Century Projects Limited v Almacantar (Centre Point) Limited [2014] EWHC 394 (Ch)
Mr Justice Nugee has handed down judgment (Crown copyright) in respect of an interim injunction application made by the Claimant in the above proceedings. The case concerns a dispute between landlord and tenant regarding their respective rights in relation to demised premises at the top of the iconic Centre Point Tower, Oxford Street, London. The tenant, Century, which runs a restaurant at the top of the Tower asserts that the landlord, Almacantar, is in breach of the terms of the lease in relation to its proposed use of scaffolding and sheeting around the premises demised to Century at the top of the Tower.
Almacantar denies that it is acting in breach of the lease. The Claimant applied for an interim injunction to prevent the Defendant erecting scaffolding and sheeting pending trial; the Defendant opposed the application. The matter was heard by Mr Justice Nugee on 12 February 2014. The Judge refused to grant the application sought, rejecting the Claimant’s submission that the matter fell to be determined in line with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Goldmile v Lechouritis [2003] EWCA (Civ) 49.
The Claimant has applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Jonathan Davey, and Jonathan Gaunt QC instructed by Enyo Law, act for the Claimant.
Jonathan Seitler QC and Jonathan Chew, instructed by BLP, act for the Defendant.
Peel Land and Property Investment Ports No 3 Ltd v TSS Sheerness Steel Ltd – Re: Well Marsh, Sheerness, Isle of Sheppey, Kent
Peel Land and Property Investment Ports No 3 Ltd -v- TSS Sheerness Steel Ltd – Re: Well Marsh, Sheerness, Isle of Sheppey, Kent
Court of Appeal – 14 Feb 2014
Definitive modern case on the question of the relationship between covenants against alterations and the common-law power of the tenant to remove its own fixtures, in which Jonathan and Tiffany persuaded the Court of Appeal to throw doubt on the key passages in Woodfall which previously were thought to state conclusively the law in this area.
Download the Judgment (Crown copyright)
Cosmetics Warriors Ltd & anor v Amazon.co.uk Ltd
The Claimants, as registered proprietor and exclusive licensee respectively of the Community trade mark “LUSH” for cosmetics and toiletries, issued proceedings in the High Court against Amazon.co.uk Ltd and Amazon EU SARL.
The Claimants’ claims concerned Amazon’s use of the word “LUSH” in respect of Amazon’s internet advertising and in respect of the operation of Amazon’s UK website. The Deputy Judge found that this use amounted to infringement under Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC and held the Defendants jointly liable.
Simon Atkinson was instructed with Michael Bloch QC and Simon Malynicz by Lewis Silkin LLP on behalf of the successful Claimants.
Read The Lawyer article: click here
Dorchester Project Management Limited v (1) BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Property Management UK Limited (2) Landprop Holdings BV
Dorchester Project Management Limited -v- (1) BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Property Management UK Limited (2) Landprop Holdings BV
Trial 29th January, 2014
Claimant – Martin Hutchings QC and James McCreath
Defendant – Ian Croxford QC
This claim for well over £100M related to the sale of a major development site next to the Olympic Village.
Martin Hutchings QC (together with James McCreath) represented Dorchester. Dorchester claimed it had lost the opportunity to purchase and develop the site owing to breaches of a confidentiality agreement by BNP Paribas, and also breaches of confidence by Landprop (the property arm of IKEA).
Dorchester succeeded in the Court of Appeal against BNP Paribas ([2013] EWCA Civ 1713) on preliminary issues relating to the construction of the confidentiality agreement. Ian Croxford QC led the Landprop team at trial.
The trial in February 2014 (which generated huge interest in the property world and was widely covered in the property press) settled on confidential terms after 5 days in court.
Pi Consulting (Trustee Services) Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2013] EWHC 3181
Suspected pensions liberation schemes declared to be occupational pension schemes, despite evidence that they were not run as such.
Judgment has been given in 2 test cases relating to pensions liberation. Jonathan Hilliard and Bobby Friedman acted for the Pensions Regulator in both cases, Jonathan Evans acted for the independent trustee in one case and James Walmsley attended on behalf of the Financial Conduct Authority.
Morgan J gave judgment declaring a number of pension schemes suspected of involvement in pensions liberation to be occupational pension schemes within the relevant statutory definition.
