Notable Cases
We act for individuals, companies and Trustees
These are a selection of cases (anonymised for privacy) that we advised on:
Nugent and BDO –v– Willers [16 Jan 2019]
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council [2019] UKPC 1
This was an appeal from the Isle of Man Courts. We were instructed by the Respondent and successfully defended the appeal.
The issues on appeal were:
i) When considering the effect of the unavailability of evidence on the balance of prejudice between the parties for the purpose of section 30A of the Limitation 1984 Act (Isle of Man), is the court confined to considering only the effect of the passage of time from the date on which the claimant had knowledge that the facts in question might be capable of giving rise to a cause of action, or must the court also take into account the passage of time from the expiry of the limitation period?
ii) When considering for the purposes of section 30A(2)(b)(ii) of the 1984 Act whether the claimant acted promptly and reasonably after discovering the cause of action, is it permissible for the court to infer that the claimant acted reasonably when he has chosen not to give evidence to that effect?
The key points of law to be taken from this case are that:
(1) A Court is plainly entitled to treat some periods of delay as more relevant than others (para 33);
(2) In defamation cases where the Claimant becomes aware of the publication after the expiry of the limitation period, it is reasonable to take the view that the delay of greatest relevance is that which occurs after the Claimant becomes aware of the material facts (para 35); and
(3) The approval of the principles in Steedman v BBC [2001] EWCA Civ 1534 and Brady v Norman [2011] EWCA Civ 107 (as set out above) at paragraph 17 of the Judgment. The judgment can be accessed here.
Dismissing the appeal the Board held that the Deemster made no error of principle and his judgment contained no material misdirection. A different tribunal might well have come to a different conclusion but it could not be said in exercising his discretion in the way that he did, the Deemster exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement was possible.Willers –v– Joyce as Executors of the estate of the late Albert Gubay [2016]
Mr Willers’s appeal (following the Langstone action below) to the Supreme Court on the questions of: (i) whether there is a tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings in English Law; (ii) the status of Privy Council decisions in English Law (in particular whether a first instance Judge is entitled to follow a decision of the Privy Council in preference to a decision of the Court of Appeal or a first instance Judge, sitting in the Courts of England and Wales).
Judgment has handed down on 20 July 2016. In a landmark decision the Supreme Court held that (i) allowed Mr Willers’ appeal and decided that malicious prosecution of civil proceedings is actionable in English Law. (ii) In a second judgment, the Supreme Court decided unanimously that, though the ordinary rule was that decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) are not binding, the JCPC could in an appropriate case direct that a decision it made as to English law was to be binding on the English Courts and could overrule a previous decision to the contrary by the Supreme Court, House of Lords or Court of Appeal.
The full judgments and video link to the hearings can be viewed here.Langstone Leisure Ltd (LLL) –v– Willers; Willers v Gubay
Acting for the Defendant in a long-running case described in the Lawyer magazine "as one of the biggest professional negligence battles of the year" which was discontinued by the Claimant shortly before a lengthy trial in April 2013.
Thomas Crema –v– Cenkos Securities Limited 2010
This was a matter which reached the Court of Appeal following the trial at first instance. Mr Crema eventually succeeded in overturning the Judgment at first instance in the Commercial Court with the Court of Appeal granting Judgement instead to Mr Crema for the commission due to him by Cenkos Securities in relation to a fund raising venture in the alternative energy industry.
Navaratnarajah and Baldwin –v– Berryland Books Limited 2010
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal where the clients having previously been represented by another firm had lost at trial. We took the matter to the Court of Appeal overturning the Judgment and obtaining a dismissal of the Claims against both clients. The matter related to a breach of director's duties and the extent to which an employee of a company could be held liable for the misfeasance of its directors.
A multi actioned matter in the Chancery Division of the High Court
This was a complex, long running and multi-actioned matter which reached the Court of Appeal on two occasions. It involved a civil fraud and an issue on breach of director's duties. We appeared successfully for the Defendant at first instance and on appeal, arising out of financing of a foreign aid project using a debt purchase scheme.
Kamidian –v– Von Habsburg & Others
Successfully defending a claim against the client for breach of bailment relating to a renowned Faberge egg, following trial in the Commercial Court.
Limbu –v– The Ministry of Defence
Acting for the Claimant in a claim for personal injury sustained during a military exercise due to the Defendants negligence. The Claimant was a serving Rifleman at the time. Liability was admitted with the main issue in dispute being the Claimant's claim for loss of earnings. The matter went to a hearing where the Claimant's claim succeeded and substantial damages awarded.
Our firm has acted successfully for a number of veterans against the MOD for personal injury. We continue to be instructed on a number of non-personal injury matters on behalf of ex-servicemen from the Gurkha Regiment both in the UK and abroad.Pitt –v– Murrell
Representing the Claimant in proceedings in the High Court resulting in a settlement of the Claimants claim before trial by payment of unpaid commission on the prospective sale of the then, largest colourless, flawless diamond in the world.
Kuwait Airways Corporation –v– Iraqi Airways Company (1995) I WLR 1147
Representing the Iraqi Government in a series of Commercial Court actions including an appeal to the House of Lords arising out of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and involving claims for $1.3 billion after the seizure and removal of the Kuwaiti civilian airliner fleet and aircraft spares by Iraq. The action involved complex and fundamental issues of public and private international law, issues of state immunity, tort of conversion and principles of damages and heads of claim. The KAC –v– IAC judgments, of which the above are a few, have been cited in numerous English judgments.
Other cases include