Cases by Area of Law

Dawnus Construction Holdings Ltd v Amey LG Ltd

Barrister: Andrew Kearney
Area of Law: Construction
Summary: Andrew Kearney appeared in the TCC for Amey in a case in which two construction adjudication decisions were found to have become finally binding due to failure to give a notice of dissatisfaction.

Read a summary and the full case published on BAILII:

Re K (A Child: deceased) [2017] EWHC 1083 (Fam)

Barrister: Christopher Sharp QC
Area of Law:
Christopher Sharp QC, family law silk, appeared for the local authority in the recent case of Re K (A Child: deceased) [2017] EWHC 1083 (Fam) which reviews the case law on the powers of the court, and clarifies the extent of the inherent jurisdiction, in addressing the appropriate disposal of the body of a child.

Read the full case published on BAILII: Re K (A Child: deceased) [2017] EWHC 1083 (Fam)

Re S (A child) (Care Proceedings: Surrogacy) sub nom A Local Authority (Applicant) v (1) W (2) K (3) D (4) S (By Her Children’s Guardian) (Respondents) & A (Intervener) (2015) [2015] EWFC 99

Barrister: Abigail Bond

View full judgment: In the matter of the Children Act 1989 and in the matter of S (A Child) (Care proceedings; surrogacy)

G v A Limited Company

Barrister: Natasha Dzameh
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: Natasha, instructed by Lucy Mills at Gregg Latchams Limited, was successful in a rolled up hearing of her client’s application for permission to appeal and the appeal before His Honour Judge Denyer QC. This case concerned the liability of a non-resident tenant, who was also a director of the landlord management company, for service charges. The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 and section 20(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were of particular importance. Natasha argued that there had been an error of fact, an error of law and serious procedural irregularity. This case reminds landlords of the importance of complying with the relevant legislation and dealing with their claim in the appropriate forum. To read the full article please click here.

Ashcroft & Penley v Webster [2017] EWHC 887 (Ch)

Barrister: Oliver Wooding 
Area of Law: Wills, Trusts and Probate
Summary: Oliver appeared successfully for the applicants to extend an Extended Civil Restraint Order for a further two years.

A and B (Children) [2016] EWFC B115 (1 April 2016)

Barrister: Kathryn Skellorn
Area of Law: Children

View case: A and B (Children) [2016] EWFC B115 (1 April 2016)

S (A Child) (Care Proceedings; Surrogacy) [2015] EWFC 99 (08 December 2015)

Barrister: Kathryn Skellorn
Area of Law: Children

View case: S (A Child) (Care Proceedings; Surrogacy) [2015] EWFC 99 (08 December 2015)

Cusack v Holdsworth & Quantum Survey Management Ltd

Cusack v Holdsworth & Quantum Survey Management Ltd [2016] EWHC 3084 (Ch)

Barrister: Charlie Newington-Bridges

Area of Law: Company/Commercial

Summary: Charlie Newington-Bridges represented the First Defendant in an unfair prejudice petition and claim for breach of a shareholder agreement in a 5 day trial in the High Court (Companies Court, Chancery Division).

The claim was said to be worth £3m by the Claimant. In the event the judge found that the First Defendant was only liable in respect of a small fraction of that sum. A further quantum trial will determine the price at which the Claimant is obliged to buy out the First Defendant’s shareholding in the Second Defendant company and whether the First Defendant will make a net payment to the Claimant or not.

The trial involved several days of cross-examination of the Claimant and the valuation expert. The Claimant’s expert report, in particular, was shown to have a series of flaws and the judge chose not to rely on the Claimant’s expert evidence in his judgment.

A number of legal issues arose during the trial and closing submissions. The most interesting issue, and it was an one that remain unresolved as the judge decided he did not need to make a finding on the point, was whether reflective losses or losses relating to the diminution of the value of a shareholding could be claimed in an unfair prejudice petition. The argument involved consideration of whether the rule in Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1 against reflective losses applied and consideration of more recent authority such as Webster v Sandersons [2009] EWCA Civ 830 and Wootliff v Rushton-Turner [2016] EWHC 2802 (Ch).

In respect of the unfair prejudice claim itself and whether or not the conduct of the First Defendant was unfair and prejudicial the Judge in particular relied on the only recent unfair prejudice claim to have reached the House of Lords – O’Neill v Phillips [1999] 1 WLR 1092 and Re Guidezone Ltd  [2000] BCLC 321, in which Jonathan Parker J held that unfairness may be tested by using equitable principles and establishing the actions of the majority were such as to be contrary to good faith.

View full judgement here: Cusack v Holdsworth & Quantum Survey Management Ltd [2016] EWHC 3084 (Ch)



Davy v Pickering

Davy v Pickering

 [2017] EWCA Civ 30; [2017] WLR(D) 38

 Barrister: Guy Adams

Area of Law: Company and Insolvency

Summary:  Guy Adams, instructed by Capital Law LLP, succeeded in the Court of Appeal in overturning the judgment at first instance in the Mercantile Court in Cardiff (reported at [2015] 2 BCLC 116).

The case concerned the extent of the power of the court under the new provisions in section 1032 Companies Act 2006 to make directions upon the restoration of a company to the register, both to disallow a period for the purpose of limitation and to back-date the presentation of a winding-up petition.  The Court of Appeal held, following Hawkes v County Leasing [2015] EWCA Civ 1251 (decided in the period between permission and hearing), that it was necessary to establish a causal link between the dissolution of the company and the inability to start proceedings or to present a winding-up petition before such a direction could be made.

View judgment: Davy v Pickering v Ors

View summary: [2017] WLR(D) 38

Destine v. Muir [2014] EWHC 4191 (Ch)

An attempt by a borrower to avoid liability under a mortgage.  The Court decided that only the principal sum was repayable without any interest.