 5-week trial of a claim by his father that his business empire was held on constructive trust for the male members of his family in accordance with the Mitakshara and (ii) the dismissal of the father’s appeal by the Court of Appeal. Please click here to view the judgment.

In Petrodel Resources v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415, [2013] 3 WLR 1, [2013] 4 All ER 673, [2014] 1 BCLC 30, [2013] BCC 571, [2013] 2 FLR 732, [2013] 3 FCR 210, [2013] WTLR 1249, [2013] Fam Law 953, The Times, June 24, 2013, 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. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Trusts & Trustees.

Tritton Development Fund Ltd v Fortis Bank (Cayman) Ltd and others [2006] CILR 268: decision of Cayman Chief Justice Smellie adopting as a matter of Cayman law the doctrine of the application by analogy of statutory limitation periods to claims in equity. Please click here to view the judgment.

Parnall v Hurst and Others [2005] WTLR 1241; The Times, 10 July 2003, [2003] WTLR 997: represented the successful defendant in an Inheritance Act claim where issues arose as to the jurisdiction to withdraw a judgment and to impose alternative sanctions to striking out an Inheritance Act claim. Please click here to view the judgment.

Murphy v McGlynn & anr [2002] WTLR 231: the court considered what efforts must be made to trace a missing beneficiary under a will before a court will make a representation order. Please click here to view the judgment.

In re the Estate of Phyllis Mary Bliss (Deceased) [2002] WTLR 541, [2001] 1 WLR 1973, The Times, 13 April 2001: represented the estate in its successful application before Ferris J as to the basis of valuation of a property subject to a testamentary option. Please click here to view the judgment.

M v S (Unrep, 16 July 2001): represented the claimant in a trial before Etherton J of an Inheritance Act claim based on his alleged abuse by his deceased mother.

Docklock Ltd v Christo & Co Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 45: represented the successful appellant in the Court of Appeal, which held that the rule in Clayton’s Case (the first in, first out rule) operates in the case of a running account between a property management company and its client.  Accordingly, payments out of the account were automatically appropriated to sums standing to the credit of the account at the time and were not available to set off against other sums received in a later period.  Neither a subsequent Family Division order nor a related settlement agreement between the companies should be construed so as retrospectively to undo that prior appropriation.  Please click here to read the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71: represent Mr Chandler, one of the former directors of the BHS group of companies, in proceedings brought by the liquidators for alleged breach of duty and wrongful trading. In an important judgment ([2024] 1 BCLC 71) allowing Mr Chandler’s appeal against the decision of Deputy ICC Judge Schaffer (Re BHS Group Ltd [2022] 2 BCLC 145; [2022] BCC 457), Edwin Johnson J reaffirmed that causation and quantum are essential elements of a cause of action under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as they are for breach of duty claims under section 212, and that it is essential for liquidators to plead these elements. Further, given the scale of the claims and complexity of the BHS litigation, Edwin Johnson J held, it is not acceptable for a case on the date of knowledge for the purposes of a claim under section 214 to be left “at large” on the pleadings. A specific date or dates must be identified – and it is “essential that the relevant pleading identifies what the case is on causation and quantum for each of the alternative dates relied upon as the Knowledge Date”. Please click here to read the judgment of Edwin Johnson J in In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] 1 BCLC 71 and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Charlotte Beynon in the New Law Journal considering this judgment.  Edwin Johnson J’s judgment ordering the liquidators to pay Mr Chandler’s costs, to be subject to an immediate detailed assessment as well as an interim payment of 60%, is reported at [2023] Costs LR 69. 

Re Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd [2023] EWHC 2451 (Ch): represented the two shareholder respondents to a section 994 petition presented against them by a former shareholder, who had been removed from the company’s register of members on the basis of a resolution that he was a “bad leaver”.  The respondents applied to strike out the petition on the grounds that the petitioner lacked standing, as he was no longer a member of the company.  In a landmark judgment, the court made novel use of its case management powers to order a split trial to determine at the first trial whether the register of members should be rectified and whether the petition was well founded.  Please click here to read the judgment.

Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Limited & St Joseph’s Independent Hospital Limited [2022] EWHC 1368 (Ch): representing Gwent Holdings Limited, successfully opposed 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.   In a judgment handed down in June 2022, the Court refused either to order the rectification of the company’s register of members under section 125 of the Companies Act 2006 with retrospective effect or 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”. Please click here to read the judgment.

Taylor Goodchild Ltd v Taylor [2022] 2 BCLC 27; [2022] BCC 1155: represented the appellant in its successful appeal against the striking out of its claim for damages for breach of fiduciary duty against a former shareholder and director who had also been the respondent to a section 994 petition.  The Court of Appeal considered, for the first time, how the guidelines laid down in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2008] 1 WLR 748 (which require a party which intends to bring an additional claim in subsequent proceedings against the same defendant to draw that fact to the attention of the court in the first set of proceedings) should be applied in the context of unfair prejudice petitions.  In allowing a law firm’s appeal against the decision of Snowden J to strike out as an abuse of process claims it brought against its former director and 50% shareholder who had been found in an earlier unfair prejudice petition to have acted in breach of fiduciary duty, the Court of Appeal queried whether the decision in Aldi had in mind “the rather special position relating to section 994 petitions”.  Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Dinglis Properties Ltd [2021] 1 All ER 685, [2020] 2 BCLC 607, [2020] 2 BCLC 574 and [2020] 1 BCLC 107: represented the respondents to a section 994 petition.  In his judgment following a trial of preliminary issues ([2020] 1 BCLC 107; [2019] Bus LR 3100), Adam Johnson QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) rejected the petitioner’s quasi-partnership claim and ordered his shares to be purchased subject to a minority discount.  Successfully argued that the costs of that trial should be reserved until after the quantum trial: [2019] Costs LR 1909.  Subsequently ([2020] 2 BCLC 574) Mr Johnson QC determined the date of valuation of the shares, what adjustments (whether in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondents) should be made to the value of petitioner’s shareholding, and the correct approach to the calculation of the minority discount to be applied to the petitioner’s shares.  In a further landmark judgment ([2021] 1 All ER 685; [2021] 1 All ER (Comm) 649; [2020] 2 BCLC 607) Mr Johnson QC considered the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the share purchase order which he had previously made. Please click here to read the judgment of Edwin Johnson J in In re BHS Group Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] Bus LR 1510; [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch). Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Gregor Hogan in the New Law Journal considering this judgment. 

Christoforou v Christoforou [2020] EWHC 1196 (Ch): represented the claimant, who claimed that a London property was held on trust for him pursuant to a common intention construction trust, in a successful application to strike out allegations of dishonesty, fraud, and illegality from the defendants’ Amended Defence and to exclude those allegations from consideration (and cross-examination) at trial. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article by Daniel Lightman KC and Stephanie Thompson in the New Law Journal considering this judgment.

