Cases

Judgment Date: 06 Jun 2022

Michael Gibbon QC and Maxim Cardew acted for the Official Receiver in Shop Direct Finance Company Limited v The Official Receiver [2022] EWHC 1355 (Comm) concerning bulk PPI complaints.

View case

Members
Maxim Cardew
Michael Gibbon KC

Practice areas
Banking & Financial Services
Insolvency & Restructuring

National Investment Bank Ltd. v Eland International (Thailand) Co. Ltd.

Judgment Date: 11 May 2022

The Commercial Court handed down judgment in National Investment Bank Ltd. v Eland International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. [2022] EWHC 1168 (Comm) granting the Claimant’s application under s.72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for a declaration that the arbitrator, Mr Simon Nesbitt QC of Maitland Chambers, who was appointed pursuant to an order of the Commercial Court in 2020 under s.18 of the Arbitration Act 1996, had no jurisdiction to determine the Defendants’ claim against the Claimant for over US$300 million.

View case

Members
Dominic Chambers KC

Practice areas
Arbitration & ADR

Sarah Butler-Sloss and Others v The Charity Commission and HM Attorney General

Judgment Date: 29 Apr 2022

The High Court handed down judgment in Sarah Butler-Sloss and Others v The Charity Commission and HM Attorney General [2022] EWHC 974 (Ch) on 29 April 2022.

View case

Members
Maxim Cardew

Practice areas
Charities

Namalco v Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd

Judgment Date: 26 Apr 2022

The High Court of Trinidad & Tobago has handed down judgment in Namalco v. Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd (EMBD) CV 2016 01522, finding an unlawful means conspiracy between mega contractor Namalco Construction and ex-senior officials of the Government entity EMBD to inflate prices for the development of roads and housing sites for ex Caroni workers on the islands.

View case

Members
George Hayman KC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes
International & Offshore

Primekings Holding Ltd & Ors v King & Ors (Re Kings Solutions Group Ltd)

Judgment Date: 17 Dec 2021

In a Judgment handed down on Friday 17 December 2021, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the true ratio of the Court of Appeal majority in Graham v Every [2015] 1 BCLC 41 is that there must be a causal connection between personal actions of a shareholder or third party and some other act or omission constituting conduct of the company’s affairs, for such matters to be pleaded in support of a claim for relief pursuant to section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (unfair prejudice petition proceedings).

View case

Members
Catherine Addy KC

Practice areas
Company, Partnerships & LLPs

Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd & Anor

Judgment Date: 04 Oct 2021

Richard Morgan QC appeared with Walkers’ partner Rosalind Nicholson and Andrew McLeod (One Essex Court) on behalf of the First Respondent instructed by Walkers’ partner Murray Laing (with Blake Morgan as Privy Council Agent) and David Mumford QC and Ryan Turner appeared with Appleby’s Andrew Willins on behalf of the Second Respondent (with BDB Pitmans as Privy Council Agent).

View case

Members

David Mumford KC
Richard Morgan KC
Ryan Turner

Practice areas
International & Offshore

Jones v Lydon (No.1)

Judgment Date: 22 Aug 2021

The High Court has handed down judgment in a high-profile entertainment case between members of the Sex Pistols. Both sides of the dispute were represented by barristers from Maitland Chambers.

View case

Members
Edmund Cullen KC
Edward Granger
Mark Cunningham KC

Practice areas
Intellectual Property
Media & Entertainment

The State of Qatar v Banque Havilland

Judgment Date: 30 Jul 2021

David Mumford QC and Thomas Munby (with Hugo Leith of Brick Court) act for the State of Qatar in proceedings in the Commercial Court against Banque Havilland SA (the “Bank”).

View case

Members
David Mumford KC
Thomas Munby KC

Practice areas
Banking & Financial Services

Official Receiver v Deuss

Judgment Date: 05 Jul 2021

Third-party costs orders: who is the “real party” on an application for public examination under s.133 Insolvency Act 1986

View case

Members
Caley Wright

Practice areas
Insolvency & Restructuring

Add2 Research & Development Ltd v dSpace Ltd and another

Judgment Date: 17 Jun 2021

A new judgment of the Patents Court in London contains an important discussion of the circumstances in which a transaction by a company will be treated as ultra vires and void as an unlawful distribution to a shareholder at common law.

View case

Members
Richard Fowler

Practice areas
Company, Partnerships & LLPs
Intellectual Property

Winslet v Gisel [2021]

Judgment Date: 23 Apr 2021

Despite the fact that the UK has now left the EU, issues concerning the interpretation of EU regulations will continue to affect litigants in this jurisdiction for some time to come. Alec McCluskey recently represented a claimant seeking to obtain repayment of interest-free loans made in England to a resident of France, relying on the provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU which continue to apply Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (the Brussels Regulation Recast) to actions commenced before the end of the Brexit transition period.

