Emer Murphy

Commercial disputes

Emer has a broad business and commercial practice, and provides drafting, advisory and advocacy services in a range of commercial sectors.

Emer is ranked as a leading junior in the Chancery Commercial field by Chambers & Partners and Chambers Global.

Emer is a member of the Commercial Bar Association and the Commercial Fraud Lawyers Association.

Notable cases include the following:

Clutterbuck v Cleghorn [2015] EWHC 2558 (Ch), [2017] EWCA Civ 137, [2018] EWHC 2125 (Ch)

• As a junior to Jonathan Seitler KC, Emer acted for the defendant (representing a deceased’s estate) in this offshoot of the Clutterbuck v Al Amoudi case (discussed below). 
• The claimants alleged that the deceased entered into and subsequently breached various joint ventures relating to numerous expensive properties in West London.
• The defendant’s legal team successfully had the majority of the claim struck out as an abuse of process relying on the principle in Aldi Stores [2008] 1 WLR 748, as the claimants had failed to bring their claim with other similar claims against Ms Al Amoudi. The Court of Appeal upheld the striking out of the majority of the claimants’ case in March 2017.
• A three-week trial of the remaining elements of the claimants’ claim took place in the High Court in June 2018, and raised issues of fraudulent misrepresentation, contractual interpretation, estoppel by convention and proof of loss. Jonathan Seitler KC and Emer again emerged victorious, and the claimants’ claims were dismissed in their entirety.

Confidential (2018)

• This arbitration concerned a complex tripartite agreement relating to the production and sale of tyres.
• Emer assisted Alan Gourgey KC with various aspects of the case, which raised issues relating to the meaning of ‘fitness for purpose’ and ‘merchantable quality’.

Confidential (2018)

• This case concerned a complex joint venture-style agreement between a landowner and a developer, in relation to a prominent development site in London.
• Valuable planning permission was achieved for high-rise development on the site, and the land was sold with the benefit of this planning permission for more than £100m.
• The landowner and developer then disagreed as to how the profit arising from this sale should be split, with the parties divided in various respects as to the proper interpretation of the complex (and repeatedly varied) agreement between them.
• The case settled in 2018 following a successful mediation.
• Emer acted a junior to Jonathan Seitler KC.

Clutterbuck v Al Amoudi [2014] EWHC 383 (Ch), [2015] EWCA Civ 1593, [2017] EWHC 1127 (Ch)

• Emer successfully represented Sarah Al Amoudi, dubbed ‘the Vamp in the Veil’ by the Daily Mail, against two property developers who alleged that Ms Al Amoudi duped them out of millions of pounds of cash and property.
• Emer acted as a junior to Jonathan Seitler KC at a four-week trial in the High Court involving over 30 witnesses and addressing numerous allegations of fraud.
• In October 2015, the claimants said they had new evidence that proved that Ms Al Amoudi was an imposter. Emer and Jonathan successfully represented Ms Al Amoudi in the Court of Appeal, where the applications to rely on this evidence and for permission to appeal were refused.
• In February 2017, acting on her own account, Emer successfully represented Ms Al Amoudi in resisting the Claimants’ application to vary or revoke the substantial costs award made against them, sought on the basis of further evidence allegedly casting doubt on Ms Al Amoudi’s background. The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Confidential (2017)

• This action related to a substantial mixed-use property in North London, held by a company which was jointly owned by two wealthy families and later sold.
• Emer (acting as a junior to James Ayliffe KC) acted for a company associated with one of the families, alleging deceit and breach of fiduciary duty by the other family and its associated companies in relation to the sale of the property for several million pounds.
• The matter settled in late 2017.

Download Commercial disputes CV

Professional liability

Emer provides advice and litigation assistance in professional negligence matters arising out of her core areas of practice: property and commercial disputes.

Emer has particular experience of the following:

• Limitation issues;
• Issues relating to the scope of duty of care;
• Matters arising in multiple-defendant disputes;
• Claims against solicitors and barristers;
• Claims against property surveyors; and
• Professional misconduct proceedings.

Notable cases include the following:

Confidential (2019)

• Emer (acting on her own account) represented a law firm defending a professional negligence action relating to the firm’s handling of the purchase of a London property.
• The alleged negligence related to the SDLT payable on the sale.
• The claim raised a number of interesting issues relating to the identity of the client, the scope of the retainer, causation and reflective loss.

Confidential (2018)

• This professional negligence action arose out of allegedly negligent service of a break notice under a lease on the wrong party.
• As a result of the law firm’s alleged negligence, Emer’s client (a retail store) said that it remained bound by an expensive and disadvantageous lease.
• The case raised interesting issues relating to the correct measure of loss.

Twin Benefits v Barker (2017)

• This case related to the settlement of a previous court case which involved the unwinding of a multimillion-pound offshore trust.
• Emer (led by Elspeth Talbot Rice KC, XXIV Old Buildings) represented professional trustee company Confiànce, in defending the claim.
• Confiànce was alleged to have breached its duties in various respects, including by failing to ensure a sufficiently good deal was secured for the potential beneficiaries of the (now unwound) trust.
• Acting on her own account, Emer represented Confiànce at a number of interlocutory hearings, including a successful security for costs hearing in the High Court. Security was not paid, which led to the case against Confiànce being struck out. Permission to appeal was refused.
• Emer further assisted Confiànce in relation to its application for a third-party costs order against the individual who funded the shell company which brought the claim.

Mortgage Agency Services Number One Limited (Mansol) v Cripps Harries LLP [2016] EWHC 387 (Ch)

• In this case, a law firm was accused of fraud and conspiracy in the context of a large property transaction.
• The case concerned the scope of a solicitor’s duty to the other side in a property transaction, and also raised issues of causation and questions of limitation.
• Led by Joanne Wicks KC, Emer represented the law firm (Cripps Harries Hall) and assisted with numerous pre-trial hearings in this case.
• Jonathan Seitler KC and Jonathan Chew of Wilberforce Chambers successfully represented the law firm at trial, where the fraud and conspiracy allegations were resolutely rejected. (Emer did not appear at trial due to a scheduling issue.)

Clutterbuck v HSBC and others (2015)

• The claimants brought separate proceedings against Sarah Al Amoudi (dubbed ‘the Vamp in the Veil’ by the Daily Mail) for fraud in relation to property joint ventures, which were successfully defended by Emer acting as a junior to Jonathan Seitler KC.
• In these High Court proceedings, the claimants proceeded against thirteen professional defendants said to have assisted Ms Al Amoudi in her alleged fraud.
• Acting on her own account, Emer successfully represented one of the law firms sued. The claim was eventually discontinued by the claimants.

Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd v Kilpatrick Stockton and others [2014] EWHC 2502 (Ch) [2014] PNLR 31

• Acting on her own account, Emer successfully represented a barrister accused of giving negligent advice.
• The claim related to agreements entered into between the claimants and Texaco for the redevelopment of petrol stations and the airspace above them.
• The claimants unsuccessfully sued Texaco following the sale of a number of the sites in question, and then sued the legal team who advised them in the aftermath of those sales.
• The main element of the case was struck out on the grounds that it involved an impermissible collateral attack on the previous Court’s judgment. The claim was then discontinued in its entirety.

Download Professional liability CV