Re G&G Properties Ltd [2020] Bus LR 762; [2020] 1 BCLC 1; [2020] BCC 236: represented the respondents in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which, in an important judgment, examined the pleading requirements in section 994 petitions. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Bankside Hotels Ltd (No 2) [2019] 2 BCLC 174: represented parties who successfully opposed before Sir Nicholas Warren an application by the petitioner to join them as respondents to a section 994 petition. Striking out the claim to a share purchase order against the trustees, Sir Nicolas Warren found that even if the settlor of a trust holding 50% of the shares in a company is guilty of unfairly prejudicial conduct in relation to that company as a director of it, the trustees of the settlement are not thereby automatically themselves responsible for or implicated in such conduct or exposed to relief being granted against them in an unfair prejudice petition. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Edwardian Group Ltd, Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd v Singh [2019] 1 BCLC 171; [2019] EWHC 873 (Ch); [2020] WTLR 127: represented the principal respondent to a section 994 petition presented by his brother and by a trust company connected to him at two trials before Fancourt J.  Fancourt J’s judgment following Trial 1 ([2019] 1 BCLC 171), is significant in numerous areas, including the law of fiduciary duties of directors, the requirements needed for a quasi-partnership to arise in relation to a family business, the effect of delay by the petitioner on the grant of relief in an unfair prejudice petition, and the issue whether a petitioner’s shares should be valued subject to a minority discount.  Fancourt J’s judgment following Trial 2 ([2019] EWHC 873 (Ch)) addressed the questions of the amount of the discount to be applied to a minority shareholding and the award of quasi-interest in section 994 petitions.  In a further judgment ([2020] WTLR 127; [2019] STI 1554; [2019] STC 1814), Fancourt J refused to restructure the share purchase order he had made to improve the petitioners' tax position in the face of objection from the respondents.  Important issues concerning redaction of documents for legal advice privilege and control of expert evidence were addressed, respectively, in judgments of Morgan J ([2017] EWHC 2805 (Ch)) and Nugee J ([2017] EWHC 3112 (Ch)). Please click here to view the judgment.

Dinglis v Dinglis [2019] EWHC 738 (Ch): represented the respondent in a successful application for permission to amend his defence to a section 994 petition concerning a family property development company shortly before trial. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Bankside Hotels Ltd [2019] 1 BCLC 434; [2018] BCC 617: represented the respondents before Sir Nicholas Warren, who in a landmark judgment accepted their argument that even though their defence to a section 994 petition had been struck out, the petitioner was nonetheless unable to obtain judgment under CPR r. 3.5, but was required to establish the pleaded allegations of unfair prejudice on which he relied at a trial at which he needed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that there had been unfairly prejudicial conduct. Please click here to view the judgment.

Griffith v Gourgey [2017] EWCA Civ 926: in the context of the striking out of defences to three unfair prejudice petitions for failure to comply with an unless order, the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which a court should entertain a second application for relief from sanctions.  Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Pedersen (Thameside) Ltd [2018] BCC 58: represented a 5% shareholder in his successful application to strike out the claim to relief (a share purchase order) sought against him in an unfair prejudice petition. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from JIBFL.

Griffith v Gourgey [2017] EWCA Civ 926: the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which the court can and should entertain a second application for relief from sanctions. Please click here to view the judgment.

In C v C, in matrimonial proceedings the husband obtained an ex parte order in the Family Court which had the effect of restraining his wife and son from performing their duties as directors of two family-owned companies,  Representing the son, Daniel successfully applied to set aside the ex parte injunction with indemnity costs, persuading Roberts J, in a landmark judgment ([2016] Fam Law 20), to hold that established company law principles apply in the Family Court, that previous Family Court decisions (notably of Thorpe J in Poon v Poon [1994] 2 FLR 857) that all disputes within the family should be litigated in the Family Court should not be followed, and that accordingly the Family Court had no jurisdiction under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief either (i) against company directors who are not the spouses in the matrimonial proceedings or (ii) in respect of assets of the companies of which the spouses are the sole shareholders.  Please click here to view the judgment. 

Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v ITG Ltd [2015] EWHC 1664 (Ch); [2015] EWHC 1924 (Ch): for the defendants, the former trustees of a Tchenguiz family trust, successfully opposing before Morgan J on the grounds of abuse of process an application to reintroduce by way of re-amendment of the Particulars of Claim the same claims which the defendants had successfully contended could not properly be served out of the jurisdiction. Please click here to view the judgment.

Munday v Hilburn [2015] BPIR 684: represented the appellants in their successful appeal against the striking out of their fraud claim as an abuse of process, the lower court having struck out their claim on the basis that when the claim was issued the cause of action was vested not in Mr Munday but in his trustee in bankruptcy. In allowing their appeal, Nugee J held that an abuse of process requires not merely that the claimant ought to have known that he did not have a cause of action but actual knowledge of a lack of title to sue. Please click here to view the judgment.