View case

Members
Alec McCluskey

Practice areas
Banking & Financial Services
Commercial Disputes

WWRT Limited v Tyschenko & Tyschenko [2021] EWHC 939 (Ch)

Judgment Date: 21 Apr 2021

The High Court considered the interplay between the Brussels Recast Regulation (“BRR”) and the approach of modified universalism to international insolvency proceedings in the course of continuing a worldwide freezing injunction, dismissing a jurisdiction challenge and ordering further disclosure and cross-examination in support of the worldwide freezing injunction. Although this will be one of the last ever cases concerning the BRR, it is an important reminder of the effect Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801 when a finding of domicile is made and would be of particular significance should the United Kingdom accede to the Lugano Convention.

View case

Members

Thomas Munby KC

Practice areas
Banking & Financial Services
Commercial Disputes
Insolvency & Restructuring

TuneIn Inc v Warner Music UK Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 441

Judgment Date: 26 Mar 2021

The Court of Appeal (the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Rose) gave judgment on 26 March 2021 in (1) Warner Music UK Limited (2) Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited v TuneIn Inc. The Court dismissed TuneIn’s appeal save in one small respect and upheld the High Court’s ruling that TuneIn infringed Warner and Sony’s copyrights through its operation of the TuneIn online internet radio service.

View case

Members
Amanda Hadkiss
Edmund Cullen KC

Practice areas
Media & Entertainment

Inmarsat Global Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021]

Judgment Date: 23 Mar 2021

A successor to a business that had incurred costs of launching leased satellites was not deemed to own the satellites by operation of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 Pt II s.78(1) and therefore was not entitled to capital allowances in respect of those costs under s.24(1).

View case

Members
Michael Gibbon KC

Practice areas
Tax

Davey v Bailey

Judgment Date: 26 Feb 2021

A recent judgment of the High Court, Chancery Division in Cardiff helpfully summarises the current state of the law in relation to deathbed gifts.

View case

Members
Richard Fowler

Practice areas
Private Client

Keeping Kids Company

Judgment Date: 12 Feb 2021

In a judgment handed down today following a 10 week trial, Falk J dismissed the Official Receiver’s claim for the disqualification of the former directors (“the Trustees”) of the well-known charity Kids Company, which went into liquidation in 2015.

View case

Members
Andrew Westwood KC

Practice areas
Charities
Insolvency & Restructuring

Active Media Services Inc v Burmester, Duncker & Joly Gmbh & Co KG and others

Judgment Date: 09 Feb 2021

Mr Justice Calver has dismissed a claim in the Commercial Court worth over US$3 million relating to financing of an animated film. The case raised interesting issues relating to election, waiver and estoppel, and the inferences to be drawn from a party’s deliberate destruction and concealment of evidence.

View case

Members
Edmund Cullen KC
Ted Loveday

Practice areas
Media & Entertainment

Ming Siu Hung v JF Ming Inc. (2021)

Judgment Date: 14 Jan 2021

Following his ruling that his failure to provide the minority with the Company’s financial statements as required by the Company’s articles constituted unfair prejudice, Leon J had ordered that the majority shareholder buy the shares of the minority. The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal upheld his finding of unfair prejudice but overturned the buy-out order on the ground that requiring the majority shareholder to provide the financial information was the appropriate remedy. The Privy Council restored the buy-out order. Leon J had not made any error of principle and the Court of Appeal had not been entitled to interfere with the exercise of his discretion when considering what relief to grant.

View case

Members
Christopher R Parker KC

Practice areas
Company, Partnerships & LLPs
International & Offshore

Sara & Hossein Asset Holdings Ltd v Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd (2020)

Judgment Date: 13 Nov 2020

Richard Fowler acted for the successful appellant landlord, Sara, before the Court of Appeal and at first instance in a dispute over service charges claimed pursuant to a “conclusive certification” clause in leases of commercial premises. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is also applicable in the wider context of “conclusive certification” and “conclusive evidence” provisions in commercial contracts, including guarantees.

View case

Members
Richard Fowler

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes
Real Estate

Maroil Trading Inc v Cally Ship Holdings Inc [2020] EWHC 3041 (Comm)

Judgment Date: 27 Oct 2020

Thomas Grant QC and Thomas Fletcher were instructed by Grosvenor Law on behalf of the Claimants (“Maroil”) in respect of an application for security for costs made by the Defendants (“Novoship”). The application raised an important point of principle on when a claimant should be ordered to provide security for a defendant’s costs of an additional claim brought against a third party, including security for the defendant’s costs exposure to that third party.

View case

Members
Thomas Fletcher

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Cases

MAITLAND CHAMBERS