General Commercial Litigation:
Brown & Brown v Royal Bank of Scotland (Claim No.HQ14X01249) – instructed by the Claimants in respect of a multi-million pound claim for damages against the bank in respect of an alleged breach of contract to provide a commercial purchase and redevelopment loan. At first instance successfully resisting an application for Summary Judgment brought by RBS and then negotiated a settlement at the outset of the 5 day trial listed in the QB Division;
Bank Mellat v. Sec. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (CO / 1733 / 2014) – instructed by Bank Mellat (led by Aidan Robertson QC) in respect of an application for Judicial Review of the Bank’s claim that the FCO is acting contrary to the rule of law in not complying with the substance of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat (No.2) 2013.
Vincent Tchengiuz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (2013 / 2014) – instructed to work with the disclosure team (using the EPIC system)in relation to the JR proceedings brought by Mr Tchenguiz against the SFO.
Euro Palace v British Gas Business Services Limited (before Simon J. High Court QB Division 2011) – representing the Applicant at a hearing for an emergency injunction to restore power to it supermarket which had been disconnected causing the shop’s refrigeration systems to shut down.
McClean v Mangat & Walia – Petition No.: 8130 of 2003 (High Court – Companies Court (2011 hearing)) before Mr Nicholas Strauss QC sitting as a deputy judge of the HC: representing the Claimant in a two day trial in respect of his allegation of “unfairly prejudicial conduct” (s.459 of the ) Companies Act) based upon revenue stripping by the two respondent directors and then to determine the appropriate valuation of his 25% shareholding.
Haddad v The University of Bradford (before HHJ Spencer QC – sitting at the Bradford CC 2010) representing the Claimant in his claim that the course content, supervision and facilities provided by the Defendant during the course of his PhD studentship failed to meet the requirements of his funding body (in effect the Iranian Government) and this amounted to a breach of contract – the claim was rejected and the Court of Appeal refused permission to Appeal.
Construction Industry Disputes:
Brown & Brown v Complete Building Solutions Ltd.  EWCA Civ 1;  B.L.R. 98;  164 Con. L.R. 21 – representing the Appellants in an appeal against a summary judgment entered in respect of an adjudicator’s award under the HGCRA 1996 and Scheme for Construction Contracts. The Appellants having refused to meet the judgment sum as the adjudicator’s decision was – in their view – made in respect of a dispute that was the same or substantially the same as one previously unsuccessfully pursued by the respondent in an earlier adjudication – and was therefore barred under the terms of paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme.
Cuddy v Andrew t/a Paul Andrew Builders (before Recorder Waksman – sitting at the Central London CC (TCC) 2006) representing the Defendant in a three-day trial in respect of a claim alleging unfinished and / or defective works and his counterclaim for money owed for variations t the works in circumstances where the Defendant had filed no pleadings prior to trial.
Andrew Pinnell v Asad Ali Meerza (High Court Chancery Div. Case No. 936 of 2010) drafting the grounds of appeal and appeal skeleton in respect of an appeal from Registrar Baister giving the Respondents the unfettered permission under s.285 of the Insolvency Act to continue proceedings against the Appellant.
In the matter of HH&P Thirty Eight Limited (Petition No. 1452 of 2011 – before Registrar Nicholls Chancery Div. (Companies Court) representing the Petitioner at an application brought under ss. 98 and 166 of the Insolvency Act 1986;
Re Dorset House (Claim Lon / OOBK / LSC/2011/0620 and LAM / 2011 / 0019) before the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal 2011 / 2012; instructed on behalf of the liquidators of the freehold company (as junior counsel) who were seeking to recover circa £2.5 million in service charge arrears to discharge debts to the construction company who had installed a new hearting / water system into the block of over 100 flats.
News & Resources
The Court of Appeal recently handed down two important decisions that looked at the question of the effective scope of the limitation on “re-adjudications” ....23rd March 2016 Read more