Solland International Ltd v Clifford Harris & Co: decisions of Master Bowles ([2015] EWHC 2018 (Ch)) and (on appeal) Arnold J ([2015] EWHC 3295 (Ch)): the issue arose as to whether a professional negligence claim should be struck out as an abuse of process. Please click here to view the judgment. 

HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Apex Global Management Ltd [2015] 2 All ER 206, [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 1183, [2014] 1 WLR 4495, The Times, December 8, 2014: represented the respondents in the Supreme Court successfully opposing an appeal by a Saudi Arabian Prince against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal ([2014] EWCA Civ 1106) of his appeals against an unless order and the entry of judgment against him for US$ 7.7m.  The Supreme Court stated that the standard form of disclosure by a party requires personal signing by that party. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from New Law Journal.

Mahdavi v Sterling Avram and Healys LLP: represent the claimant, the victim of a fraudulent phantom sale of a property, in claims against both the purported vendor’s and the purchaser’s solicitors for breach of duty in failing to prevent a fraudulent transfer of a substantial sum, transferred by one solicitors’ firm to another for the purpose of the purchase of a property but which were misappropriated by being paid out to third parties by a fraudster working as a consultant at the purported purchaser’s law firm.  Norris J ([2014 EWHC 4103 (Ch)) directed that the purported vendor’s solicitors pay over to the claimant sums recovered through the banking system.

Sukhoruchkin v van Bekestein [2014] EWCA Civ 399 (Court of Appeal) and [2013] EWHC 1993 (Ch) (Morgan J): the High Court and Court of Appeal considered whether a worldwide freezing injunction should be set aside because the claim might be barred by reason of the no reflective loss principle. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Fi Call Ltd [2014] EWHC 779 (Ch): successfully opposed an application for security for costs before Newey J on the basis that the costs associated with a section 994 petition and a cross-petition could not satisfactorily be disentangled. Please click here to view the judgment.

Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd [2014] BCC 286: before Vos J successfully opposed an application by two Saudi Arabian Princes to set aside the grant of permission to serve them out of the jurisdiction. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from JIBF. 

Re Fi Call Ltd [2013] 1 WLR 2993, [2013] EMLR 29: successfully opposed before Morgan J and in the Court of Appeal applications by two Saudi Arabian Princes, against whom allegations of serious misconduct had been made, in which they sought orders that interlocutory hearings in a section 994 petition should be heard in private to protect their reputations. Please click here to view the judgment.

In Petrodel Resources v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415, [2013] 3 WLR 1, [2013] 4 All ER 673, [2014] 1 BCLC 30, [2013] BCC 571, [2013] 2 FLR 732, [2013] 3 FCR 210, [2013] WTLR 1249, [2013] Fam Law 953, The Times, June 24, 2013, 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. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Trusts & Trustees.

Ovlas Trading SA v Strand (London) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3236 (Ch): appeared for the claimants before Sir Donald Rattee in their successful opposition to an application for security for costs made by the defendants to a fraud claim. Please click here to view the judgment.

Havai v Solland [2008] EWHC 2514 (Ch): whether an order for the provision of security for costs should be varied to enable security to be provided by way of a charge over real property. Please click here to view the judgment.

BBC v Sugar [2008] 1 WLR 2289: the first Court of Appeal decision interpreting the requirements of a decision notice by the Information Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please click here to view the judgment.

Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] 1 WLR 1099, [2008] CP Rep 22, [2008] BPIR 314, [2008] NPC 16, The Times, March 10, 2008: first Court of Appeal decision considering the extent of a party’s right under CPR rule 31.14 to disclosure of documents mentioned in another party’s witness statement. The first-instance decision of Patten J is reported at [2009] BCC 443. Please click here to view the judgment.

