This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Watson Pringle

In The Matter Of Watchstone Group Plc Sub Nom Slater & Gordon (UK) 1 Ltd v Watchstone Group Plc (2017)

Judgment Date: 18 Dec 2017

In determining whether to allow the disclosure of documents concerning a capital reduction hearing to a non-party, the court followed the open justice principle expounded in R. (on the application of Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, where the default position was to grant access to documents that had been placed before a judge and referred to in proceedings, subject to any countervailing reasons to deny full disclosure. That approach was preferred to the principles set out in Pfizer Health AB v Schwarz Pharma AG [2010] EWHC 3236 (Pat), which did not appear to support the default position.

View case

Members
Watson Pringle

In Re Dalnyaya Step LLC (In Liquidation) v Nogotkov Kirill Olegovich, The Official Receiver Of Danyaya Step LLC (In Lidquidation) (2017)

Judgment Date: 15 Dec 2017

It was in the public interest for the court to determine whether an official receiver who had obtained a without notice recognition order under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 had breached his duty of full and frank disclosure, even though the parties had agreed that the order should no longer continue. In the circumstances, the order was set aside ab initio as the official receiver had failed to inform the English court that granting the recognition order potentially engaged political issues involving the Russian state.

View case

Members
Watson Pringle

(1) Blue Tropic Ltd (2) Coppella Ventures Ltd v Ivane Chkhartishvili (2016)

Judgment Date: 09 Dec 2016

An amendment to a claim brought under the Civil Code (Georgia) art.992 introduced a new allegation of unlawful conduct through personal dishonesty. The unlawfulness originally pleaded did not involve personal dishonesty, so, for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 s.35, the amendment constituted a new cause of action that did not arise from the same or substantially similar facts as those already in issue.

View case

Members
Watson Pringle

Boris Berezovsky v Roman Abramovich (2012)

Judgment Date: 31 Aug 2012

The claimant Russian businessman failed to prove any binding agreement that he was to have an interest in a Russian oil company or a Russian aluminium company.

View case

Members
David Mumford KC
Watson Pringle

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes