Cases by Area of Law

H&S Developments v Chant [2016]

[2016] EWCA Civ 848

Barrister: Charlie Newington-Bridges
Area of Law:  Commercial Dispute Resolution and Property
Summary: Charlie instructed by Stephen Wray at Porter Dodson Solicitors was successful in the Court of Appeal in resisting an application for a second appeal in the matter of H&S Developments v Chant [2016] EWCA Civ 848, a case involving the construction of a land option.

View news article: Charlie Newington-Bridges successful in the Court of Appeal resisting an application for a second appeal in a case involving the construction of a land option

Beeny v Ghersie & MG Associates Limited

Barrister: Charlie Newington-Bridges
Area of Law: Commercial Dispute Resolution
Summary:  Charlie instructed by Richard Gore at Gregg Latchams Limited, has successfully defended Mr David Beeny, a former accountant, against a misrepresentation claim worth c. £1m in the case of Beeny v Ghersie & MG Associates Limited.

View news article: Charlie Newington-Bridges successful in the High Court defending a £1m misrepresentation claim
Download judgment: Beeny v Ghersie & MG Associates Limited

Alwitry v (1) States Employment Board; and (2) Minister for Health and Social Services (2016)

[2016] JRC 050 (Jersey Royal Ct.)

Barrister: Nicholas Pointon
Area of Law: Commercial Dispute Resolution
Summary: Nicholas successfully acted for a leading consultant ophthalmologist in data access proceedings against the States of Jersey Employment Board and Minister for Health and Social Services, arising out of the purported termination of Mr Alwitry’s contract of employment at the Jersey General Hospital. The proceedings, heard before the Royal Court of Jersey, are the first occasion on which the provisions of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 have come before the Island’s courts. The case tested the extent to which a data subject was entitled to make data access requests in circumstances where related litigation was either pending or in contemplation. The Court surveyed mainland authorities on the application of the Data Protection Act 1998 together with the guidance of both the English and Jersey Data Commissioners. Following cross-examination of the former Solicitor General of the States of Jersey, Advocate Howard Sharp QC, the Royal Court accepted the submissions made on Mr Alwitry’s behalf and ordered the States Employment Board to provide disclosure of the documents and personal data requested by Mr Alwitry. Nicholas acted together with Jersey Advocate Steven Chiddicks of Sinels Advocates.

For more information, please visit: Jersey Evening Post

Stenor Environmental Services Limited v SDL Ground Engineering Limited (In Liquidation)


Barrister: Adam Boyle
Area of Law:
Commercial Dispute Resolution
Summary: Adam successfully defended a multi track commercial claim heard before HHJ Keyser QC. The claim related to payment for works done by one haulage company, Stenor, for another, SDL. It was claimed that a third haulage company, which was liquidated soon after the material events, had both done works on behalf of the Claimant for the Defendant and had assigned in equity to the Claimant its contractual right to be paid by the Defendant. Adam successfully argued, among other things, that any assignment in equity in this case would be analogous to a preference payment and could not, as a result, be supported by the court.

Airbus v Withey

[2014] EWHC 1126 (QB)

Barrister: James Pearce-Smith
Area of Law: Commercial Dispute Resolution

Summary: Acting for Airbus in 4 weeks trial at Bristol Mercantile Court in a claim for bribery, secret commission, conspiracy, etc against employee of Airbus and his associates in their individual capacities and also against their companies.

Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc

[2014] WLR (D)  369; The Times, 28th August 2014

Barrister: Guy Adams
Area of Law: Banking and Commercial Dispute Resolution

Summary: Guy appeared in the Court of Appeal in this important case, which is the first case concerning misdirected CHAPS transfers. The claimant was subject to a common fraud in which the fraudster impersonated one of its suppliers and provided it with false bank details for the payment of an outstanding invoice.  The claimant filled in a form of instruction for a CHAPS payment naming the correct beneficiary but using the wrong sort code and account number.  The claimant’s bank initiated the transfer and Barclays Bank plc purported to accept the payment even though the account with that account number was held by someone completely different and the defendant made a debit entry on the claimant’s account. The claimant claimed and sought summary judgment on the basis that, as no payment had been made to its supplier, who did not even bank with Barclays Bank plc, its account should be restated. At first instance HHJ Havelock-Allan QC held on a cross summary judgment application that on the true construction of the form of instruction that the claimant had authorised its bank to pay whoever held the account and the information as to the identity of the beneficiary was irrelevant.  The bank had therefore fulfilled its instructions and was entitled to debit the claimant’s account. Lewison LJ gave permission to appeal on paper because the point is of general application and a decision of the Court of Appeal was needed.  The appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeal by a majority.  The leading judgment was given by the Master of the Rolls with a strong dissent from Floyd LJ.  Tomlinson LJ found himself “in the invidious position of having to choose between them” and by the end of the hearing “was more or less persuaded that that instruction should be construed as Floyd LJ has done”, he ultimately however agreed with the Master of the Rolls’ conclusion albeit for different reasons.  Tidal are seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

View the report in the Times: CHAPS transfers depend on sort code and account 
Download the full judgment: Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc [2014] WLR (D) 369

Scriveners v Imison

Barrister: Martha Maher
Area of Law: Company / Insolvency
Summary: Martha was instructed by Dominic Holden of Ashfords’ London office, to act for the Incorporated Company of Scriveners in a successful disciplinary action before the Court of Faculties against Ella Imison, Scrivener Notary. This case arises out of the collapse of companies in the Insight Group including Insight Commodities Limited which went into insolvent liquidation following a public interest winding up petition before the High Court. The case concerned the professional’s part in an alleged boiler room fraud involving  the sale of so-called agri-commodities investments  in a number of  jurisdictions with significant loss to investors. The case also raised issues concerning observance by professionals of the Money Laundering Regulations. This judgment has been published on the Faculty Office’s website.

Download judgment: Scriveners v Imison

Line v Baker anor

Barrister: Guy Adams
Area of Law: Commercial Dispute Resolution, Property and Real Estate and Wills, Trusts and Probate
Summary: Guywas instructed by Stephens Scown Solicitors in the case of Line v Baker anor [2014] EWHC 1368 (Ch); [2014] All ER (D) 42 (May), a most unusual dispute over the ownership of a valuable property in Falmouth. This case was tried in the High Court in London, where Guy acted for the claimant, Miss Line. A variety of allegations had been made over many years by the defendants, who claimed that their father’s estate was not properly administered in the early 1960s. The claimant sought and has now obtained in a reserved judgment a negative declaration that the defendants have no beneficial interest whatsoever in relation to the property. The case was originally referred to the High Court by the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry because it raised matters of company law. Issues relating to the transfer of shares, tracing, limitation of actions, acquiescence, laches and abuse of process were canvassed at trial.

Rowena Mary Elizabeth Williams (As Executor Of The Estate Of William Stanley Batters Deceased) v Gregory John Jones

Barrister: John Dickinson
Area of Law: Commercial Dispute Resolution
Summary: John obtained judgment for the claimant following a High Court trial in the Bristol Mercantile Court before Recorder Blunt QC in the case of Rowena Mary Elizabeth Williams (As Executor Of The Estate Of William Stanley Batters Deceased) v Gregory John Jones reported on Lawtel reference LTL 7/3/2014 document number AC0140753. John acted for the executor of the estate of the deceased minority shareholder who had agreed to sell his shareholding to the majority shareholder. The Judge held that an oral agreement for the arrangement of the share-sale transaction was a complete and binding agreement. Although the parties had intended that it should be recorded by a formal written document that they were to sign, they had not intended that their oral agreement should be “subject to contract”.

Chalcraft v Rivercraft Developments LLP & Rivers

[2013] EWHC 1510 (QB)

Barrister: David Fletcher
Area of Law: Commercial Dispute Resolution
Summary: A derivative claim for damages and other relief pursued by one member of property development LLP against the other members for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and an account of excess profits by making excessive charges for building work.  A separate derivative claim was also pursued against architects for negligently over-certifying the works.