Promotions from Senior Associate to Legal Director:

• Greg Horsford, Corporate
• Barry McGouran, Restructuring & Insolvency
• Fred Sheppard, Commercial Disputes & Class Actions

Promotions from Associate to Senior Associate:

• Henry Wright, Corporate
• Jessica Brittain, Private Client
• Bradley Gabriel, (Senior Tax Manager) Tax

Promotions from Solicitor to Associate:

• Lauren Barlow, Intellectual Property
• Harry Collins, Restructuring & Insolvency
• Hallam Lewis, Insurance Disputes
• Hannah Simpson, Intellectual Property
• Eva Wichtowski, Financial Regulation
• Madeleine Thomas, Corporate
• Stella Seimeni, Corporate
• Eloise Lloyd, Corporate
• Zoe Deckker, Construction
• Anil Gill Property, Disputes

The firm has been recognised in the following categories:

• Best International Tax Team
• Best Private Client Tax Practice
• Best Tax Disputes/Investigations team

Edwin Coe’s Tax team is a dedicated and market-leading team of tax specialists and lawyers with many years of experience advising clients both in the UK and overseas.

These highly prestigious awards celebrate the outstanding achievements across the whole of the tax profession, including professional practices of all sizes, specialist firms, and those working in-house or in the public sector, and are judged by a panel of leading figures from the tax profession, and beyond.  The winners will be announced at an awards ceremony and dinner on Thursday 14^th May 2026 at the Hilton Park Lane.

You can read more about the Awards and see the full 2026 shortlists here.

For years the issue of taxpayer flight has been framed as an international wealth issue, but today a growing number of entrepreneurs and investors, most in their prime wealth creation years, are leaving the UK to build businesses elsewhere. Increasingly, it is founders and investors who are scaling businesses that are actively considering a UK exit. It is domestic wealth that is at jeopardy. When people at that stage begin to look elsewhere, it points to something more structural than a narrow financial calculation and carries real implications for entrepreneurship and innovation.

Tax still features in decision-making, but it rarely stands alone as the driving force. What comes through more clearly is a sense that building in the UK has become harder to navigate, with less predictability and a tone that feels more cautious than ambitious. Remote working has made that shift more tangible, reducing the friction associated with relocating and making it easier to operate across jurisdictions. Once location becomes flexible, founders begin to weigh where momentum feels strongest rather than where they are tied.

Conversations with those exploring their options suggest this is not a reaction to a single policy change, but a gradual accumulation of signals shaping how the UK is perceived. Confidence and perception play a significant role, particularly for founders making long-term bets about where to anchor their businesses. The technical strengths of a market matter, but so does the story it tells about itself, and this is where the UK is losing ground.

To read the full article, visit the City A.M website here.

An extract from the article is featured below:

In the first half of 2025, natural disasters caused around $131bn in potential insurance losses globally. Only about $80bn of that was insured. What remains is an uninsured black hole larger than the GDP of Bahrain.

That gap is now becoming impossible to ignore, as the traditional balance between risk and protection is starting to slip.

Across the insurance market, extreme weather is reshaping where risk sits, how it is priced, and, increasingly, whether it can be insured at all.

To understand the intricacies behind this challenge, FinTech Global spoke with industry experts across insurance and technology to delve into why the protection gap is widening, and how insurers can respond.

A widening gap

The fundamentals of insurance are being tested by the sheer scale and volatility of climate-driven losses.

“Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events,” said Roger Franklin, Head of Insurance at Edwin Coe LLP. “Economic losses from disasters are rising faster than the availability of insurance coverage.”

The result is a widening protection gap, particularly in regions where insurance penetration is already low. In many developing economies, most disaster-related losses remain uninsured.

To read the full article, visit the Insurtech Analyst website here.

• the construction industry;
• fire and rescue services;
• response and recovery; and
• vulnerable people and Phase 1 recommendations.

In its most recent quarterly report, on its progress in implementing the Recommendations, the Government provided the following updates.

Single Construction Regulator

In June, MHCLG announced reforms to the Building Safety Regulator (“BSR”), aiming to reduce delays to building new high-rise homes.

Pending the establishment of a new body to take on the functions of the BSR from the Health and Safety Executive, Andy Roe, former London Fire Brigade commissioner, has taken on the role of non-executive chair of a new MHCLG shadow board.

A new Fast Track Process was implemented in July 2025 to speed up new-build application approvals, bringing building inspectors and engineers directly into the BSR. In addition, the BSR is working to publish industry guidance to provide support to applicants early in the process.

To increase internal capacity in the longer term, the BSR will recruit more than 100 new staff by the end of the year.

What is of note is that applications for remediation projects continue to face delays obtaining BSR approval; however, the BSR has announced it intends to clear the backlog of Gateway 2 applications by the end of January 2026.

Chief Construction Adviser

Thouria Istephan was appointed as interim Chief Construction Adviser in September 2025; she

previously served as panel member for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

In this new, 12-month appointment Ms Istephan will:

• act as an independent adviser to the Secretary of State on matters affecting the construction industry;
• monitor and advise MHCLG’s work in relation to Building Regulations, statutory guidance and the construction industry;
• engage with the industry;
• support the design and implementation of the single regulator; and
• advise on delivering the response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendations.

Approved Documents

In July 2025 the BSR appointed an expert panel to assist with the review of the Approved Documents and provide guidance on how to meet the Building Regulations, including advising on how to support designers in demonstrating compliance with Building Regulations.

Interim findings are to be provided in Spring 2026, with a final report in the Summer of that year.

Construction Products Reform

Consultation on the Construction Products Reform Green Paper closed in May 2025. The White Paper, setting out policy on test data, the construction library, and oversight of conformity assessment, is to be published before Spring 2026.

Fire Engineers

The Fire Engineers’ Advisory Panel was established in April 2025 to advise the Government on the fire engineering profession.

The panel’s priority is drafting an authoritative statement of skills and knowledge expected of a competent fire engineer, following which a regulatory system can be proposed.

The panel is engaging with the sector on the drafting of the statement. Further steps are to be set out by the end of the year.

Fire Risk Assessor Competence

When Parliamentary time allows, legislation is to be brought forward making it mandatory for the competence of fire risk assessors to be independently verified by a UKAS-accredited certification body and overseen by a regulator.

In August, the British Standards Institution published BS 8674:2025 Built Environment Framework for Competence of Individual Fire Risk Assessors – Code of Practice setting out the skills, knowledge, experience, and behaviours for fire assessors.

MHCLG has developed a cross-government board to support delivery of this recommendation, and from September a new Four Nations and Crown Dependency Forum will meet regularly to support a consistent approach to fire risk assessor competence across the UK.

Delivery plans and key milestones are to be set out by the end of the year.

The building safety landscape has changed dramatically and continues to do so; there were bound to be transitional issues given the scale of building safety reform and it is positive to know that those issues are being addressed. While the latest progress report does not necessarily provide full details of what those upcoming changes will be, it is useful to have an idea as to the work going on behind the scenes and to be aware of the projected time frames for future industry change.

If you have questions about the Building Safety Act and/or building safety issues, please contact Zoë Deckker, Brenna Baye or any other member of our Building Safety and Cladding Team.

These importance of these questions was addressed by the Privy Council in its judgment in 1Globe Capital LLC v Sinovac Biotech Ltd [2025] UKPC 3. The case concerns a battle for control of a company, Sinovac, which operates in China but incorporated in Antigua and Barbuda. The stakes were high: it is listed on the Nasdaq, with a market capitalisation of over USD $600 million, and was involved in the development of one of Covid vaccines.

The dispute played out against the backdrop of Antiguan law but its general principles will also apply to English companies.

Which rules apply?

In 2018, dissenting shareholders of Sinovac had sought to remove the incumbent directors at the shareholders’ annual general meeting. They had not given advance notice of their intention to do so; it was simply raised on the ‘floor’ of the virtual AGM. The vote went ahead and the incumbents were voted out.

The incumbent directors argued that the dissenting shareholders were subject to a duty of fairness which obliged them to provide advanced notice of their intention, and that the vote was invalid in the absence of such notice. The courts in the Caribbean agreed.

The Privy Council did not, holding that the applicable rules are set out in the constitutional documents of the company (the Articles and By-laws) and Antiguan corporate legislation. Under those, particularly the legislation, the replacement of directors was ordinary business which could be transacted at an AGM without notice. Although equitable considerations imposing a duty of fairness may be implied in the case of small, informal, partnership-like close businesses, to the Privy Council, there was no role for the implication of such duties in a large, impersonal, widely-held company like Sinovac.

Had Sinovac been an English company, special notice of an intention to remove directors would in fact have been required. Other than that, the general statement of corporate law also applies to English companies. In particular, when considering which rules apply, directors and shareholders ought to consider whether the company is one to which the sorts of implied equitable obligations argued for by the incumbent directors may apply. If they do, the obligations on participants in the business may be both unwritten and wide-ranging.

What actions may be taken and by whom?

Prior to the AGM, the incumbent directors had sought to protect their position by adopting a ‘rights agreement’, purportedly governed by the pro-management laws of Delaware. The rights agreement provided for a ‘poison pill’, meaning that, in the event of a takeover attempt, shareholders (other than the protestors) would be given the right to receive further shares, which would have the effect of diluting the shareholding of the protestors. Shares were purportedly issued under the ‘rights agreement’.

The Privy Council found that whatever Delaware law provided for, as a matter of Antiguan law, the rights agreement could only be entered into validly by a special resolution of the shareholders, and not by the board. It was therefore invalid.

When it comes to matters of how a company is internally organised, it is generally the law of the place of incorporation that governs. When putting in place instruments developed in another jurisdiction, one must therefore consider their conformity with the applicable law. Any action taken without lawfully authority will generally be invalid and of no effect from inception.

How might actions validly be taken?

The case had come before the Caribbean courts on the application of the new slate of directors, who sought to be declared the lawful directors of the company. As mentioned, the Caribbean courts had rejected that application on the basis that their actions had been unlawful. Seven years after the original AGM, the Privy Council, having found that the vote which put them in power was in fact effective, then considered whether it ought nonetheless to refuse the relief which the new directors sought, pursuant to the discretion afforded by Antiguan corporate legislation. After all, a lot of water had passed under the bridge.

The Privy Council felt itself constrained by the fact that the vote for replacement of the directors had simply gone ahead, and that the Chair had not sought to adjourn the meeting to inform non-attending shareholders (who comprised approximately 17% of the shareholders) of the attempt. Having proceeded with the vote, the parties then conducted the litigation in a ‘binary’ manner: simply, they argued whether the takeover bid was legally valid or not. No attempt was made to evidence or argue that non-attending shareholders would have supported the incumbent directors and, given the passage of time since the meeting, the Privy Council felt that a further meeting on the basis of the old shareholding would have been artificial and probably impossible. In the circumstances, there seemed to the Privy Council no basis to decline to grant the relief sought by the new directors.

It is important for the person chairing a meeting, particularly one as important as a shareholders’ AGM, to be fully cognisant of his powers. The Privy Council noted that the various parties were “for the most part Chinese businessmen with no training in the company law of Antigua” and that “all those present [at the AGM], including the chair, were acting out parts prepared for them by their various lawyers, rather than thinking for themselves what really needed to be done”. One inference is that a Chair more familiar with Antiguan corporate law and practice might have responded more effectively to the unexpected development of the takeover attempt.

Conclusion

As Sinovac indicates, corporate disputes (whether the business is domestic or international) can raise complex questions of law and procedure which require careful consideration and preparation by all stakeholders.

If you are involved in a corporate dispute and would like advice, please do not hesitate to contact Alex Shirtcliff and Fred Sheppard of the Commercial Disputes team.

It will provide greater security of tenure to estimated 11 million households in England who rent their home and seeks to raise standards across the private rented sector to provide better housing.

Below are the main changes in brief:

1. The major change is the abolition of fixed term assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs). All new and existing tenancies will convert to periodic tenancies with no end date, even if they purport to grant a fixed term (unless that fixed term exceeds seven years). When a tenant wants to leave a property they can do so by giving two months’ notice rather than being tied in for a longer term.
2. “Section 21” or “no fault” evictions are abolished. Landlords will no longer be able to terminate a tenancy on two months’ notice.
3. Expanded and amended possession grounds are being introduced through amendments to Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 reflecting the abolition of Section 21. If a landlord wants to sell or move into their property they will not be able to do so in the first 12 months of a tenant moving in. After this they will need to give four months’ notice.
4. It is still possible for landlords to evict tenants in certain circumstances such as if the tenant damages the property, commits antisocial behaviour or where there are significant rent arrears. These “fault” evictions are still permitted. The mandatory threshold for eviction for rent arrears is increased from 2 months’ arrears to 3 months with the notice period increasingly from 2 weeks to 4 weeks.
5. Landlords and agents will be prohibited from encouraging rental bidding wars or accepting offers of rent higher than advertised for a letting. Instead there must now be a set asking rent.
6. Demands for rent in advance of the start of a tenancy are prohibited. Landlords will only be entitled to demand a maximum of one month’s initial rent at the start of the tenancy. Therefore landlords will not be able to favour tenants who offer to pay a number of months of rent in advance. There is no change to existing deposit caps introduced by the Tenant Fees Act 2019. These remain at 5 weeks rent where the annual rent is less than £50,000 and up to 6 weeks’ rent if the rent is £50,000 or more.
7. Landlords also face restrictions on increasing rent during the tenancy. Rental increases will be restricted to once a year and only to the “market rent”. Landlords will need to serve a “Section 13 notice” setting out the new rent and giving at least 2 months’ notice of it taking effect. Tenants will be entitled to challenge excessive rent increases in the First-Tier Tribunal.
8. There are strong anti-discrimination provisions especially in relation to prejudice against renters with children or those who receive State benefits. However landlords will still be entitled to carry out referencing and affordability checks and are now likely to screen potential tenants more carefully.
9. Landlords will also have to act reasonably in considering requests to have pets as tenants will be able to challenge unfair decisions such as insisting on payment of an additional deposit. In relation to flats, landlords will be bound by the provisions in the lease of their flat relating to pets and it will be reasonable for them to refuse a pet where that would place them in breach of their own lease.
10. The Decent Homes Standard (which currently sets the minimum quality standard for homes in the social rented sector) and Awaab’s Law (requiring social landlords to address hazards such as damp and mould) will now be applied to the private rented sector. Local authorities will be given powers of investigation and enforcement. Tenants can now no longer fear being evicted because they demand that their landlord carry out works on their properties to remove hazards prejudicial to health and safety.
11. A new Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman Service redress scheme will be set up designed to provide a quick and cost-effective way of resolving disputes. In addition there will be a new Private Rented Sector Database which is intended to give tenants greater access to relevant information about landlords and rental properties and help Local Housing Authorities to target enforcement activity.
12. At present, corporate tenancies and tenancies with very high rent (over £100,000) are exempt from the new legislation because they continue to be excluded from assured tenancy status. But the Government could raise this threshold by statutory instrument, as it last did in 2010. Given inflation and rising rents the £100,000 threshold may be raised which will mean that many high rent tenancies will become affected by the new legislation.
13. Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) providers under new tenancies are also exempt from the new legislation allowing them to grant fixed term tenancies. This exemption is contingent on such landlords being members of a Government approved code of practice such as UUK.  Existing PBSA tenancies will become periodic tenancies but with a special possession ground allowing landlords to terminate a tenancy in order to accommodate a fresh intake for the new academic year.
14. Landlords of HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) let to students will be able to evict them to allow for new tenancies. However more than half the occupiers in the property will need to be students and the landlord will need to give at least four months’ notice.

In the coming weeks the Government will announce how and when each of the changes will come into force. Therefore there is no overnight change and landlords and tenants will need to “watch this space” to learn when each of the changes will actually take effect.

The changes are likely to put increased pressure on the Court and Tribunal system which could lead to significant delays and the Government is going to have to consider how to reduce that risk by better resourcing.

Landlords have been operating in an increasingly tough letting landscape over the past few years. Now they will be subject to even greater regulation and constraints and in some instances could face tough sanctions for non-compliance. Whilst the Government claims that protecting landlords’ interests through strengthened repossession grounds will support continued investment in the private rented sector there are many landlords who would disagree. The restrictions on rent increases, not being able to receive advance payment of more than one month’s rent and the risk of a tenant leaving after only two months means being a landlord in the private rental sector is more financially precarious than ever before.

PISCES (Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System) is a new type of platform which will facilitate secondary trading of private company shares through intermittent trading events.

The intention of PISCES is that it will allow private companies to access a broader range of investors, boost competitiveness of UK markets, and generate liquidity.

PISCES Sandbox

The PISCES regulatory framework came into force on 5 June 2025 which created a 5-year sandbox period for PISCES operation and testing. During this 5-year period, the FCA will supervise participants and shall have the power impose sanctions and conditions on them.

Any firm wishing to run a PISCES platform will need to seek approval from the FCA and those trading on PISCES also will be required to comply with certain regulation under the sandbox regime.

In August, the FCA granted its first approval to the London Stock Exchange, under which it will operate a PISCES platform which will be known as the “Private Securities Market” (PSM). A number of other applicants are currently thought to be in the pipeline.

How trading will work

Trading will take place on a PISCES platform (such as PSM) through auctions, and both buyers and sellers will be required to use intermediaries. PISCES platforms will operate scheduled, intermittent trading windows with bespoke criteria offerings which will give companies control over when their shares may be traded, who their shares can be offered to, and a floor and/or ceiling price.

Eligibility

Companies will need to satisfy various criteria to have their shares traded on a PISCES platform, such criteria to be set by each platform. For example, for PSM, companies will typically need to meet at least two of the following criteria: (i) that they have raised a minimum of £10m in the last 3 years, (ii) that they have total assets of at least £20m, and (iii) that they are generating annual turnover of at least £10m.

Participants wishing to buy/sell shares on a PISCES platform will need to fall within the FCA meanings of high-net-worth individuals or self-certified sophisticated investors, amongst a few others. This has the effect of limiting retail investors from trading on PISCES.

What’s next?

PISCES aligns with broader UK capital market reforms aimed at helping companies start, grow, and stay in the UK by providing access to new investors without requiring a public listing. The PISCES launch date has not yet been set, but the FCA intends for it to take place sometime in Q4 2025 – watch this space.

Joanne McIvor was featured in The Times on Saturday, speaking about being a Partner, in light of the Chancellor’s plans to add national insurance to the tax bills of limited liability partnerships in November’s Budget.

From the moment Joanne McIvor become a partner at Edwin Coe, she felt a sense of duty towards the 110-year-old law firm. “You feel you’re a custodian of something, which is quite a responsibility,” she said.

For ambitious white-collar professionals across Britain, being made a partner — whether in law, accounting or consulting — is still seen as the benchmark of success. Getting there is no small feat. In some cases, especially in larger businesses, it can require waging a draining, Machiavellian campaign with no guarantee of victory…

…LLPs are in the line of fire even though they were not specifically designed for tax purposes, but to try to take some of the risk out of going into business. Their members are in effect sole traders who have clubbed together. Those who understand how they operate argue that they cannot be compared to companies as their members have paid up to join the LLP, often by borrowing money to participate. “Our capital is at risk at the end of the day and we are reinvesting it into the business,” said McIvor at Edwin Coe…

You can read the full article on The Times’ website (subscription required)

On Friday 24 October 2025 the High Court released its judgment in ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund and Others v Secretary of State for Housing.

The proceedings, which were brought by a group of established landlords, including the London estates of the Earl Cadogan and the Duke of Westminster, as well as charities and an investors, sought to challenge the compatibility of parts of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (“the 2024 Act”) with the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”). The landlords argued that parts of the 2024 Act infringed their right to protection of their property under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR.

This case represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over leasehold reform in England and Wales. The High Court’s judgment addresses the legality of several core components of the 2024 Act, clarifying the current judicial stance on these long-contested issues.

This decision has been long-awaited by both property owners and legal professionals. Its ramifications will shape the market and future legislative action.

What was being challenged?

A challenge was brought to the removal of marriage value from the calculation of premiums in enfranchisement cases, the capping of ground rents at 0.1% in similar circumstances and the limitation on the landlord’s ability to recover their costs in such claims.

The Court found against the landlords and confirmed that the provisions of the 2024 Act should stand.

What next?

However, the matter is not yet resolved. The landlords are expected to appeal, which may prolong the debate for several years, quite possibly culminating in a trip to the European Court of Human Rights. There also remains the possibility that the present or a future Government may ultimately decide to withdraw the proposed changes.

Even if no appeal is brought, which is considered unlikely, there are still issues under the 2024 Act to address.  There needs to be a consultation on the deferment and capitalisation rates used to calculate premiums and secondary legislation needs to be passed before the new valuation methodology is triggered. There is a long way to go.

This latest development has significant implications for both landlords and leaseholders. While the High Court’s decision provides some clarity for now, uncertainty remains as the legal process continues. Stakeholders should stay informed of further updates, as the outcome of any appeal or future legislative changes could dramatically alter the landscape for leasehold reform.

What should leaseholders do?

In the meantime, any claim made now to extend ar lease or acquire the freehold of a house or a building divided in to flats will be subject to the existing 1993 Act valuation methodology, most of the provisions of the 2024 Act, including those relating to enfranchisement, not yet having been brought into force.

Marriage value accordingly remains included in the premium calculation when a lease has 80 years or less remaining. Ground rents are not subject to a cap in these calculations, and leaseholders are required to pay the landlord’s costs during the process.

Some landlords may be open to negotiating marriage value and ground rent capitalisation during this period of uncertainty, given the financial downside should an appeal not be made or succeed, or if the Government sets rates that lead to lower premiums.

Many enfranchisement practitioners are advising leaseholders to consider the potential risks of waiting for the reforms to come into force before extending their lease or claiming the freehold. The implementation date for these reforms is uncertain and could be several years away, during which time the lease term will decrease, and the cost of enfranchising may well increase.

If you have any questions regarding this subject please contact Katherine Simpson or any other member of the Residential Property team.

Background

The Appellants, Mr Dilip Desai and Mr Paresh Shah, engaged Boscolo Limited (“the Company”) to carry out interior design and project management services in relation to the refurbishment of a property they owned.

The Company was alleged to have negligently advised the Appellants that listed building consent was not required for the refurbishment and, as a result, the Appellants suffered substantial losses.  The contract incorporated the British Institute of Interior Design Conditions which required the Company to obtain professional indemnity insurance. The Company had cover up to an indemnity limit of £250,000 for any one claim.

Following notification of a potential claim, (but prior to a claim being issued and thus liability being determined or agreed) the Company’s insurer, Royal & Sun Alliance Ltd, exercised a clause in its professional indemnity policy allowing it to discharge its liability by paying the full indemnity limit (£250,000) to the insured. Crucially, this payment was made before the Company became a “relevant person” under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, meaning the Appellants had no automatic right to claim the proceeds from the insurers directly.

Upon discovering the payment had been made, the Appellants then issued proceedings against the Company for breach of contract and/or negligence, seeking more than £700,000. Just three weeks after proceedings had been issued, the Company entered a creditors’ voluntary liquidation. The Company owed £34,000 to trade creditors and £250,000 to its former director and owner, however its only significant asset was the remaining proceeds of the insurance policy (£246,000).

The claim was stayed by consent and the Company’s liquidators applied to the High Court for directions as to the entitlement to the insurance policy proceeds under section 112 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The High Court Decision

The central question at first instance was whether the insurance policy proceeds formed part of the insolvent Company’s assets (and therefore fell to be distributed pari passu among the general body of creditors) or whether they were held on trust for the Appellants (whose claimed has prompted the payout by insurers). The Appellants argued that there were implied terms in both the contract as well as the policy that the policy proceeds would not be dissipated by the Company and that they would be held on trust for the Appellants and effectively ring-fenced.

HJJ Paul Matthews rejected the Appellant’s arguments and held that the insurance proceeds belonged beneficially to the Company. The Court gave directions confirming that the funds formed part of the Company’s general assets and should be distributed to its creditors in accordance with the usual priority rules.

The Court of Appeal Submissions

The Appellants appealed that decision submitting that the design contract implied terms that the Company would not dissipate the insurance proceeds if it found itself in financial difficulties and had reasonable grounds to believe it would not otherwise be able to meet the Appellant’s claim. In other words, there was a constructive trust over the policy proceeds because it would be unconscionable for the Company to retain the insurance proceeds if it had the “Relevant State of Mind”.

They also argued that both the policy and the design contract included an implied term that the proceeds would only be utilised for the so-called ‘Paramount Purpose’ of ensuring, for the benefit of the injured client, the Company’s ability to pay the related claim.

The Court of Appeal Decision

No Constructive Trust

The Court of Appeal rejected the constructive trust argument noting that a remedial constructive trust was not recognised in English Law and furthermore the circumstances did not justify the imposition of a trust based on unconscionability.

Implication of Terms Test

In considering whether the terms had been implied the Court applied the test from Ali v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2017] UKPC 10, assessing whether the terms were necessary for business efficacy or whether the allegedly implied terms were so obvious that they went without saying.

It was determined that it was not obvious that a term restricting the use of the proceeds was implied into the design contract, nor was it necessary for business efficacy. The Court made the point that the Appellants could have included an express term in the contract establishing a proprietary entitlement to any insurance pay out, but they had not done so.

Paramount Purpose

In considering the ‘Paramount Purpose’ argument, the Court held that the primary and direct purpose of professional indemnity insurance was to benefit the insured rather than any third party. It was confirmed that any benefits to third parties were by indirect benefit and that it was not necessary for business efficacy to imply a term to protect that indirect benefit.

No Trust Imposed

The Court went on to say that even if a term had been implied requiring the Company to use the policy proceeds to pay the related claim, this would not have assisted the Appellants unless a trust over the proceeds had been formed. In the absence of a trust, the Appellants would only have a contractual claim to the funds rather than a proprietary entitlement. As such the Appellants would rank among the other unsecured creditors of the Company.

The court noted that the neither the requirement of certainty of intention nor certainty of subject matter had been met to support the imposition of a trust. There was no indication of an intention that the proceeds were to be held on trust, and the funds were not ring-fenced or separated from the Company’s assets in a manner that might indicate certainty of subject matter.

No Statutory Assignment

Furthermore, the Appellants were not assisted by the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (“TPRIA 2010”). The timing of the events in this case were key to the decision. The Court confirmed that the TPRIA 2010 can only transfer an insured’s rights against its insurer to a third party upon the occurrence of a qualifying insolvency event. In this case, as the insurance proceeds were received by the insured prior to it entering an insolvency process (thereby discharging the insurer’s liability prior to the requisite qualifying insolvency event), the TPRIA 2010 did not apply and the Appellants accordingly acquired no rights against the insurer.

Implications of the Judgment

The decision reaffirms the general principle set out in the case of Re Harrington Motor Co Ltd, ex p Chaplin [1928] Ch 105, that a claimant does not have a beneficial interest in the proceeds of a company’s insurance claim, even where that claim has already been proved.

In the absence of express contractual provisions or statutory assignment, insurance proceeds paid to an insured belong to the insured and a claimant cannot take the benefits provided under the TPRIA 2020 unless and until formal insolvency proceedings have been commenced.

Moving forward, it is likely that parties contracting with professional service providers will seek to insert a clause into contracts conferring a proprietary right or security interest in the professional service providers’ interest under their insurance policies. This will be particularly important in cases where the financial security of the insured is in doubt.

The case also serves to highlight the fact that insureds who receive payment from insurers who have elected to compromise the claim at the full limit of indemnity, thereby relinquishing all liability for the claim, are not under any obligation to use the payment to meet the claimant’s claim. Arguably this leaves claimants who are intended to be protected by the provision of insurance vulnerable should insurers exercise their rights in this manner.

For insolvency practitioners, the decision provides clarity that insurance proceeds paid prior to a qualifying insolvency event will form part of the insolvent Company’s estate for the benefit of the Company’s creditors as a whole and are to  be distributed in accordance with the statutory waterfall In this context and also of note were the Court’s observations that insurance policies are generally not intended to benefit third parties in asserting claims against the insured – and even less so to confer enforceable proprietary rights upon them in the event of the insured’s insolvency.

In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision and specifically the concluding paragraph of Lord Justice Zacaroli’s judgment – “The conclusion does not, moreover, preclude parties seeking to provide, by express terms, protection against an insured’s insolvency, whether by grant of a proprietary right or security interest” – insolvency practitioners would also be well advised to undertake a careful review of contractual terms that require insurance proceeds received by the insured to be held separately on trust for a claimant and applied solely towards the discharge of that claim. Although the effectiveness of such provisions will be case specific, the Court provided clear guidance that express terms seeking to ring-fence insurance proceeds could indeed support the argument that the funds are to be held separately with the consequence that they will not form part of the insured’s estate upon insolvency.

If you would like assistance or have any queries about this topic, please do not hesitate to get in touch with Nicola Maher of the Insurance Disputes team, or Sophia Bompas of the Restructuring & Insolvency team.

Sean Bannister recently spoke to the Financial Times on the Chancellor’s plans to add national insurance to the tax bills of some UK professionals in November’s Budget.

