Radcliffe Chambers logo

News and Cases

Judgment in Vaitkus v Dresser-Rand UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 170 (Ch)

Keith Rowley QC appeared for the claimant trustees in this equalisation claim in which the Court held that a notice issued to female members of a contributory pension scheme advising them that males and females would accrue future benefits on the same basis from 6 April 1991 (following the decision of the European Court of Justice in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (C-262/88) [1991] 1 QB 344) was sufficient to amend not only the original interim deed but also a subsequent definitive deed.


Christopher Buckley and Catherine Doran appointed Junior Counsel to the Crown

Christopher Buckley and Catherine Doran have been appointed to HM Attorney General’s Panel of Counsel for a five year period with effect from 1st March 2014. Christopher’s appointment is to the Attorney General’s B Panel (he was previously a member of the C Panel), while Catherine joins the Attorney General’s C Panel. Mark Fell and Mark Mullen are also Junior Counsel to the Crown (B Panel).


Judgment in Sarjeant v Rigid Group Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1714

Keith Rowley QC appeared for the successful respondent trustees in Sarjeant v Rigid Group Ltd, an appeal concerning the construction of scheme rules. The Court of Appeal held that a provision that, upon a winding-up, the members’ benefits had to be provided as ‘as nearly as practicable the same’ permitted the trustees, by implication, partially to buy out the members’ entitlement so as to maximise the recoverable section 75 debt. The first instance decision was upheld and Stevens v Bell [2002] EWCA Civ 672, which held that the rules of a pension scheme had to be construed in a purposive way, was applied.


Radcliffe Chambers Resource Seminar: Court of Protection Update featuring Senior Judge Denzil Lush

We are delighted to announce that Senior Judge Denzil Lush has agreed to speak on the House of Lords Select Committee Report on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as part of a Court of Protection Update seminar we are holding next month.


Radcliffe Chambers Resource Seminar: The Jackson Reforms (One Year On)

This seminar is to be given by Dov Ohrenstein and Wendy Mathers on Tuesday April 1st: the first anniversary of the introduction of the Jackson reforms. It will look at the impact of those reforms in practice and on procedure.


Radcliffe Chambers Resource Seminar: Damages in Property Litigation

This seminar, to be given by Simon Williams and Edward Hicks on Wednesday 26 March, will cover:

  • General principles
  • Damages in lieu of injunction
  • Remoteness/forseeability

Decision in Jimmy Savile hearing: criteria for the removal of executors and the duties of an executor of a potentially insolvent estate

Piers Feltham successfully represented the 137 claimants for damages for sexual abuse from the estate of Jimmy Savile, resisting an application by his residuary beneficiary, the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, to remove the National Westminster Bank as his executor, and advancing an application for approval of a Scheme to facilitate the handling of their claims, in the face of opposition by the charitable trust and beneficiaries.


Radcliffe Chambers Resource Seminar: You Can’t Always Get What You Want - lenders, breach of trust and Target revisited

This seminar, to be given by Grant Crawford and Peter Dodge, will take place at 6.30 pm on Tuesday 18th March. Hard on the heels of the important Court of Appeal decision in Santander v RA Legal earlier this week, Grant and Peter will explain the principles underlying breach of trust claims against conveyancing solicitors where lenders have advanced money but have not obtained the legal charge they wanted. Target v Redferns (decided by the House of Lords in 1995) alerted lenders to the possibility of seeking trust based remedies in these circumstances.


Judgment in Appleby Corporate Services (BVI) Ltd v Citco Trustees (BVI) Ltd

Michael Heywood appeared for the successful Claimant (the current trustee of a BVI trust) in this case heard in the East Caribbean Supreme Court. The Claimant sought equitable compensation from the Defendant (its predecessor trustee) for losses to the fund caused by the Defendant’s breach of trust. A fund worth c US$7M when settled in 2000 and valued at c US$7.3M by 2005, was worth just US$140k when the Defendant was replaced by the Claimant in 2011.


Judgment in Abouraya v Sigmund & Ors [2014] EWHC 277 (Ch)

David di Mambro and Henry Day successfully resist application for permission in double derivative action involving a Hong Kong company and English and Swiss subsidiaries.

Showing 10 of 360 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36