We have a wealth of experience handling commercial disputes across a broad spectrum.
We litigate high value and complex claims at all levels before the English Courts and we work with lawyers internationally to resolve cross-border disputes. We also handle major domestic and international arbitrations (ICC, LCIA, specialist tribunals and ad hoc) and make effective use of all forms of ADR. As a team we have the capacity and experience to handle heavy claims and we consistently punch above our weight by achieving excellent results against significantly larger firms. In Chambers Europe (2016) we are described as doing “fantastic litigation work” and in the Legal 500 (2016) as providing “a City-service at non-City rates”.
Areas of work include:
- banking disputes
- civil fraud
- commercial contract disputes
- commercial judicial review
- competition disputes
- construction disputes
- director & shareholder disputes
- financial services disputes
- injunctive remedies
- insurance disputes
- international litigation including jurisdictional disputes
joint venture disputes
- natural resources & utilities, including energy
- partnership and LLPs
- post –transaction claims, including warranty and indemnity claims
- professional negligence
- real estate litigation
- restitution claims
- shipping & international trade
- trust litigation
Time to add more defendants?21 April 2017
In a recent decision the Court of Appeal has had to decide whether a claim for accessory liability against various companies was time barred. Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Anor  EWCA Civ 22.
Marathon Asset misses the jackpot again12 April 2017
After being awarded only £2 in nominal damages in its breach of confidence case, Marathon Asset has been heavily penalised on costs after failing to accept the defendants’ Part 36 offer.
Hague Convention - Obtaining Evidence In England And Wales For Use In Another Jurisdiction21 March 2017
This guide explains how you can obtain evidence in England and Wales for use in another jurisdiction. Whilst it is not always necessary to involve the English court, some courts outside England require its involvement and some potential witnesses will not co-operate without an order of the court.
Insolvency - Issues for directors16 March 2017
All directors owe duties to their companies. When a company is solvent, those duties are owed to the company personified by its shareholders. But when insolvency is pending, directors must act in the company’s creditors’ best interests. That difference means that the nature of the directors’ duties undergoes a significant shift when insolvency threatens.
Expert Witnesses16 March 2017
This guide provides a general introduction to the use of experts in court proceedings. The rules governing expert evidence are found in Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 35, the Court Guides and the Guidance for Instruction of Experts in Civil Claims published by the Civil Justice Council. This guidance will highlight the main points you need to know, consider issues often encountered and offer some practical tips.
Court considers service of a defendant’s notice to force claimant to serve proceedings or discontinue a claim14 February 2017
A recent decision not only reminds practitioners of a defendant’s ability to force a claimant to either serve proceedings or discontinue a claim by using a CPR 7.7(1) notice, but also considers for the first time the date for compliance with such a notice.
Legal advice privilege: Not as wide as you think?08 February 2017
Who is a lawyer’s client and what type of communications are protected for the purposes of legal advice privilege have been the subject of two recent important High Court decisions. These cases make it clear that not all communications between lawyers and a client’s employees will be protected by legal advice privilege, even if the communication took place to allow legal advice to be given.
Indemnity costs intended to have chilling effect07 February 2017
Court orders indemnity costs in recognition of the fact that litigation became “out of control” due to factors that were attributable to the conduct of the Claimants and their legal representatives and experts in the lead up to trial.