Lawyers and accountants have criticised plans being considered by Rachel Reeves to make partners pay more tax through national insurance contributions, arguing that such a raid would hit a cornerstone of the UK economy.

The chancellor is preparing to add national insurance on to the tax bills of some UK professionals, which the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax) think-tank has estimated would affect some 200,000 people and raise £1.9bn a year…

…Sean Bannister, chartered tax adviser at law firm Edwin Coe, said Reeves’ proposal “misunderstands partnerships”, which often “have their own capital at risk”.

“To target them again would deal a heavy blow to firms already managing rising costs,” he said.

You can read the full article on the Financial Times’ website (subscription required)

Sean’s comments have also been reported in:

• The Law Society Gazette: Chancellor poised to end LLP tax breaks for lawyers
• CityAM: Lawyers sound alarm over Rachel Reeves’ proposed tax target on LLPs
• Law.com: ‘Crude’ and ‘Unfair’: Lawyers React to Reeves’ Expected Tax on LLPs

Edwin Coe is proud to announce its continued recognition as one of the UK’s leading private client law firms in the newly released 2025 rankings by eprivateclient.

Our award-winning Private Client team provides expert guidance to individuals and families for whom wealth preservation is a key priority. We serve as trusted advisers to clients across the UK and internationally, including families, trusts, and owner-managed businesses.

The eprivateclient rankings are based on a comprehensive survey of over 100 UK law firms, evaluating not only the scale of their private client teams but also their standing within the private wealth sector. This year, 71 firms were selected for their commitment to delivering high-quality services to wealthy individuals and families.

We are honoured to be recognised once again for our excellence in private client work and builds on the team’s recent success in the Private Wealth Law category of the 2025 Chambers High Net Worth Directory and The Legal 500 UK 2026 Guide.

For more information please see the eprivateclient website (subscription required).

This year’s guide celebrates the achievements of our specialists:

 Tax team

• Sean Bannister, Head of Tax, is Top Recommended and Hetal Sanghvi, Partner, is Recommended in the Accountant and Tax Advisors Index.
• Morag Ofili, Barrister – Partner, is Top Recommended in the Tax and Trusts Barristers Index.

 Private Client team

• Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner and Head of Private Client, is Recommended in the Probate and Wills Lawyers Index, and Matthew Barnett, Head of Private Client, UK, is ranked for the first time as Recommended in the same index.
• Shams Rahman, Partner, is Recommended in the Contentious Trusts Lawyers Index.
• Lara Mardell, Of Counsel is Recommended in the Tax Lawyers Index.

Employment team

• Linky Trott, Head of Employment, is Top Recommended in the Employment Lawyers Index.

The Spear’s 500 is a leading resource profiling the foremost private client advisers, wealth managers, lawyers, and service providers assisting high-net-worth individuals. Recommendations are compiled through peer nominations, client feedback, interviews, firm data, and analysis by the Spear’s editorial and research teams.

For more details, you can view the Spear’s 500 profiles of Edwin Coe’s experts here.

We are delighted to share that Eleanor Showering, Associate in our Intellectual Property team, has been named a Rising Star in the esteemed UK IP Stars rankings 2025 from Managing IP.

This recognition follows closely after Maggie Ramage, Partner, being acknowledged as a Notable Practitioner in June this year. Additionally, our IP team earned distinction as a Notable Firm for Trade Mark Prosecution.

IP Stars from Managing IP highlights leading intellectual property experts from around the world, drawing on a thorough evaluation process that considers firm submissions, publicly accessible information, and market insights.

Simon Miles, our Head of Intellectual Property, stated: “Eleanor’s recognition as a Rising Star is a testament to the dedication and expertise within our outstanding IP team. We are exceptionally proud of her achievement, which highlights our ongoing commitment to developing leading IP specialists.”

To view the IP Stars 2025 rankings for Edwin Coe and our lawyers, please see here.  Subscription is required.

It’s a nickname that’s become familiar to anyone with even a passing interest in the Premier League.

Now, Chelsea and England playmaker Cole Palmer has successfully trademarked the term ‘Cold Palmer’. Palmer’s application, submitted to the UK government’s Intellectual Property Office in November, was approved on Friday, The Athletic can reveal.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that our lawyers and their practices have been recommended for their outstanding work in 18 categories in the newly released The Legal 500 UK 2026 directory. These independently researched rankings highlight the individuals and practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to clients across a wide range of categories.

Individuals

Across our practices, our lawyers are recommended 73 times by the Legal 500’s expert researchers, with new mentions/reappearances for Sophie Armstrong and Greg Horsford (M&A), Charlotte Kessler (Commercial Litigation), Elliot Francis (Employment), Jeremy Curtis and Eva Moynihan (Personal tax, trusts and probate), James Hibbert (Property Litigation), Eleanor Showering, Kenny Cheung, Maggie Ramage, Karen Lee, Dennis Lee and Lakmal Walawage (all Intellectual Property).

Our Senior Partner, David Greene retains his membership of two ‘Halls of Fame’ for Commercial Litigation and for Group Litigation, whilst Matthew Barnett (Personal tax, trusts and probate), David Goepel (Personal tax, trusts and probate), Daniel Bellau (M&A) retain their rankings ‘Leading Individuals.’

Zahira Hussain (Commercial Litigation), and Thomas Malato-Johnson (Commercial Litigation: Mid-Market) also keep their ‘Next Generation Partner’ recommendations.

Additionally, Christopher Pollard is recommended in the South Eastern England categories of Commercial Litigation, IT & Telecoms and Intellectual Property for his work at his previous firm.

Practices

We are recommended in 18 practice categories – Our ‘approachable and knowledgeable,’ Property team is recommended for Residential Property give ‘5 star advice to protect their clients’ best interest’; Property Finance ‘works collaboratively with both the client and the lender to achieve the desired outcome’; Construction: non-contentious who are described as an ‘excellent team with incredible knowledge’, and also Property Litigation: ‘Very strong team with a pragmatic approach to often complex property litigation.’

Our ‘First-class private client team’ was recommended for Personal tax, trusts and probate along with Charities and not-for-profit. One client said ‘this practice has lawyers who are very professional, dynamic and friendly to work with.’

The Corporate team are recommended for M&A: £10m-£100m ‘excellent services, very good advice, and very timely results‘; and Equity Capital Markets: Small-Mid Cap, whilst a client comments on growing Intellectual Property team that ‘we can talk to anyone about our affairs and feel that they are knowledgeable.’

Our Employment lawyers were ranked for Employment: employers ‘legally robust, but also deeply strategic’ and for Employment: senior executives, with one referee commenting that the team are ‘they are highly talented, experienced and dedicated professionals’; plus both Immigration: Business and Immigration: Personal ‘Great service, great advice and very responsive.’

Finally, our litigators were also recommended for Group Litigation: Claimant ‘never afraid of the fight’; Commercial litigation: mid-market ‘very responsive and commercial’; Fraud: Civil ‘a strong team, fearless in their approach’; Professional Negligence ‘Simply the best team in the country’; Insurance Litigation: For Policyholders where one contact stated ‘one of the well-established and most respected in the sector.’

Congratulations to all involved!

For more detailed information, including specific lawyer rankings and commentary, please visit the Legal 500 website.

London, 30 September 2025 – Edwin Coe is delighted to announce the appointment of Clare Quinn-Waters in the newly created role of Chief Growth Officer. Clare joins the firm’s Management team and will be instrumental in driving strategic growth initiatives across the practice.

Clare brings a wealth of experience in strategic leadership, having held senior roles in both legal and professional services environments, driving transformative initiatives and fostering enduring client relationships. Prior to joining Edwin Coe, Clare served as Partner and Business Development Director at FRP Advisory, where she played a pivotal role in shaping the firm’s growth strategy. Her appointment reflects Edwin Coe’s continued commitment to innovation, client service excellence, and long-term growth.

Alison Broadberry, Edwin Coe’s Managing Partner said: “Clare’s appointment is a reflection of our ambition to grow with purpose and to invest in the very best talent. Her energy, strategic insight, and collaborative approach will be invaluable as we continue to evolve our offering. We are thrilled to welcome her to the firm and look forward to the impact she will make across the firm.”

Edwin Coe’s CEO, Tim Nash added, “We are very excited to welcome Clare to the firm at this time of transformation and positive change. Clare’s exceptional insight, drive and extensive experience will be instrumental in shaping our firm’s continued evolution.”

Clare commented, “I am excited to join Edwin Coe at such a dynamic time in its journey. The firm’s reputation for excellence and its collaborative culture make it a natural fit for my approach to client development and strategic growth. I look forward to working with the talented team here to build on the firm’s success.”

Clare will be based at Edwin Coe’s offices in Lincoln’s Inn and will work alongside the firm’s leadership to enhance client engagement, develop new market opportunities, and support the firm’s strategic ambitions.

David Greene, our Head of Commercial Disputes & Class Actions, and the founding Co-President of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) recently contributed an article to The Times discussing the DBT’s review of the collective actions opt-out regime, arguing that the Government should not let the interests of big business take precedence, potentially undermining the rule of law.

Large corporations lobbying the Department for Business and Trade in its review of the UK’s opt-out regime seek to prioritise the interests of US corporations over the British public and businesses.

Introduced only a decade ago, the opt-out regime is still in its infancy. It was created to ensure that both consumers and businesses could obtain redress when powerful corporations break competition law, by abusing their dominance, or colluding in cartels.

Collective actions provide an efficient and proportionate way to hold wrongdoers to account and ensure that compensation is available to those affected, with the added benefit of deterring bad actors from breaking the law. To suggest that the regime is a burden on business is to turn its purpose on its head.

So why is the government reviewing the existence of this regime? The questions posed in the department’s call for evidence appear to reflect the manifesto of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world’s most powerful lobbying organisation, which represents the world’s largest companies and arguably aims to thwart the availability of litigation funding that ensures access to justice.

Read the full article in The Times (subscription may be required)

Christopher deals with both contentious and non-contentious IP-related matters. He has extensive experience advising across technology, aerospace, automotive, and life science sectors. His practice includes data protection and GDPR compliance, as well as matters involving standard-essential patents and FRAND licensing. He also regularly advises on breach of contract disputes and confidentiality claims.

Christopher joins us from Field Seymour Parkes LLP in Reading where he led their Intellectual Property team, having previously worked at Anderson Law and Freshfields. Christopher’s arrival follows the earlier addition of Partners Dennis Lee and Lakmal Walawage this year, whose complementary skills have added further depth to the firm’s now seven-partner Intellectual Property team.

Edwin Coe’s Head of Intellectual Property Simon Miles, commented: “Christopher’s recruitment reflects our commitment to expanding our team of Intellectual Property specialists at a time when client demand is growing rapidly. His technical expertise and advocacy skills will be invaluable as we continue to grow our practice, delivering results for clients.”

Edwin Coe is proud to announce that Dayalan Thangaraj, Tax Manager, and Wendy Hall, Senior Associate in our Private Client team, have been recognised in the prestigious eprivateclient NextGen Leaders List 2025.

Wendy specialises in advising UK and international individuals and trustees on wealth preservation, trust and succession planning, tax, estate and inheritance tax planning, LPA, and Wills and letters of wishes. She also appeared in this list in 2018.

Dayalan advises a range of clients, from fast-growth entrepreneurs to multi-generational families, helping them manage their tax affairs efficiently while ensuring their wealth and succession strategies align with their personal and commercial objectives.

eprivateclient NextGen Leaders (previously known as the Top 35 Under 35 award) is the definitive annual list of exceptional young private client practitioners in the UK and Crown Dependencies. Eligibility is based on having 17 years or fewer of industry experience within private client advisory professions—whether in property, tax, trust, dispute resolution, family law, accounting, or as trustees.

Selection by the senior editorial team at PAM Insight is based on the individual’s qualities and achievements, taking into account the reputation of their firm, superior feedback, career progression, and engagement in volunteering or mentoring within the profession.

The full 2025 list is available on eprivateclient’s website and can be accessed here for A to L (including Dayalan) and here for M to Z (including Wendy). Subscription may be required.

Trade Mark Attorney, Karen Lee appeared on the ITV Evening News last night, to discuss the dispute over Chelsea and England midfielder Cole Palmer’s bid to trade mark his ‘Cold Palmer’ nickname and ‘shivering’ goal celebration, which has been challenged by the French vineyard, Château Palmer.

The footballer filed to trade mark the celebration, his nickname, his image, and his signature in November 2024, according to the government’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO), with the hope of potentially using it to sell a number of different products.

These include clothes and footwear, perfume, razors, toys, soft drinks and alcohol.

But records show that Palmer’s attempt to get legal protection to market himself has been challenged by Château Palmer, a well-known vineyard in the south west of France.

A section of Palmer’s application is for: “Alcoholic beverages; alcoholic fruit beverages; pre-mixed alcoholic beverages; wines; spirits; liqueurs; alcoholic energy drinks; low alcoholic beverages; none of the aforesaid, including wines complying with the specifications of the PDO Champagne”.

Lawyers at the IPO will now rule on the opposition after receiving legal representations from both sides…

You can read the full story and see the video report on the ITV News website, or view it on the ITV News YouTube channel.

This acquisition marks a significant step in Edwin Coe’s growth as a multi-disciplinary practice that already has partners and employees who are Barristers, Chartered Tax Advisers and Trade Mark Attorneys. It reflects the trend amongst progressive law firms to have independent businesses owned alongside the legal practice. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) have very strict rules in this situation and we have consulted extensively with the SRA to ensure that Hoopers will be run as a fully compliant stand-alone business.

Alison Broadberry, Edwin Coe’s Managing Partner and Head of Private Client commented:

“I am delighted to welcome the team at Hoopers. This acquisition underscores Edwin Coe’s continued commitment to growth and specialist work within the private capital sector. Hoopers’ values align strongly with our culture and with our mission to be Collaborative, Committed and Connected with all our stakeholders.”

Lauren Harris, CEO of Hoopers, added:

“The Hoopers team are excited to have a new parent company that is committed to the continuing growth of our business, whilst allowing us to operate as a separate business, albeit alongside Edwin Coe’s thriving law firm.”

Founded in 1923, Hoopers’ full-time staff are supported by a dedicated group of self-employed contractors and consultants. Together, they offer the legal profession, public sector and beneficiaries the benefits of highly specialised knowledge and skills to resolve hundreds of intestacies annually.

Following the acquisition, the Hoopers team will relocate to new offices separate from, but adjacent to, those of Edwin Coe in Lincoln’s Inn.

To learn more about Hoopers, please visit: www.hoopers.co.uk

Edwin Coe is pleased to share that six of our lawyers have been recognised in the Chambers High Net Worth Guide 2025, achieving rankings across the Private Wealth, Tax: Private Client, and Real Estate: High Value Residential categories. Additionally, both our Residential Property and Private Client teams have retained rankings in this latest edition.