Tritton Development Fund Ltd v Fortis Bank (Cayman) Ltd and others [2006] CILR 268: decision of Cayman Chief Justice Smellie in which he adopted as a matter of Cayman law the doctrine of the application by analogy of statutory limitation periods to claims in equity. Please click here to view the judgment.

Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd [2006] EMLR 21: successful defence at trial before Lewison J of claim brought by former members of The Wailers alleged to have been in partnership with Bob Marley; an earlier decision of Laddie J on abuse of process was reported in The Times, 24 April 2003. Please click here to view the jugdment.

Fraser v Oystertec plc [2006] 1 BCLC 491, [2005] BPIR 381: represented the claimants in their successful application that an interim third party debt order be made final notwithstanding the existence of competing creditors. Please click here to view the judgment.

Oystertec v Davidson [2005] BPIR 401: represented the claimant in a case where Patten J considered the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the defendant for failing to comply with the asset disclosure requirements of a freezing order. Please click here to view the judgment. 

Arrow Trading & Investments Est 1920 v Edwardian Group Ltd [2005] 1 BCLC 696 (Blackburne J), [2004] BCC 955 (Sir Francis Ferris): represented the minority shareholder in an unfair prejudice petition about a prominent hotel company. Obtained an injunction from Sir Francis Ferris preventing the company from using its money to fund the defence of the majority shareholders, and a subsequent order from Blackburne J requiring the company to disclose (i) the usually privileged legal advice on the basis of which it had unsuccessfully defended the injunction application and (ii) confidential company financial documentation. Please click here to view the judgment, here for one article from New Law Journal, here for another article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Thomson Reuters Legal Ltd.

Uzor v Chinye [2004] EWHC 827 (Ch): represented the defendant, who, after setting aside an ex parte worldwide freezing order, recovered damages under the cross-undertaking in damages. Please click here to view the judgment. 

Eid v Al-Kazemi [2004] EWCA Civ 1811: represented the applicant before Neuberger LJ in a rare successful application under CPR rule 52.9 to set aside the grant of permission to appeal. Please click here to view the judgment.

Al-Fayed v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2004] 148 SJLB 1405: represented Mohammed Al-Fayed in an appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning his claim for damages for false imprisonment. Please click here to view the judgment.

Sykes v Taylor-Rose [2004] 2 P & CR 30, [2004] NPC 34, The Times, 2 March 2004, The Independent, 2 March 2004: the Court of Appeal considered whether the vendors of a house had a duty to inform the purchasers that a particularly horrific murder had taken place there. Please click here to view the judgment.

Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 640, [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 635 (Court of Appeal: judgment of Longmore LJ); [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 645, The Times, 19 June 2003, The Independent, 13 June 2003 (Court of Appeal: judgment of Clarke LJ); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 42, [2003] Lloyd's Rep 1, [2003] 2 Costs LR 175, The Times, 27 December 2002 (all Aikens J); [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 193, [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 76 (Court of Appeal); [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 591 and [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 554 (both Thomas J): represented the defendants in 5 years of litigation concerning a contract to provide oil to the only oil refinery in Macedonia. Please click here to view the judgment, and here for an article from Solicitors Journal.

Gil v Baygreen Properties Ltd, [2003] HLR 12, [2003] L & TR 1 [2002] 3 EGLR 42, (2002) 49 EG 126, The Independent, 7 October 2002, The Times, 17 July 2002: represented the defendant in her successful appeal to the Court of Appeal setting aside a consent order on the ground that the court only has jurisdiction to make a possession order under the Housing Act 1988 if it finds that the statutory criteria for the exercise of that jurisdiction are satisfied. Please click here to view the judgment.