Pensions liberation involves the establishment of a pension scheme on the basis that it is an occupational pension scheme and the registration of the scheme as such with HMRC and the Pensions Regulator. The scheme is then used to attract people to transfer their pension savings into it.
Money is then improperly paid out of the scheme to members at times and in amounts that is not consistent with its status as a registered occupational scheme. In the test cases, the Pensions Regulator argued that the schemes did not qualify as occupational pension schemes for the purposes of the pensions legislation.
That issue has a significant impact on the regulatory, fiscal and pensions legislation that applies to such schemes. Morgan J left open the question of whether the schemes were shams but rejected TPR’s other arguments and held that (assuming that the schemes were not shams) the schemes in question in the test cases were occupational pension schemes.
Download the judgment here (Crown copyright)
MH Investments v Cayman Island Tax Information Authority
In this case the investigatory powers of an offshore tax authority cooperating under the OECD model tax gathering treaties (“Tax Information Exchange Agreement”( was successfully challenged on human rights grounds in a judicial review. The powers were exercised in aid of an Australian tax investigation. The case is currently due to be heard by the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal
Financial Reporting Council v Deloitte
Deloitte faces fine and sanctions for MG Rover advice
As reported in The Times on 30 July 2013, the Financial Reporting Council’s Disciplinary Tribunal has released its draft report on Deloitte & Touche’s role as corporate finance adviser in the lead up to the collapse of the MG Rover Group – one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2013.
It found the firm and one of its former partners, Maghsoud Einollahi, guilty of professional misconduct in relation to two transactions relating to the acquisition of a £400m loan book (Project Platinum) and the treatment of £100m of tax losses (Project Aircraft).
Nicholas Medcroft of Wilberforce Chambers, together with Tim Dutton QC of Fountain Court, acted for the Executive Counsel to the Financial Reporting Council.Fountain Court’s Bankim Thanki QC leading Ben Jaffey of Blackstone Chambers (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) acted for Deloitte and Mr Einollahi.The Tribunal has reserved its decision on sanctions.
Secretary of State for Defence v Nicholas [2013] EWHC 2945 (Ch)
Jonathan Davey successfully represents Ministry of Defence in Human Rights / Landlord and Tenant test case
The High Court gives judgment in key human rights / landlord and tenant test case potentially effecting over 50,000 Ministry of Defence and other properties. The High Court declines to make Declaration of Incompatibility in relation to the Crown Exemption in respect of landlord and tenant legislation. Jonathan Davey is appearing for the successful Crown claimants.
Jonathan Davey has a broad practice spanning the commercial and traditional chancery fields, with a particular emphasis on commercial disputes, property, trusts, professional liability and public law. He has substantial experience of large scale High Court litigation including cases with an international dimension.
Government Actuary’s Department v The Pensions Ombudsman
Jonathan Evans successfully defended a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Pensions Ombudsman in the Court of Appeal. The appeal concerned the Ombudsman’s ability to determine complaints made against the Government Actuary’s Department and related to the Firefighters Pension Scheme.
GAD argued that it was not within the scope of the Ombudsman’s powers. The challenge having failed at first instance and on appeal, the way is now clear for the Ombudsman to investigate the merits of the many hundreds of complaints against GAD.
Jonathan Evans has a broad commercial chancery practice, with a particular specialism in pensions.
He undertakes litigation and advisory work. His pensions practice covers all aspects of occupational and personal pension schemes and associated professional negligence.
Nortel/Lehman – landmark pensions and insolvency decision delivered by the Supreme Court
Wilberforce barristers appeared in the recent landmark decision of the Supreme Court in the Nortel/Lehman case.
The Supreme Court overturned decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal by holding that a Financial Support Direction or Contribution Notice issued by the Pensions Regulator against a target company after it had gone into administration or liquidation will not have priority ranking as an expense of the insolvency proceedings but will instead rank as a provable debt.
Wilberforce barristers who appeared in the Supreme Court were: Andrew Mold (for the Nortel Administrators); Jonathan Hilliard (for the Pensions Regulator); Michael Tennet QC (for the Nortel Trustees); Paul Newman QC and James Walmsley (for the Lehman Administrators).