Our Residential Property team has retained its Band 4 ranking in the Real Estate: High Value Residential category, with Department Head Rosie McCormick Paice maintaining her Band 3 individual ranking.

The Private Client team remain in the same Band 4 ranking as last year for the Private Wealth Law category. For our individual lawyers, David Goepel’s ranking in Band 2 remains unchanged including Alison Broadberry’s ranking in Band 3 and Matthew Barnett’s ranking in Band 5.  Additionally, new partner Jeremy Curtis is also ranked in Band 5.

We are also proud to announce that Morag Ofili has received a Band 2 ranking for the first time in the Tax: Private Client category.

The Chambers High Net Worth Guide is an independently researched annual publication, featuring leading law firms, accountancy and tax firms, private banks, wealth managers, and multi-family offices serving high net worth individuals globally. Their research spans more than 55 countries across six continents.

Details of Edwin Coe’s practice area and individual rankings can be found on the Chambers High Net Worth website.

Writing on behalf of the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP), Katherine Simpson recently penned an article for IFA Magazine examining the UK Government’s white paper on a proposed new commonhold model for homeownership.

Commonhold was introduced in England and Wales in 2004 by the enactment of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Despite commonhold models being widespread throughout the world, it has failed to establish itself here, with fewer than 30 commonhold schemes currently existing. The publication of the white paper, The proposed new commonhold model for homeownership in England and Wales is the first step towards the government’s aim to make commonhold the default tenure, effectively eradicating leasehold.

The principle is straightforward; that flat owners should be freeholders to protect their long term interests, and so not limited by the wasting asset that is a lease. They should be allowed to manage their properties and shared spaces directly, without third party landlords who lack a personal stake in the effective management of the building and in the harmony of its residents.

If the proposals go ahead, the sale of new build flats on a leasehold structure will be banned, and the commonhold model will instead be mandatory.

The government also plans to make it easier for existing leaseholders to convert to commonhold. The current 100% of property owners in a block required to consent for conversion is intended to be reduced to 50%…

Read the full article on IFA’s website.

Congratulations to:

• Sean Bannister, Head of Tax
• Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner and Head of Private Client
• David Goepel, Head of Private Client International
• Denise Li Gates, Senior Associate, Private Client
• Lara Mardell, Of Counsel, Private Client
• Eva Moynihan, Senior Associate, Private Client
• Morag Ofili, Barrister – Partner, Tax
• Sundeep Rathod, Head of Immigration
• Hetal Sanghvi, Partner, Tax
• Katherine Simpson, Partner, Property

Citywealth’s Leaders List is a curated directory of the leading individuals in international private client and wealth management. Over 15 years of research, Citywealth has identified the advisors and managers who regularly assist clients with £5million + in investable assets and some of the wealthiest billionaires in the world.

All entries have been nominated for inclusion by their peers or organisations and independently verified by Citywealth with peer or client references.

Read more on Citywealth’s website.

The class action is led by Zahira Hussain, alongside David Greene. It comprises 140 clients, derived from a range of different sectors, from hauliers to breweries. The action has its origins in the European Commission’s findings in 2016 and 2017 that MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, DAF and Scania colluded on truck pricing for 14 years from 1997 to 2011.

Zahira commented on the success of the settlement: “I am thrilled with the progress we have made in this case. The settlements are a testament to the determination and resilience of our clients, who have come together to seek compensation for the loss they have suffered. Class actions play a crucial role in providing access to justice, especially for smaller businesses and sole traders that might otherwise struggle to challenge large corporations on their own. This case highlights the power of collective legal action in holding corporations accountable and in securing damages for Claimants.”

Edwin Coe’s pioneering Class Action team continues to lead the rapidly evolving field of class actions in the UK, backed by over 30 years of successful litigation. The team brought its first Truck Cartel claim on behalf of clients in the High Court in 2018, settling with two manufacturers in 2024, and a third in 2025. The team remains resolute in its commitment to securing justice for those affected. It continues to actively pursue the remaining aspects of the case.

Further Information
Our Truck Cartel portal is available here.

Claire Lehr, Eleanor Showering and Marelyn Perez-Millan of our Intellectual Property team recently wrote an article for World Trademark Review, examining a recent IPO appeal decision which highlights that a strikethrough of a word does not automatically erase consumer perception of that word.

• The appointed person has confirmed that there was no likelihood of confusion between INNOCENT CRIMINAL and CRIMINAL for Class 25 goods
• Despite the strikethrough of the word ‘innocent’, the word remained legible and visually prominent
• The phrase ‘innocent criminal’ is conceptually unique and not a logical brand variant of CRIMINAL

The appointed person, Daniel Alexander KC, has upheld the hearing officer’s decision in an appeal filed by Criminal Clothing Limited, which had opposed registration of INNOCENT CRIMINAL (stylised and device) on the basis of its earlier rights in CRIMINAL, both marks being in Class 25.

The case examines in detail conceptual similarity, consumer perception and direct and indirect confusion. Criminal Clothing claimed that registration of the mark INNOCENT CRIMINAL conflicted with its own CRIMINAL mark – in essence, that ‘criminal’ was the dominant part of the mark and that the average consumer would see INNOCENT CRIMINAL as an extension or sub-brand of CRIMINAL, especially given the stylised strikethrough of the word ‘innocent’.

Background
Relande Barrett-Gordon applied to register the trademark INNOCENT CRIMINAL (stylised and device) in Class 25, covering a broad range of clothing items. Criminal Clothing opposed the application on the basis of its registered mark CRIMINAL, also in Class 25.The opposition was dismissed, with the hearing officer concluding that the marks were “materially different visually, orally and conceptually – and sufficiently so for confusion to be unlikely.”

Criminal Clothing appealed, maintaining that the average consumer would naturally associate the mark INNOCENT CRIMINAL with CRIMINAL, particularly due to the strikethrough of the word INNOCENT, which Criminal Clothing argued would be disregarded…

You can read the full article here (pdf).

This article first appeared on WTR Daily (subscription required), part of World Trademark Review, in June 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Our client (the Claimant) and his then business partner invested in that business in 2011.  They also agreed that the investment would be held on trust for our client.  After many years, the Defendants refused to recognise our client’s rights.   Proceedings were brought in the London High Court seeking, amongst other things, declarations that the shares were held on express trust for our client.

At trial, His Honour Judge Anderson KC found that there was an express trust in our client’s favour.  In so doing the Court also rejected two main defences raised by the Defendants:

1. Laches (an equitable concept concerning, in effect, delay in bringing proceedings): The Court rejected this defence. Amongst other things, any “delay” was of the Defendants’ own making.
2. Waiver: The Claimant was a director of one of the Defendants.  When he resigned this post, he signed a standard waiver letter (generally aimed at claims which may arise when an office or employment is terminated).  The Defendants argued that this letter prevented him from pursuing a claim over trust assets.  The Court rejected that argument, finding that “no one could reasonably interpret this letter as foregoing rights under a trust which existed independently of [the Claimant’s] status as a director.”

Further, the Court rejected the Defendants’ claim for a “just allowance.” The Defendants claimed that, if the Claimant succeeded, they should be granted a “generous allowance in equity”.  The Court rejected that claim as “hopeless”.

Commercial Disputes Partner, Alexander Shirtcliff, led this case at his last firm and continues to do so in Edwin Coe’s Commercial Disputes team.

The full judgment is available here: Marco Maximilian Elser v Andrea Mandel-Mantello & Ors [2025] EWHC 1558 (Ch)

Our counsel: Adam Chichester-Clark of 3 Stone Buildings

The transaction will allow VitalHub to expand the scale and reach of its portfolio, particularly in the UK; to unlock efficiencies across the Group; and to identify opportunities to leverage Induction’s products — such as Attend Anywhere and Zesty — to enhance the combined offering and enable cross-selling opportunities, including into other target markets.

The Edwin Coe team was led by Head of Corporate Russel Shear, working alongside Greg Horsford (Senior Associate) and Henry Wright (Associate).

“We’re proud to have supported VitalHub UK on this important acquisition. It’s a great example of strategic investment in UK health-tech, and we’re pleased to have helped deliver a smooth and timely outcome,” commented Russel.

Our client, VitalHub is a leading health-tech company, combining some of the UK’s leading digital health brands, with a collective of over 160 years of experience in collaborating with the NHS, to co-design, develop and deploy expert patient flow solutions. It is part of the Toronto based VitalHub Corp. which is publicly traded on the TSX Venture Exchange and operates across Canada, U.S., U.K., Qatar, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU.

Induction delivers a suite of software solutions that transforms care delivery and the patient journey through hospital. Their system-wide applications help healthcare providers and administrators to deliver care at any stage remotely as well as face-to-face – giving the communities they serve greater flexibility, control, and ease of access.

The relevant announcement confirming that the scheme of arrangement is effective can be found here.

We are thrilled to announce that Maggie Ramage, Partner in our Intellectual Property team, has been recognised in the prestigious UK IP Stars Rankings 2025 as a Notable Practitioner. Additionally, our IP team has been distinguished as a Notable Firm for Trade Mark Prosecution.

IP Stars identifies leading IP practitioners across various jurisdictions and practice areas. The rankings are determined through a comprehensive review process, including firm-submitted information, publicly available data, and market feedback.

Simon Miles, our Head of Intellectual Property, commented: “This accolade reflects the hard work and dedication of our talented IP team, and we are immensely proud of Maggie’s individual achievement. It reinforces our commitment to our strong brands specialists.”

For firm rankings in the UK IP Stars Rankings 2025, please visit here, and for individual practitioner rankings, visit here. Subscription is required.

Morag Ofili recently spoke to Citywealth’s Karen Jones about the current global tax environment, and some of the challenges faced by UHNW individuals and families in managing their wealth.

How would you summarize the current global tax environment for UHNW individuals and families? Are there particular jurisdictions that are becoming more (or less) attractive?

The global tax environment has never been more interconnected. We’re seeing a concerted effort by tax authorities to close perceived loopholes and increase transparency, which means UHNW individuals must now navigate a more data-driven, and coordinated compliance landscape. Jurisdictions like the UAE and Singapore continue to attract attention due to their relatively favourable regimes, but even these jurisdictions are under increasing international pressure to align with global tax norms. Meanwhile, traditional low-tax jurisdictions are losing appeal due to increased scrutiny. The UK, while still attractive for its rule of law and infrastructure, is becoming less predictable in terms of policy direction, especially around non-dom status and capital gains treatment.

What recent tax policy changes in key regions—such as the U.S., UK, EU, or Asia—do you believe have the most significant implications for global wealth structuring?

The UK’s decision to overhaul the non-dom regime is seismic, not just for existing non-doms but for the entire ecosystem of trusts, remittance planning, and international asset holding structures…

You can read the full article here.

Edwin Coe is pleased to announce that Intellectual Property Partners Simon Miles (also Head of our Intellectual Property team), Claire Lehr, and Nick Phillips, have once again been recognised as leaders in the World Intellectual Property Review’s (WIPR) Leaders Directory for 2025. Simon has been featured since 2016, while Nick and Claire joined the list in 2023.

Simon advises on all aspects of intellectual property and has a wealth of experience advising on trade marks, copyright (including software), designs, database rights, patents, and breach of confidence.

Claire’s practice covers both contentious and non-contentious aspects of trade marks. She assists clients throughout the entire process, from searching for trade marks to handling applications and achieving registration. She has successfully overcome challenging objections and managed complex multi-jurisdictional oppositions. Increasingly, she advises on infringement and passing off cases.

Nick has considerable experience advising clients on the implementation of the GDPR and on other data protection issues. He also regularly advises on a range of e-commerce, domain name, intellectual property, and internet-related issues, as well as on a wide variety of IT contracts. Nick also regularly advises on the protection, exploitation, and enforcement of the full range of intellectual property rights.

The WIPR Leaders Directory serves as a comprehensive guide to the top IP practitioners globally. Candidates are nominated by fellow IP professionals and subsequently vetted by the WIPR research team.

The Directory is available here, where you can view Simon, Claire, and Nick’s profiles.

London, 27 May 2025 – Edwin Coe is delighted to announce the appointment of Wings Turkington to the newly created role of Head of Knowledge. Wings joins the firm having previously been responsible for the Knowledge function at a number of global law firms, with over 18 years of experience as a knowledge management professional in various jurisdictions.

Wings will be working closely with our Chief Executive Tim Nash, and our Managing Partner Alison Broadberry, along with our Management Committee and Operations Committee on the firm’s knowledge strategies, systems and policies, as well as a range of knowledge and innovation projects, with a view to enhancing efficiencies, strengthening our service delivery, and minimising risks – ultimately to the benefit of our people and our clients. Wings’ appointment further demonstrates our continuous transformation as a modernised law firm during a period of strong growth.

Tim Nash commented, “Wings’ appointment comes at a crucial time for our firm, as we aim to navigate a legal market that increasingly depends on access to, and organisation of, knowledge. Her expertise in knowledge management within the legal sector will be invaluable as we evolve our systems and processes to continue to deliver exceptional service to our clients.”

Alison Broadberry added, “I am excited to welcome Wings to Edwin Coe, and I look forward to her driving our approach to knowledge management forward.”

We are thrilled to announce that Edwin Coe’s Residential Property team has been awarded the Property Law Firm of the Year award at the prestigious Citywealth Magic Circle Awards 2025. Congratulations also to our colleagues at Kingsley Napley, who were the runners-up in this category.

The Head of our Residential Property team, Rosie McCormick Paice, and Katherine Simpson, Partner, have wide expertise in working together on complex transactions involving an enfranchisement element, particularly against the major London Estates. They are regarded as the go-to team in this area.

Rosie McCormick Paice commented: “Both Katherine and I are incredibly honoured and proud to have received this prestigious award. This recognition is a testament to the hard work, dedication, and exceptional service that our team consistently delivers. We’re a close-knit team, passionate about what we do, and this accolade truly reflects our commitment to excellence. We remain steadfast in our mission to provide the highest level of expertise and client satisfaction in all our endeavours.”

Our Residential team acts for clients on the purchase and sale of high-value residential properties, advising on all aspects of residential/rural real estate ownership, including transactional, financing, landlord and tenant and leasehold enfranchisement.

For over 20 years, the Citywealth Magic Circle Awards have awarded the top-performing advisors and managers in global private wealth, from leading law firms and private banks to elite trustees, accountants, and multi-family offices. Submissions for the awards are judged on five different categories with weighting attached: Client Testimonials (25%), Performance & Alpha (25%), Innovation (20%), Risk & Governance (20%) and ESG & Ethics (10%).

For the complete list of winners of the Citywealth Magic Circle Awards, please visit here.