Verjee v CIBC Bank and Trust Co (Channel Islands) Ltd [2001] Lloyd's Law Rep (Banking) 279, [2001] BPIR 1149: represented the creditor in his successful opposition to an application to set aside a statutory demand.  In his judgment Hart J considered the scope of the duty owed by a bank to consult its customer before honouring a fraudulently-presented cheque. Please click here to view the judgment.

Peskin v Anderson [2001] 1 BCLC 372, [2001] BCC 875 (Court of Appeal); [2000] 2 BCLC 1, [2000] BCC 110 (Neuberger J): represented the claimants (former full members of the RAC) in their claim against the committee of the RAC.  The landmark judgment of the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which directors owe fiduciary duties directly to shareholders. Please click here to view the judgment.

Re Israel-British Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2001] CP Rep 91: Sir Andrew Morritt V-C considered whether English proceedings should be stayed or dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens in the light of proceedings commenced in Israel. Please click here to view the judgment.

The University of Nottingham v Dr Simon Fishel [2001] RPC 22, The Times, 31 March 2000, [2000] IRLR 471, [2000] ICR 1462, [2000] ELR 385, [2000] EdCR 505: represented the defendant in his successful defence of claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty brought against him by the university by which he had been employed as a lecturer.  Elias J’s important judgment considered the circumstances in which an employee owes fiduciary duties to his employer and the ambit of any such duties. Please click here to view the judgment.

Mealey Horgan plc v Timothy Horgan, The Times, 6 July 1999: an early post-CPR decision concerning the use of sanctions under the CPR for breaches of court orders. Please click here to view the judgment.

Daniel Lightman KC has made his mark ensuring that company and trusts law principles are recognized in the Family Courts.  Before taking Silk, for two years he was the only barrister not exclusively a family practitioner who was ranked for Family Law (including Divorce and Financial Remedy) in Legal 500.  He is now the only Silk who is not exclusively a family practitioner ranked by Legal 500, 2021 in that practice area.  He also appears on the Leaders List of Family and Matrimonial Lawyers.

In addition to the three widely publicised cases referred to below, he has advised and represented parties to matrimonial proceedings in a number of other, confidential, cases, including where issues have arisen as to (i) whether a minority shareholding in a private company should be valued subject to a minority discount – an issue which is highly significant financially in an increasing number of high value matrimonial disputes – and (ii) how to protect the spouse’s rights and interests as a shareholder (if necessary by issuing proceedings in the Companies Court), while at the same time seeking remedies in the Family Courts.

In Versteegh v Versteegh (reported as W v W [2017] EWHC 123 (Fam)), representing the husband in high-value matrimonial proceedings, he persuaded Sir Peter Singer that he should transfer shares in family companies, rather than pay a lump sum, to the wife, and that the shares she should be given should be ordinary, not preference, shares.

In C v C, in matrimonial proceedings the husband obtained an ex parte order in the Family Court which had the effect of restraining his wife and son from performing their duties as directors of two family-owned companies,  Representing the son, Daniel successfully applied to set aside the ex parte injunction with indemnity costs, persuading Roberts J, in a landmark judgment ([2016] Fam Law 20), to hold that established company law principles apply in the Family Court, that previous Family Court decisions (notably of Thorpe J in Poon v Poon [1994] 2 FLR 857) that all disputes within the family should be litigated in the Family Court should not be followed, and that accordingly the Family Court had no jurisdiction under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief either (i) against company directors who are not the spouses in the matrimonial proceedings or (ii) in respect of assets of the companies of which the spouses are the sole shareholders.  Please click here to view the judgment. 

In Petrodel Resources v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415, [2013] 3 WLR 1, [2013] 4 All ER 673, [2014] 1 BCLC 30, [2013] BCC 571, [2013] 2 FLR 732, [2013] 3 FCR 210, [2013] WTLR 1249, [2013] Fam Law 953, The Times, June 24, 2013, 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. Please click here to view the judgment, here for an article from New Law Journal, and here for an article from Trusts & Trustees.