We are delighted to announce that Sundeep Rathod, Head of our Immigration team, is recommended in the Spear’s 500 Immigration Index 2025.

Sundeep advises high-net-worth individuals, SMEs, and large global businesses on navigating the UK’s complex and ever-changing immigration framework. He specialises in all aspects of UK immigration work, with a particular focus on obtaining a Skilled Worker or Global Business Mobility: Senior or Specialist Worker Sponsor Licence for UK businesses wishing to hire either EU or non-EU nationals. He also advises businesses on the ongoing sponsorship and compliance duties placed on employers following approval to the register of licenced sponsors.

The Spear’s 500 is the indispensable guide to the top private client advisers and service providers for high and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Described as ‘the Michelin guide of wealth’, the directory includes profiles of over 3,000 advisers specialising in a range of fields, including legal and tax specialists.

Sundeep commented: “I am honoured to be recommended in the Spear’s 500 Immigration Index 2025. This recognition reflects my dedication and expertise in helping our HNW clients navigate the complexities of UK immigration law. I strive to provide the highest level of service to each individual and business I assist, ensuring that their immigration needs are met with precision and care.”

Sundeep’s Spear’s 500 profile can be accessed here.

With an extensive career in the City and Central London, Tony brings a wealth of experience in commercial property law, advising on acquisitions and disposals, investment, development, occupational real estate, property management, landlord and tenant matters, and secured lending. He joins Edwin Coe from the real estate team at Blake Morgan LLP.

Tony’s particular focus is on property finance and structured lending. He has advised a broad range of clients — including major lending institutions and both public and private sector organisations — across sectors such as financial services, retail, leisure, hospitality, and pharmaceuticals.

His arrival reinforces Edwin Coe’s commitment to providing high-calibre, commercially driven advice to clients navigating complex real estate and finance transactions.

Stephen Brower, Head of Property at Edwin Coe, commented: “We are delighted to welcome Tony to the team. His track record in commercial property and particular expertise in property finance add real depth to our existing capability. His pragmatic approach and deep sector knowledge will be of great value to our clients.”

We are delighted to announce that David Greene, Senior Partner and Head of Commercial Disputes & Class Actions; Ali Zaidi Head of Litigation and Insolvency; Thomas Johnson, Barrister – Partner, and Zahira Hussain, Partner in our Commercial Disputes & Class Actions team, have been included in the Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers 2025 guide.

This year marks the second annual launch of the guide, which features 500 Lawyers globally who represent claimants in antitrust and competition, investor and shareholder rights, mass torts, aviation accidents, global asset recovery, and human rights. Lawyers are selected via submissions, peer critique, and journalistic research.

David Greene commented: “This recognition underscores our relentless dedication to advocating for our clients’ rights and achieving justice on a global scale. It is an honour to be named among such accomplished professionals in the Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers guide.”

The Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers 2025 guide can be accessed here.

Paula brings a wealth of expertise in advising developers, contractors, consultants and funders on residential, office, retail and leisure projects. Her arrival strengthens Edwin Coe’s capability to support clients through all phases of construction and development, from procurement and contract drafting through to dispute resolution and adjudication.

Commenting on Paula’s appointment, Brenna Baye, our Head of Construction said: “We are thrilled to welcome Paula to the team. Her technical knowledge, commercial acumen and client-focused approach make her a perfect fit for our practice. As our construction offering continues to grow, Paula’s expertise will be invaluable in supporting our clients on increasingly complex projects.”

Alex joins the firm with an exceptional track record in complex, high-value, multi-jurisdiction litigation. With a focus on complex civil fraud situations, he has pursued his clients’ interests across the Caribbean, Europe, Asia and multiple U.S. states. He is also a recognised authority on crypto asset litigation, an increasingly critical area for the firm’s clients.

His recent clients have ranged from global energy majors to high net worth individuals facing enterprise-level disputes.

Alex is Legal 500 recommended and has been called in the British Virgin Islands. He joins us from Blake Morgan and, before that, global litigation firm Kobre & Kim.

David Greene, Senior Partner and Head of Commercial Disputes & Class Actions, commented: “Alex brings an outstanding blend of technical skill, international experience, and commercial acumen which aligns perfectly with our strategic ambitions. His arrival significantly strengthens our ability to handle the most challenging disputes for our clients.”

This prestigious award recognises the top-performing mid-sized firms in the UK 200 rankings (positions 51–200 by revenue), and is judged by a panel of leading figures from The Bar, private practice, and in-house legal sectors.

This shortlisting reflects our ongoing commitment to delivering exceptional service, trusted advice, and commercially focused solutions — the same standards that underpin every aspect of our work with clients. It also highlights our ability to offer significant depth of expertise combined with the personal approach and commercial agility of a leading independent practice.

The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony on 17 June 2025 at the Grosvenor House Hotel. If you are interested, you can find out more about The Lawyer Awards 2025.

Morag Ofili was recently interviewed about the UK tax environment and how this has impacted her clients and their plans, following the election of the Labour Party in the UK.  Her interview is the lead article of the launch issue of Finding Margin, Knight Frank Finance Private Office’s new magazine.

1. A lot of tax lawyer bandwidth has been taken up by the recent Autumn Budget, the first of Labour’s fledgling government. Now that the dust is starting to settle and as we commence a new year, how are your clients reacting?

The Autumn Budget always prompts a flurry of activity, but this recent budget seems to have sharpened the focus on risk management with many clients rightly asking what steps they can take now to protect themselves before the rules change on 6 April 2025.

For example, many of my clients are proactively revisiting their tax positions, especially around residency and offshore income. For those in the private wealth space, there is a feeling of increased scrutiny from HMRC and the growing complexity of compliance.

In short, the dust is far from settled but the new year brings a great opportunity to get ahead of potential issues by tightening up documentation, reviewing areas of exposure and being proactive about your position…

2. Cutting through the hyperbole, are there any interesting nuances that you can pick out that others may have missed?

3. Are there any pitfalls you have seen people falling into, in this nascent environment, that others would do well to avoid?

4. What three things would you be saying to your clients in 2025?

“…The overarching message is this: while the tax environment may feel challenging, it’s also full of possibilities for those who approach it strategically and confidently.

By staying proactive, planning holistically, and fostering collaboration, I believe that clients can turn 2025 into a year of growth despite the current feelings of uncertainty…”

You can read Morag’s interview and a full copy of Finding Margin here (PDF) or via Knight Frank Finance Private Office’s website here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Simeon Gilchrist has appeared on the newly published Pro Bono Recognition List of England & Wales. The annually published list recognises the work of lawyers who have given 25 or more hours pro bono legal assistance in the previous calendar year.

Simeon led the successful Edwin Coe team in Manolete v White [2024] EWCA Civ 1418, in which the court made a costs order of £85k against Manolete in the charity’s favour. You can read more about the judgment on our website here.

The Pro Bono Recognition List was set up under the aegis of the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee, with support from the Access to Justice Foundation, Advocate, Advocates for International Development, International Lawyers Project, the Law Officers, the Bar Council, CILEX, the Clinical Legal Education Organisation, the In-House Pro Bono Group, the Law Society, LawWorks, the National Pro Bono Centre and TrustLaw.

The Recognition List for 2025 is here.

Promotions from Senior Associate to Legal Director:

• Kate Dwyer, Insurance Litigation
• Marina Russell, Private Client
• Selina Clifford, Intellectual Property

Promotions from Associate to Senior Associate:

• Elliot Francis, Employment
• George Orman, Employment
• Toni Recchia, Private Client

Promotions from Solicitor to Associate:

• Alex Morris, Restructuring & Insolvency
• Carlos Sharrock, Property
• Charlotte Gittins, Employment
• Daniel Samole, Property
• Ninad Bhagwat, Private Client

We are also pleased to announce that Robert Evans, previously a Paralegal, qualified as a Solicitor in Private Client on 1 February 2025.

Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner at Edwin Coe, commented: “We are incredibly proud to celebrate the success of our colleagues. These promotions justifiably recognise their hard work and achievements. Edwin Coe remains committed to investing in the development of our people and delivering the best outcomes for our clients. We look forward to seeing all our people continue to thrive, contributing to the firm’s ongoing success.”

We are pleased to announce that Edwin Coe has secured a position in the prestigious World Trademark Review 1000 firm rankings (WTR 1000) for trade mark expertise. Simon Miles, Head of Intellectual Property, along with Intellectual Property (IP) Partners Claire Lehr and Nick Phillips, have maintained their individual rankings in the WTR 1000. This year, they are also joined by another IP Partner, Karen Lee. Special recognition is given to Claire for obtaining a Silver ranking.

Edwin Coe offers a complete IP solution, combining the complementary strengths of IP solicitors and trade mark attorneys with related specialists in commercial contracts, IT, and tax.

Edwin Coe’s Intellectual Property team is recommended in the WTR 1000 2025 for its ‘first-rate practitioners’ offering quality advice and global reach. Simon is praised for leading Edwin Coe’s trade mark practice to the ‘next level’.  Claire is described as having an ‘unparalleled depth of substantive knowledge’ in trade marks. Nick is noted for his expertise in prosecution and enforcement, including multi-jurisdictional disputes. Finally, Karen is recognised for her strategic insights and deep expertise, as well as her understanding of her clients’ businesses.

Simon Miles commented: “We are pleased that Edwin Coe has been recognised in the WTR 1000 firm rankings and that I and Partners Claire, Nick, and Karen have been individually ranked. We extend our gratitude to our clients who recommended us to WTR.”

The WTR 1000 ranks trade mark professionals and firms in various jurisdictions worldwide. The WTR 1000 is a resource for identifying legal trade mark expertise. Following a written submission, WTR researchers conduct interviews with clients and trade mark professionals to determine the leading experts and firms in obtaining, protecting, managing, enforcing and monetising trade marks.

The 2025 edition of the WTR 1000 rankings can be viewed here, where you can also find Simon, Claire, Nick and Karen’s profiles.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that it has been shortlisted as a finalist in three categories at Tolley’s Taxation Awards 2025, which acknowledge excellence in client service, technical expertise and innovation of tax professionals across the UK.

The firm has been recognized in the following categories:

• Best Private Client Tax Practice
• Best International Tax Team
• Taxation’s Rising Star – Bradley Gabriel, Tax Manager

Sean Bannister, Head of Tax commented, “We are honoured to receive recognition in these highly competitive categories. We work very hard as a team to provide our clients and their professional advisors with the best possible advice and service, and it is gratifying when this is appreciated by our peers on the judging panel. I am delighted that Bradley has been recognised individually, but I would add that all of the Tax team at Edwin Coe are equally deserving of recognition.”

Edwin Coe’s Tax team is a dedicated and market-leading team of tax specialists and lawyers with many years of experience advising clients both in the UK and overseas.

These highly prestigious awards celebrate the outstanding achievements across the whole of the tax profession, including professional practices of all sizes, specialist firms, and those working in-house or in the public sector, and are judged by a panel of leading figures from the tax profession, and beyond.  The winners will be announced at an awards ceremony and dinner on Thursday 8^th May 2025 at the Hilton Park Lane.

You can read more about the Awards and see the full 2025 shortlists here.

We are pleased to announce that Edwin Coe has again been recommended in the World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) UK Trade Mark firm rankings for 2025.  For individual lawyer rankings, Simon Miles, Head of Intellectual Property, was “Recommended” for Trade Mark contentious work and Claire Lehr, Partner, was “Highly Recommended” for both contentious and non-contentious Trade Mark work.

This is the second edition of the WIPR UK Trade Mark rankings for firms and practitioners.  These rankings distinguish between non-contentious work, which typically involves trademark filing, prosecution, strategy, and portfolio management, and contentious work, encompassing trademark litigation, dispute resolution, and enforcement.

Simon Miles commented: “I am really pleased that we have been recognised once again in the UK Trade Mark firm rankings by WIPR. Moreover, it is a great privilege for Claire and I to be included in the individual rankings. This accolade reflects our team’s dedication and enthusiasm for all things intellectual property, as well as the high level of expertise and client service we consistently deliver.”

To view the WIPR Trade Mark rankings, please visit the WIPR website here.

Dennis has a great deal of experience and expertise in IP rights, licensing, business contracts, digital and technology, and internet and IT-related disputes.  Dennis is fluent in written and spoken Mandarin and Cantonese, and can advise and negotiate on behalf of clients in Chinese. He joins our team from Broadfield UK (formerly BDB Pitmans), having headed the IP department there.

Lakmal joins Edwin Coe from JMW Solicitors where he led their IP team, having trained at a specialist IP practice. Lakmal has experience covering all aspects of intellectual property law, breach of confidence, and defamation disputes. He specialises in disputes both in the High Court (including the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) and in the Registry (both EUIPO and UKIPO). Lakmal adds additional strength to our trade marks and designs filing and prosecution practice.

“I am pleased to welcome Dennis and Lakmal to the firm,” commented Simon Miles, Edwin Coe’s Head of IP, “Their experience and complementary skills adds depth to our, now seven partner, IP team benefiting our existing clients and attracting new clients to the firm.”

Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner at Edwin Coe, added: “We are delighted that Dennis and Lakmal have joined Edwin Coe during this exciting period of our growth. Their experience aligns perfectly with our strategic focus of Private Capital and Litigation and we look forward to working with them.”

The Spear’s 500 Guide outlines Joanna’s work as influential in shaping legal precedents in significant property litigation cases. Rosie is noted in Spear’s 500 for her expertise in handling high-value and complex residential transactions in London in recent years. Katherine is acknowledged in Spear’s 500 as a specialist in leasehold enfranchisement, appreciated by clients for her solution-driven advice.

Joanna remarked, “I am honoured to be recommended in the Spear’s 500 Guide 2025 as a property litigator. Congratulations to my wonderful colleagues Rosie and Katherine, who have also deservedly been recommended as property lawyers once again. I would also like to thank my referees who very kindly supported my submission for which I am most grateful.”

Spear’s 500 is a comprehensive directory that identifies the top high-net-worth private client advisers across multiple categories, including Property Lawyers. The rankings are established based on peer nominations, client feedback, interviews, written submissions from firms, and data compiled by the Spear’s 500 editorial and research team.

This year’s edition of the Spear’s 500 Guide for Property Lawyers is here, where you can also read Joanna, Rosie, and Katherine’s profiles.

Jeremy is an experienced private client specialist, with over 25 years’ experience, acting for UK and international high net worth clients from a range of backgrounds. Recommended in the Legal 500 and Chambers HHW directories, he is experienced in all aspects of tax, trust and estate planning, including UK and International tax and succession, probate and estate administration, trusts, wills, heritage property and business succession. He joins the firm from the Private Wealth team at Cripps.

Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner and Head of Private Client at Edwin Coe commented “We are thrilled to welcome Jeremy to Edwin Coe. His deep knowledge and extensive experience will be a fantastic asset to our Private Client team. We look forward to working with him as we continue to grow and enhance our Private Capital offering to clients both in the UK and internationally.”

“I am delighted to be joining Edwin Coe. The emphasis on private capital, the strength and depth within the relevant practice areas, and the general ethos and character of the firm all sit very well with me – and for that reason I am confident they will with my clients and professional contacts too,” added Jeremy.

Edwin Coe’s leading Private Client team acts as trusted advisers to individuals, families, trusts and family or owner-run businesses. We offer continuity and foster close long-term relationships with clients in order to provide sound advice on the various situations that can arise in life, both legal and fiscal, in personal as well as business situations. Confidential and discreet handling of such matters is an essential part of what we offer.

Tax Manager, Dayalan has over seven years of experience advising both UK and international high-net-worth individuals on navigating complex tax matters and meeting their UK tax compliance obligations. He helps his clients manage their tax affairs efficiently while ensuring their wealth and succession strategies align with their personal and commercial objectives. Dayalan is an ACA-qualified member of the ICAEW and joins Edwin Coe from the Private Client Tax Advisory team at PwC.

Sean Bannister, Head of Tax commented: “We are delighted to welcome Dayalan to the firm. His expertise aligns seamlessly with the firm’s strategic focus on Private Capital and Litigation; allowing us to provide the best advice and enhancing our offerings to clients.”

Edwin Coe’s Tax team is a dedicated and market-leading team of tax specialists and lawyers with many years of experience advising clients both in the UK and overseas.

Claire Lehr and Eleanor Showering of our Intellectual Property team recently wrote an article in World Trademark Review, examining the UK Intellectual Property Office’s recent ruling on a trademark opposition brought by Gap (ITM) Inc against Transport for London.  The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of checking historic agreements before filing new trademark applications.

• Gap opposed TfL’s application for MIND THE GAP in Classes 9 and 18 based on earlier registrations for GAP in the same classes
• The UKIPO found no likelihood of confusion, no unfair advantage and no passing off
• However, based on a 2004 settlement agreement between the parties, the UKIPO found that TfL had sought to register certain goods in bad faith

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) recently ruled on a trademark opposition brought by Gap (ITM) Inc (‘Gap’) against Transport for London (‘TfL’). Gap opposed TfL’s application to register MIND THE GAP for goods in Classes 9 and 18. Gap relied on various earlier trademark registrations for GAP in the same classes and based its opposition on the following four grounds:
likelihood of confusion, unfair advantage and reputational damage, passing off and bad faith.

The opposition failed on all grounds but one – bad faith, where Gap was partially successful. Gap’s partial success rested on a settlement agreement entered into by the parties in 2004.

Victory for TfL
TfL was close to achieving an overwhelming success. Not only did the UKIPO find no likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks, even for overlapping goods, it also found that there was no unfair advantage due to the strong association of MIND THE GAP with London’s public transport system. It followed that there was no passing off. So how did TfL still end up losing several of its applied-for Class 18 goods from its trademark application?

The bad-faith claim

In 2004 TfL and Gap had resolved a dispute through a confidential settlement agreement….

You can read the full article here (subscription may be required).

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in (January 2025). For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Congratulations to Simeon Gilchrist who won the Insolvency Lawyer of the Year award at the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA) Awards 2024 last night.

On receiving the award Simeon said: “This is an incredible honour from the IPA, and I would like to take a moment to congratulate all of the nominees and to thank the judges and the IPA for this amazing recognition.

I would like to thank my wife and daughter for putting up with this weird obsession that I have with the 86 Act, my partners at Edwin Coe for their wonderful support during what was a difficult personal year, my Restructuring & Insolvency team of outstanding lawyers, and our clients, who produce such wonderful work , and who are a joy to advise.”

The IPA is an organisation for those in insolvency practice or involved in insolvency-related work. It licenses and regulates Insolvency Practitioners under insolvency and Anti-Money Laundering regulations, and works to raise professional standards through professional training, benchmarking, networking, best practice sharing and other engagement opportunities.

For more information on the IPA and its awards, please see here.

Brenna Baye, our Head of Construction recently spoke to The Independent for a story examining the recent slowdown in activity in the UK’s construction sector which in February fell to the lowest level since the pandemic.

Activity in Britain’s construction sector has plunged to its lowest level since the pandemic casting further doubt over the government’s ambitious house building targets.

Last month, Angela Rayner warned there was “no excuse” not to meet her goal of 1.5m new homes, while Sir Keir Starmer doubled down on the pledge, committing to the creation of a generation of new towns with spades in the ground before the next election in 2029.

But the latest S&P Global construction purchasing managers’ index (PMI) – which measures the activity level of purchasing managers in the construction industry – showed a reading of 44.6 in February, down from 48.1 in January…

…Meanwhile, Brenna Baye, Head of Construction at the Edwin Coe law practice, warned that the sector needs more resources.

“We have an ageing talent pool, less staff and less skills. That is also causing stoppages, extra costs and delays. We have to get back to shouting about how great working construction is”, she told The Independent.

“We have definitely seen more insolvencies. That is a collision of all the above things coming together. Costs are rising, people want the lowest prices possible when building and then suddenly inflation goes up and companies get trapped.”…

You can read the full story on The Independent’s website.

We are delighted to announce that Hetal Sanghvi, Partner in our Tax team, has won Silver in the Inspirational Woman of the Year category for the Citywealth Powerwomen Awards 2025 International.

Citywealth’s Powerwomen Awards programme champions women in the wealth sector and highlights the female leaders of today and tomorrow. The awards spotlight individuals and companies who support caregiving responsibilities, as well as female leadership and celebrate diversity.

Hetal commented, “Receiving this award has been a great honour, and I’m grateful for the recognition. It’s a privilege to be part of an industry that continues to champion diversity and excellence. Thank you to Citywealth and to everyone who has supported me on this journey!”

Hetal has a wealth of experience in advising clients with multi-jurisdictional exposure, specialising in working with non-domiciled individuals seeking to optimise their position in a tax compliant framework and non-resident individuals seeking to have a UK nexus be it through asset acquisition or physical relocation. She has many years of experience assisting clients with various different forms of HMRC dispute (regularisation to enquiry) and leads the Tax Compliance offering at Edwin Coe.

Click here to view the Citywealth Powerwomen Awards winners.

In January we hosted an event for the Westminster & Holborn Law Society at our offices for dual qualified lawyers. Shams Rahman of our Trusts and Property Litigation team, who was speaking on the panel, was interviewed for The Central London Lawyer‘s report on the seminar.

The International Committee is holding events specifically for international lawyers in London – those with overseas qualifications and UK lawyers practicing international law. We held an incredibly successful evening at Edwin Coe LLP in Lincoln’s Inn on 14 January 2025. There was a panel of lawyers speaking…

… Shams Rahman initially qualified as a solicitor in England & Wales. He is a senior litigation partner at Edwin Coe LLP and specialises in real estate and international trusts disputes. He is
ranked in Chambers & Partners, Legal 500, Spears 500 and a full TEP member of the Society of Trusts & Estates Practitioners (STEP).

A substantial part of his practice involves working with clients and other colleagues from around the world. Coming from a proudly international “hybrid” heritage and as a bilingual speaker, Shams was keen to explore international opportunities at an early stage. He therefore later cross qualified as an advocate of the High Court in Pakistan where he was born before his family moved to the UK. He continues to benefit both professionally and personally from his ability to easily and seamlessly connect with and understand a diverse range of clients’ needs with a special regard to their cultural sensitivities and requirements…

You can read the full article in the Winter 2024-5 issue of The Central London Lawyer.

Laura has expertise in complex commercial disputes in the financial services sector and extensive experience in unlawful competition, corporate, shareholder and boardroom disputes.  Laura established and headed up the digital assets practice group in her previous firm and she regularly works closely with Daniel Tunkel, our Head of Financial Regulation, a specialist in mid-market UK financial regulation.

Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner at Edwin Coe, said: “We are delighted that Laura has chosen to join Edwin Coe as our Head of Digital Assets.  Laura’s experience aligns perfectly with our strategic focus of Private Capital and Litigation; I look forward to her connecting all the current threads of strength in our firm on Digital Assets to advise clients holistically.  Laura’s expertise and energy will undoubtedly benefit our existing clients and attract new clients to the firm.  I am very happy that Laura, Daniel and David will reconnect as colleagues at Edwin Coe.”

Laura added “I am excited to join Edwin Coe and I look forward to developing a market leading Digital Assets practice group drawing on the expertise of my colleagues – new and old – at Edwin Coe.  It is an exciting time for the Digital Assets sector, and I am delighted to have joined a firm that supports the businesses and entrepreneurs in the Digital Assets space.”

Today, Joanne Wicks KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, handed down Judgment in which Hamersley succeeded in its counterclaim and defence of the allegations brought by Ms Haynes. The cases concerned a substantial property in London valued at £11 million, addressing issues of constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, and international law, including expert evidence from Liechtenstein.

Ian Chai, barrister in the Commercial Disputes Team, appeared at trial as junior counsel led by Ian Clarke KC of Selborne Chambers.

The Judgment will be available here shortly: Hamersley Invest Anstalt v Haynes [2025] EWHC 432 (Ch)

A panel of judges selects the nominees for the IPA awards.

Simeon has expertise in contentious and transactional insolvency and advises insolvency practitioners, banks, distressed companies, and individuals on a wide range of corporate and personal insolvency matters. His corporate transactional work has an administration bias, with preparing business sales as a particular specialism. In personal insolvency matters, Simeon has a specialist European Regulation practice, advising individuals, practitioners and creditors.

For the list of the nominations for the IPA Awards, please see here.

David Sachs, a seasoned finance lawyer with over 25 years of experience, joins Edwin Coe to lead the Banking & Finance team. David has a distinguished track record of representing lenders, borrowers, private equity sponsors, and financial advisers in various complex transactions, including leveraged management buy-outs, public to private takeovers, real estate and development financing, and debt financings.

We are also delighted that Daniel Tunkel, the former Head of Financial Regulation at Memery Crystal, one of the leading experts in mid-market UK financial regulation, is also joining the firm. Daniel’s considerable experience in financial regulation assists clients across the financial markets in relation to being or becoming regulated in the UK or, where applicable, avoiding the need to do so.  This field has grown massively in recent years, as the jurisdiction of the FCA has been progressively broadened.  He also advises on the structuring and promotion of UK and offshore private investment funds, and of course, is increasingly active in advice to the developing cryptoasset market.

Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner at Edwin Coe, expressed her enthusiasm: “We are delighted to welcome David, Daniel and some of their previous teams to Edwin Coe. These highly experienced professionals and their teams add further strength and depth to our strategic focus of Litigation and Private Capital and significantly enhance our corporate offering. Their expertise will undoubtedly benefit our existing clients and attract new clients to the firm. It was evident very quickly when we met that our values are aligned; we all look forward to working with each other.”

David Sachs, Head of Banking and Finance at Edwin Coe stated “I am very excited to join Edwin Coe and to start working with my new colleagues and to further develop and grow the firm’s banking and finance practice. I believe my clients will benefit greatly from Edwin Coe’s supporting and empowering values and its reputation for client service excellence.”

Daniel Tunkel, Head of Financial Regulation at Edwin Coe commented “I have been impressed with Edwin Coe’s strategic vision in appreciating that offering financial regulation advice is now essential to the mid-market, and I look forward to helping existing clients of the Firm as well as my own to navigate this complex area of the law.”

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that our Head of Intellectual Property, Simon Miles has been newly ranked, and our Insurance Litigation team continues to be recognised, within the newly published edition of Chambers Global, alongside many of our colleagues from across our global legal network, Ally Law.

Simon Miles is recognised for his Intellectual Property work in the UK – “Simon is very good with clients and skilfully handles strong personalities,” said one client.

Our team is recommended in the Insurance: Mainly Policyholders category, along with lawyers Nicola Maher “really excellent” and Roger Franklin “knows all the tricks and he gets good results.” A client commented “Edwin Coe is one of the most efficient teams in the London market, they know how to maximise value.”

Additionally, Ally Law has retained its ranking as a Band 1 ‘Global Market Leader’ law firm network in Chambers Global 2025, as well as a recommended ‘Leading Regional Law Firm Network’ in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2025.

Clients commented “Ally Law firms have a great range of services where they can handle small matters efficiently, as well as large, complex matters. The depth and breadth of their team is strong” and “The personal interaction between member firms promotes trust and accountability between firms. The members of Ally Law are more than names on a list, the firms become well acquainted with each other.”

Congratulations to all!

Edwin Coe is recommended in the Chambers’ UK, High Net Worth and Global directories. Their independent research collects information about organisations, individuals and the marketplace, conducting thousands of interviews a year with in-house counsel and third-party experts, such as barristers and accountants, to deliver detailed insight into providers of legal services. You can view our results on Chambers’ website.

Sean Bannister, Head of Tax and Morag Ofili, Co-Head of EDI are “Top Recommended” in the Accountants & Tax Advisers and Tax & Trust Barristers categories, respectively. Hetal Sanghvi also appears in the Accountants & Tax Advisers as a “Rising Star”.

Our Managing Partner and Head of Private Client, Alison Broadberry, is recommended in the Probate Lawyers category, and Lara Mardell, Of Counsel in the Private Client team, is recommended as a Tax Lawyer.

Shams Rahman is recommended for his Contentious Trust work.

Head of Residential Property, Rosie McCormick Paice, and Katherine Simpson are recommended as HNW Property Lawyers.

Linky Trott, the firm’s Head of Employment and Co-Head of EDI, is “Top Recommended” in the Employment Lawyers Index. Finally, Sundeep Rathod, the Head of Immigration, is recommended for his HNW Immigration work.

The new edition of Spear’s 500 directory spans 564 pages and features 1,884 top private client advisers, wealth managers, lawyers, and service providers for HNW individuals. Their recommendations are based on peer nominations, client feedback, telephone and face-to-face interviews, data supplied by firms, and information gathered by Spear’s editorial and research teams.

To view Spear’s 500 profiles of Edwin Coe experts and lawyers, see here.

Morag Ofili of our Tax team considers the implications for footballers and the Premier League of the end of domicile within the UK tax system in the latest edition of legal know-how journal The Reporter.

The Autumn Budget announced the end of domicile and its associated tax benefits. The concept of domicile has long been a cornerstone of the UK tax regime, providing a framework for determining individuals’ liability to UK tax on worldwide income and gains (the concept remains for family law, estate, death taxes and IHT treaties). For highly mobile individuals, such as professional footballers, domicile has served as a crucial determinant in shaping their tax obligations and planning strategies. This article discusses how the end of domicile creates unique tax challenges for footballers.

The current role of domicile in taxation

In the UK, domicile is distinct from tax residency. While residency determines where an individual is taxed based on where they spend time or maintain ties, domicile relates to the individual’s long-term intentions and origin.

Domicile status underpins key tax benefits for non-domiciled individuals (non-doms). Over 60% of Premier League players are foreign nationals, making the benefits of the concept of domicile a cornerstone of tax planning in the industry. It can assist with:

• Remittance planning: A non-domiciled player living in the UK can avoid UK tax on income and gains earned abroad, provided they are not remitted to the UK. This is critical for players with endorsements, investments, or image rights contracts structured internationally.
• Inheritance tax: Non-domiciled players may also limit their exposure to UK inheritance tax on worldwide assets, a consideration for those with significant wealth spread across multiple jurisdictions…

Subscribers to The Reporter can read the full article in the January-February 2025 issue, from page 128 – more details here.

This article was based on Morag’s original client briefing here.

Our Head of Intellectual Property, Simon Miles recently contributed an article to IP journal, Entertainment Law Review (2025 36 ENT LR issue 1).  The piece examines the ways in which a rights owner can protect its IP assets against organised counterfeiters.

IP crime, in the form of brand and identity theft, is now at the very centre of organised crime. The UK Trading Standards Survey published on 31 July 2023 emphasised two trends. The published report stated:

“At the same time as IP criminals exploit developments in online technology through identity fraud and online fakery; traditional networks – through shops and markets, selling commonplace counterfeit items like cigarettes, clothing and jewellery – remain significant threats to honest traders and consumers. The war against IP crime has become a complex operation, combining insights into transformative online technology and age-old investigative techniques acquired through experience on the streets.”

Effective anti-counterfeiting action requires a co-ordinated strategy underpinned by appropriate IP rights including trade marks, designs and copyright (the UK legal framework for the rights is set out in the Annex in page 9) and backed up by the use of technology.

The rights-owner’s priorities, its resources and the extent of the counterfeiting activity will determine the preferred course of action. Possible action that can be taken includes:

• Border measures by customs authorities
• Civil Court action
• Criminal proceedings and working with law-enforcement authorities
• Private prosecutions
• Targeting websites and ISP’s to take-down online counterfeit goods and illegal grey market goods…

Subscribers to Entertainment Law Review can read the full article in 2025 36 ENT LR issue 1 – more details here

You can also read and download the original client guide on our website.

Eva Moynihan recently spoke to Grace Lawrence of FLiP for an article for Tatler Address Book, discussing the impact of divorce on the management of trusts.

The English court has long had a reputation as one of the most generous divorce jurisdictions in terms of the awards made for the financially weaker spouse. Judges have very wide powers to redistribute assets between a divorcing couple to ensure that after separation they can each meet their needs going forward. Many people don’t realise that those powers can extend to varying the terms of a trust of which one spouse is a beneficiary. At the very least, the court can take account of the trust fund when assessing the available resources. That can be a scary prospect for families who have sought to use trust structures to protect their wealth and to ensure it will only pass on to future generations of their bloodline.

Trusts are vulnerable to attack on divorce in two main ways:

1. As a Nuptial Settlement

2. As a Resource…

…Eva Moynihan, Senior Associate at Edwin Coe, who advises high net worth families on their estate and succession planning comments: ‘Trusts are often a highly effective succession planning tool, but it is crucial to identify certain risks at the outset and that includes the risk of beneficiaries divorcing. One must assume that the trust documents and any letter of wishes will one day be seen by the family courts‘…

You can read the full article on Tatler’s website.

Denise Li Gates and Jessica Brittain recently wrote an article for eprivateclient, examining the issues around inheritance and common law marriages, and identifying some of the most common pitfalls which could cause financial and emotional difficulties for the unprepared.

According to the Office for National Statistics, cohabiting but unmarried couples are now the fastest growing family type in the UK, making up around a quarter of couples living together. However, research from Will Aid last autumn found that 68% of cohabitees were unaware of what happens to their estate if they died without a Will. In fact, 32% mistakenly believed that their assets would pass to their partner, and 11% admitted to never having considered the issue!

The rights of people in what some call “common law marriages” are often misunderstood, leaving cohabitees vulnerable. While legally married couples and civil partners have specific rights and responsibilities in law, the same protections and mechanisms do not extend to cohabitees.

Below we explore some of the most common pitfalls through our example couple: Alex and Sam.

The scenario

Like many couples, Alex and Sam had been together for some time and, when they decided to live together, Sam moved into Alex’s property, which Alex owned solely.

Alex and Sam remained together for many years and were happy not to get married or enter a civil partnership. Tragically, Alex later died in an accident and, like an estimated half of UK adults (according to Canada Life research), Alex had not made a Will…

• What happens to the property?
• What can Sam do?
• Would the worst be over?
• What should cohabiting couples do?

You can read the full article on eprivateclient’s site (Subscription required)

You can also read our original client briefing on this subject here.

This list is an annually curated directory of the leading Tax professionals in international private client and wealth management.  Last year, the list comprised 100 Tax Professionals; this year, it is only 50. The list was compiled over several months of research and reviewing of submissions by the Citywealth judging team.

Sean Bannister, Head of Tax, commented: “I’m delighted that Morag, Hetal, Lara, and I have been honoured with a place on the Citywealth Top 50 Tax Professionals List for 2024. This is a testament to the hard work, client service and expertise of Edwin Coe’s fantastic Tax and Private Client teams. We strive to serve our clients with excellence, always.”

Sean acts for HNW individuals, families, and their advisors to advise on tax affairs, often across multiple jurisdictions. He also assists a significant number of clients who have had serious fraud enquiries and/or have sought to make disclosures to HMRC under one of the available disclosure facilities.

Hetal provides tax advice to HNW families with multi-jurisdictional asset bases and assists with their tax compliance in the UK. She also handles HMRC investigations and disclosures.

Morag is a Barrister who advises on a wide range of private client litigation and contentious tax services.

Lara is a tax lawyer who provides UK tax advice to individuals including of foreign nationality and professionals, including trustees, foreign lawyers, and wealth managers.

To access the Citywealth Leaders Top 50 Tax Professionals List for 2024, please see here.

Claire Lehr and Lauren Barlow of our Intellectual Property team recently wrote an article for World Trademark Review, examining the High Court’s judgment in the latest episode of the long-running history of disputes between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food AB  (Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus Named Halloumi v Fontana Food AB ([2024] EWHC 2311 (Ch), 9 September 2024)). The case is particularly interesting since it involved a collective mark, HALLOUMI, that name being recognised by many in the United Kingdom as a Cypriot cheese made from goat or sheep milk.

• There is a low degree of similarity between “cheese” and “restaurant services”
• While consumers may know what Halloumi cheese is, they would not associate GRILLOUMI with the collective mark for HALLOUMI
• Use of GRILLOUMI and GRILLOUMAKI would not pose an unfair advantage to the reputation of the collective mark

Background
The appeal was brought by the foundation, which had unsuccessfully opposed Fontana’s two trademark applications for GRILLOUMI (in Class 43) and GRILLOUMAKI (in Class 29), on the basis of its collective trademark HALLOUMI, registered in Class 29 for “cheese”. By way of reminder, a collective mark indicates that the goods or services bearing the mark originate from members of a trade association. In the present case, the foundation is comprised of Halloumi cheese producers, noting that “membership of the foundation is not compulsory for producers of halloumi in Cyprus and so halloumi can be legitimately made and marketed by non-members”. This difference produced some interesting discussions in the analysis of the case.

The foundation brought an appeal under Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Trademarks Act 1994. Under Section 5(2) of the act, the foundation claimed, among other things, that the following had been wrongly assessed:

1. indirect confusion;
2. comparison of the goods and services in Classes 29 and 43; and
3. lack of consideration of Fontana’s intentions when it registered the marks.

The hearing officer was also criticised by the foundation for incorrectly assessing unfair advantage under Section 5(3) of the act…

You can read the full article here (pdf).

This article first appeared on WTR Daily (subscription required), part of World Trademark Review, in October 2024. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Five Mobility is an independent supplier of bariatric and specialist equipment in the UK, specialising in beds, mattresses, seating, toileting and hoisting equipment for acute, community, long term care and home care.

Commenting on the deal, Alexandre Terrasse said: “We are delighted to have supported Winncare in their acquisition of Five Mobility Group. This transaction aligns with their strategic growth ambitions and reinforces their position in the mobility and healthcare sector. We look forward to continuing to work with our client as they pursue further opportunities in the market.”

FWD View Limited is a London-based specialist in financial market data transformations and visualization solutions. It works with banks and asset managers to define and implement their data strategy, combining technology, people and process optimisation.

The Edwin Coe team was led by Head of Corporate Russel Shear and assisted by Henry Wright and Jessica Daly. Russel commented “I am delighted to complete this transaction for our client. It was a pleasure to work with them as they bolster their portfolio in the financial services sector.”

Our client, Nagarro SE is a Frankfurt Stock Exchange listed (FRA: NA9) company based in Munich. With a team of around 18,300 people working across 37 countries, it is a global leader in digital product engineering, helping other businesses solve complex technology problems. It works with its clients to design, develop, and manage digital transformation solutions using technologies such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and data analytics. This strategic transaction enriches Nagarro’s portfolio in the financial services sector, building its market position in the UK with around 50 experts who deliver business critical data solutions in the financial services sector.

Nagarro’s announcement is available here: Nagarro fortifies its UK footprint with the strategic acquisition of FWD View Limited

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that 14 lawyers including 2 Band 1 ranked individuals, and 6 practice areas have been recommended in the 2025 edition of Chambers UK: A Client’s Guide to the UK Legal Profession. As reported in the guide, clients say: “Edwin Coe’s expertise is long-standing and deeply rooted within the team. They take a client-first approach...”

The firm has been recommended in 6 practice areas for the first time, with the new addition of Property Litigation in band 5 – “very strong individuals at all levels” mentioned a referee. Restructuring & Insolvency: Personal Insolvency “a reputation centred on quality”, Employment: Senior Executive – “undeniably high level of service and responsiveness,” and Insurance: Mainly Policyholders – “incredibly competent and caring,” are all ranked in band 2. Professional Negligence – “Edwin Coe’s expertise is long-standing and deeply rooted within the team,” remains in band 4 and “very serious players in the market,” Group Litigation: Claimant is in band 3.

The firm was awarded 14 individual rankings this year, including Band 1 recognition for Simeon Gilchrist in Personal Insolvency – “Simeon is highly responsive and technically excellent. He’s a sophisticated thinker who always brings something to complex situations,” and Roger Franklin for Professional Negligence: Mainly Claimant – “He is someone who clients really trust and he really knows what he’s doing.” David Greene – “one of the leaders in this sector” retained his status as a Senior Statesperson for Group Litigation: Claimant and Zahira Hussain was recommended as an ‘Up and Coming’ Partner in the same category for the first time. Linky Trott – “smart, hard-working and dedicated”, was promoted to Band 2 for Employment: Senior Executive. Shams Rahman – “a robust, calm, assured and persuasive property litigator,” joins the Property Litigation rankings for the first time, alongside Joanna Osborne – “a strong lawyer with a considerable breadth of knowledge.”

Also recommended were Ali Zaidi (Personal Insolvency) – “provided a fantastic result”, Sundeep Rathod (Immigration: Business) – “an excellent, well-rounded service”, Russel Shear (M&A) – “extremely competent and a pleasure to work with”, Simon Miles (Intellectual Property) – “a very knowledgeable and approachable specialist” and, Nicola Maher – “she’s really excellent – she knows it all backwards” and Roger Franklin (both for Insurance: Mainly Policyholders).

Thank you to all our clients and contacts who took their time to recommend us and congratulations to all involved!

Edwin Coe is recommended in the UK, High Net Worth and Global directories. Chambers’ independent research collects information about organisations, individuals and the marketplace, conducting thousands of interviews a year with in-house counsel and third-party experts, such as barristers and accountants, to deliver detailed insight into providers of legal services.

You can view our results on Chambers’ website.

Edwin Coe is pleased to announce that it has once again been recognised as a Top Private Client Law Firm in the newly published eprivateclient rankings for 2024.

Our leading Private Client team assists individuals and families for whom wealth preservation is a fundamental objective. We act as trusted advisers to individuals, families, trusts and family or owner-run businesses both in the United Kingdom and internationally.

Matthew Barnett, our Head of Private Client UK commented “We are incredibly proud to be recognised once again as one of eprivateclient’s Top Law Firms. This reflects the hard work, expertise and dedication of our team in providing trusted advice to our clients, helping them protect their wealth and plan for the future.”

The rankings are based on a survey of over 100 law firms in the UK assessing not only the size of firms’ private client teams, but also their reputations within the private wealth sector and the emphasis placed upon looking after wealthy clients and their families. This year 70 firms made the list. The judging team at eprivateclient ranked UK law firms providing high quality private client services to wealthy individuals and families based in the UK and internationally.

The recognition builds on the team’s recent success in the Private Wealth Law category of the 2024 Chambers High Net Worth Directory and The Legal 500 UK 2025 Guide.

For more information please see the eprivateclient website (subscription required).

Sean Bannister and Morag Ofili are “Top Recommended” in the Accountants & Tax Advisers, and Tax & Trust Barristers categories respectively. Hetal Sanghvi also appears in the Accountants & Tax Advisers as a “Rising Star”.

Our Managing Partner & Head of Private Client, Alison Broadberry is recommended in the Probate Lawyers category, Shams Rahman is recommended for his Contentious Trust work, whilst Lara Mardell is recommended as a Tax Lawyer.

The Spear’s 500 is a guide to the top private client advisers, wealth managers, lawyers, and service providers for HNW individuals. Their recommendations are based on peer nominations, client feedback, telephone and face-to-face interviews, data supplied by firms, and information gathered by Spear’s editorial and research teams.

Earlier in the year, Partners Rosie McCormick Paice and Katherine Simpson were recommended by Spear’s 500 as HNW Property Lawyers; Linky Trott “Top Recommended”, and finally, Sundeep Rathod was recommended for his HNW Immigration work.

To view Spear’s 500 profiles of Edwin Coe experts, see here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that our lawyers and their practices have been recommended for their outstanding work in 18 categories in the newly released The Legal 500 UK 2025 directory. These independently researched rankings highlight the individuals and practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to clients across a wide range of categories.

Individuals

Across our practices, our lawyers are recommended 65 times by the Legal 500’s expert researchers, with new mentions/reappearances for George Orman (Employment), Valerie Sweeting (Group Litigation: Claimant), Wendy Hall (Personal tax, trusts and probate), Brenna Baye, & Nik Haria (all Construction: non-contentious), and Charles Wilson (Property Finance).

Our Senior Partner, David Greene retains his membership of two ‘Halls of Fame’ for Commercial Litigation and for Group Litigation, whilst Matthew Barnett (Personal tax, trusts and probate), David Goepel (Personal tax, trusts and probate), Daniel Bellau (M&A) retain their rankings ‘Leading Individuals.’

Zahira Hussain (Commercial Litigation), and Thomas Johnson (Commercial Litigation: Mid-Market) also keep their ‘Next Generation Partner’ recommendations.

Practices

We are recommended in 18 practice categories – with new entries for Construction: non-contentious who are described as ‘highly knowledgeable in their own fields‘, and Immigration: Personal ‘knowledgeable, experienced and practical‘. Immigration: Business reappears after dropping out last year, and Commercial litigation: mid-market ‘A well-oiled machine undertaking an impressive range of high-quality instructions in challenging fields’ moves up one tier to tier 3.

Our litigators were also recommended for Group Litigation: Claimant ‘broad competence, excellent analysis, short turnover time, and willingness to go the extra mile for the clients’, Fraud: Civil, Professional Negligence, Insurance Litigation: For Policyholders where one contact stated ‘One of the strongest teams out there acting for insureds. They know what they are doing and are highly skilled at getting the right results for their clients.‘

Our ‘commercial in their approach and friendly to deal with’, Property team is recommended for Residential Property ‘highly professional team’; Property Finance and also Property Litigation: ‘The team are extremely committed, efficient, knowledgeable and tenacious.’

In the Private Wealth sector, our team was recommended for Personal tax, trusts and probate along with Charities and not-for-profit. One client said the team ‘give their clients not just the perfect professional service, but the perfect personal service too’.

Our Employment team was ranked for Employment: employers and for Employment: senior executives, with one referee commenting that the team have ‘great technical knowledge combined with excellent client relations and a pragmatic approach.’

‘The Edwin Coe team has been extremely easy to work with. Their technical knowledge has been spot on and their professionalism is top tier’ commented a client in of our Intellectual Property team; and our Corporate team are recommended for M&A: £10m-£100m ‘very capable, no nonsense approach,’ and Equity Capital Markets: Small-Mid Cap, ‘very knowledgeable.‘

Congratulations to all involved!

For more detailed information, including specific lawyer rankings and commentary, please visit the Legal 500 website.

Thomas Johnson examines the court’s orthodox approach to the burden of proof in civil claims in an article for the New Law Journal.

IN BRIEF: In civil fraud claims, where deceit dances upon a thin line, the standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, untethered to the graver stakes that criminal cases require.

Those practising in the civil courts will know that unlike the stern edicts of criminal law, demanding evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (think Rumpole of the Bailey making forceful submissions to a jury), civil claims rest upon ethereal persuasion to a lone judge on the balance of probabilities. Truth of a case is ascertained not by the ironclad fist of certainty but by a fine balance of what is more likely to have occurred. Yet too often a lamentable error persists when the balance of probabilities is contemplated in claims arising from alleged dishonesty (deceit, conspiracy, dishonest assistance, etc). Frequently lawyers, those sworn interpreters of the law’s labyrinthine language, stumble into a basic misunderstanding of the balance of probabilities when contemplating fraud claims, either inflating the civil standard beyond its true measure, or worse, mistaking it for the more formidable criminal threshold.

Phrases such as ‘deceit requires a higher standard of proof’ or ‘the burden of proof in civil fraud is akin to the criminal standard’ (we have all heard them) are wrong because they incorrectly transform the burden of proof into a clumsy aphorism. Or as Lord Hoffmann put it in Secretary of State for the Home Dept v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153, [2002] 1 All ER 122 at [55]: ‘I feel bound to say that I think that a “high civil balance of probabilities” is an unfortunate mixed metaphor.’…

Read the full article on the NLJ website (subscription may be required).

As the Managing Partner of Edwin Coe, I am incredibly proud to celebrate our six-month anniversary of becoming B Corp certified. This milestone is a testament to our unwavering commitment to sustainability, social responsibility, and ethical business practices.

Over the past six months, we have continued to make strides in reducing our environmental footprint, supporting our local communities, and fostering a workplace culture that values diversity and inclusion. Our journey as a B Corp has not only strengthened our dedication to these principles but has also inspired us to set even higher goals for the future.

I want to extend my grateful thanks to the dedicated team across Edwin Coe, whose commitment to making a positive impact is truly inspiring. I would also like to thank our clients and stakeholders for their continued support and trust in our mission.

As we look ahead, we remain committed in our pursuit of creating a more sustainable and equitable world. Together, we can make a difference.

Alison Broadberry

Read more

• Press Release: Edwin Coe is proud to be B Corp Certified
• B Corp at Edwin Coe
• B Corp website

We are delighted to announce that Denise Li Gates, a Senior Associate in our Private Client team, has been included as a rising star in the Citywealth NextGen Top 40 Under 40. Denise advises both UK-based and international individuals to ensure their wealth planning and succession objectives are met tax-efficiently.

Mathew Barnett, Head of Private Client UK commented: “We are incredibly proud of Denise’s accomplishment. This well-deserved achievement highlights her dedication, hard work, and exceptional talent. It is a testament to her commitment to excellence, and we look forward to seeing her continued success in the future.”

Citywealth NextGen Top 40 Under 40 is a top-rated list of the rising stars in the wealth management industry. The list is based on recommendations from clients and peers, through independent research conducted by Citywealth.

The Citywealth 40 Under 40 reveals curated lists of talented individuals who have been recognised for excellence and well-rounded character. These individuals perform at the highest level in their work and with clients and give back to society through charity work and team endeavours. The lists were compiled over several months of research by the Citywealth team and by applications to Citywealth.

The full Citywealth NextGen Top 40 Under 40 2024 list is here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Morag Ofili, a Barrister – Partner in our Tax team and Toni Recchia, an Associate in our Private Client team, have been named in the respected eprivateclient NextGen Leaders List 2024.

Sean Bannister, Head of Tax, comments: “Congratulations to both – Morag joined the Tax practice at Edwin Coe earlier this year, and it is plain to see from the quality of the service and advice she offers to her clients, why she has been recognised by eprivateclient for a second time. As the tax landscape becomes increasingly complex for private clients, Morag’s experience in tax risk advisory, tax litigation, commercial litigation and professional negligence is a valuable asset for the team. I would like to thank our clients and referrers for supporting Morag and Toni’s nominations.”

Matthew Barnett, Head of Private Client UK “It is wonderful to see Morag and Toni being recognised on this prestigious list. This is a well-deserved honour for Toni who is developing into a skilled private client adviser whose technical ability and interpersonal skills are proving invaluable to her clients.”

The publication of the 2024 eprivateclient NextGen Leaders (previously called the Top 35 Under 35 award) is the definitive annual list of leading young private client practitioners in the UK and UK Crown Dependencies. To be considered on the NextGen Leaders List, you must have 17 years or less of industry experience from within the private client advisory professions: private client property tax, trust, dispute resolution and family lawyers, accountants, or trustees.

Judging by the senior editorial team at PAM Insight is based on the qualities and achievements of the individual. Other factors considered included the reputation or performance of the company that the nominee works for, feedback from superiors, as well as trajectory of promotion/business development success and age (i.e. younger individuals achieving relatively senior positions).  At the same time, the judging panel also consider volunteering outside of work or mentoring and advocacy within the industry.

The full list for 2024 is available on eprivateclient’s website and can be accessed here for A to G and here for H to Z (subscription may be required).

The successful qualifying solicitors who have secured positions within the firm are as follows:

• Lauren Barlow – Intellectual Property
• Harry Collins – Property and Trusts Litigation
• Hallam Lewis – Insurance Litigation
• Hannah Simpson – Intellectual Property

Edwin Coe’s Managing Partner, Alison Broadberry commented, “Congratulations to our newly qualified solicitors, who have chosen to continue their journey with Edwin Coe. We wish them every success as they embark on the next chapter of their careers. I would also like to extend my thanks to Nicola Maher and Nick Phillips who oversee our Trainee scheme, as well as our HR team who are committed to the important process of hiring and retaining outstanding trainees; their contribution is very much appreciated.”

Nicola and Nick added, “As a B Corp firm, we strive to constantly improve our people and so it is gratifying to see how these young lawyers have grown into their roles at Edwin Coe. We’d like to congratulate Lauren, Harry, Hallam and Hannah on qualifying as solicitors. The skill and dedication which they have shown as trainees will undoubtedly enrich their respective departments, and contribute to the positive impact we strive to make for our clients, our community, and the broader world.”

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that we are a Gold Sponsor of the SME London Business Awards 2025 for the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI). Clare Gilroy-Scott, a Partner in our Employment team and Greg Horsford, a Senior Associate in our Corporate team will be on the judging panel.

The Awards are open to firms of up to 250 employees to enter into 23 different categories ranging from best entrepreneur to best young business leader, with the chance of winning either the Gold or Silver in their chosen category and the potential to be crowned as overall winner of the LCCI SME Awards.

The official Launch of the Awards was at the LCCI Summer Party on 11^th July 2024 at Westminster Abbey. Entries must be submitted by 26^th September 2024.  The judging will take place between 14^th to 17^th October 2024. Finalists will be invited to attend the Awards ceremony on 27^th February 2025 at the Leonardo Royal Hotel, Tower Bridge.

For more information on these awards and how to enter please see here.

William Edwards from our Private Client team recently spoke to The Sunday Times Money for an article which warns that anyone leaving property to siblings, nieces, nephews and friends is being cheated out of valuable reliefs that are available to parents and married couples.

When you die, the first £325,000 value of your estate can be passed on IHT-free. If you are leaving your family home to a direct descendant (a child, stepchild or a grandchild) you get another £175,000 nil-rate allowance and anything that you leave to a spouse or civil partner is IHT-free.

But the estates of unmarried couples and platonic family members or friends who live together, will be taxed at 40 per cent on any assets over the £325,000 tax-free threshold…

• William Edwards, a partner at the law firm Edwin Coe, said unmarried joint owners of a property may be able to claim a discount of up to 15 per cent on the value of the deceased’s share of the property. If someone owned 50 per cent of a £1 million house, the joint ownership discount would reduce the value of their share for inheritance tax purposes from £500,000 to £425,000.

Read the full article in The Sunday Times (subscription may be required).

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that its Private Client, Tax and High Value Residential Property lawyers have been recommended again in the latest edition of the Chambers High Net Worth guide.

Our Residential Property team retained its band 4 ranking for Real Estate: High Value Residential, whilst and Head of Department, Rosie McCormick Paice has moved up a level to band 3.

Our Private Client team has also retained all its rankings in the Private Wealth Law category, band 4 for the team and David Goepel is ranked band 2, Alison Broadberry is in band 3 and Matthew Barnett makes a second guide appearance in band 5.

Finally, Morag Ofili has been recommended in the Tax: Private Client category as an ‘Up and Coming’ lawyer.

Congratulations all!

A sample of our client feedback received in this edition includes:

Edwin Coe “have a great team to deal with any issues with high-value residential properties” whilst our Private Client team “provided faultless communications and expert advice in a professional manner. It also always seemed to have an expert on hand to help. I always received a prompt response to my enquiries.”

Rosie McCormick Paice “For high end transactions, I would definitely recommend her. Clients really like her as well.”

Alison Broadberry “is one of a kind, very knowledgeable and incredibly personable. Clients warm to her.”

David Goepel “is measured, thoughtful, knowledgeable and thorough. He is always ready to help.”

Matthew Barnett “is an excellent lawyer and a safe pair of hands on UK wills and probate work. He also has an excellent bedside manner.”

Morag Ofili “is very good at managing clients and focusing on their objectives. She is very knowledgeable and technical.”

Chambers HNW is an independently produced and researched annual guide which also feature listings and information about many of the top accountancy and tax firms, private banks, wealth management firms and multi-family offices acting for high net worth individuals. Their team researches in than 55 countries around the world, including every major private wealth market across six continents. Further information can be found on the Chambers High Net Worth website.

Morag will support the Tax team with the anticipated dispute workload brought on by changes in tax policies following the newly elected Labour Government in July 2024.   The new government’s tax policies will present significant implications for tax advisors, with an anticipated emphasis on closing tax loopholes and enhancing compliance measures, tax specialists are likely to see a surge in cases involving complex tax disputes and audits.

Morag joins Edwin Coe from Harbottle & Lewis where she worked as a Managing Associate. She is recommended by Legal 500 and Spear’s 500 (Top Recommended) as well as ranked in Chambers and Partners High Net Worth Guide. She has featured in eprivateclient: Top 35 under 35 and has previously been shortlisted for the Rising Star Award at the Taxation and ‘We Are the City’ Awards.

Sean Bannister, Head of Tax commented: “We are thrilled to welcome Morag to our expanding team at this busy time. With her extensive experience in litigation and contentious tax services, she will be a valuable asset. We are committed to providing the best advice and service, and her expertise will further enhance our offerings to clients.”

Edwin Coe’s Tax team is a dedicated and market-leading team of tax specialists and lawyers with many years of experience advising clients both in the UK and overseas.

Claire Lehr and Kenny Cheung recently contributed an article to the World Trademark Review (WTR), analysing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed which addresses the question of whether an individual can be held jointly liable with an infringing company, if that person did not know that the company had infringed on a trademark.

• This appeal and cross-appeal considered, among others, the issues of accessory liability and account of profits
• For accessory liability to arise, the accessory must have known all the essential facts of the act carried out by the primary infringer which made the act tortious and infringing
• A person is liable only to account for profits made personally, but not for profits made by someone else

In the much-anticipated judgment in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed ([2024] UKSC 17), the Supreme Court has made it clear that a person, including a company director or employee, is not jointly liable with the primary infringing company or entity if that person did not know that the act of the primary infringer amounted to trademark infringement.

Background

Two companies, which offered for sale clothing items with logos depicting the name ‘Santa Monica Polo Club’ and pictures of polo players on horses, were found to have infringed Lifestyle Equities CV’s registered trademarks, which consisted of the words ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ and the figure of a polo player on a horse. The infringing companies’ directors (namely, the Ahmed siblings) were held by the lower court, as well as the Court of Appeal, to be jointly and severally liable with the companies as accessories to the infringement on the grounds that they had procured the commission of the infringement and joined in a common design to infringe.

As the infringing companies had become insolvent, Lifestyle elected to claim against the Ahmed siblings an account of the whole profits made by the companies. The lower courts awarded the remedy, but the profits were assessed at only 10% of their salaries less the payable income tax (and excluding the loan one of them received from the companies) – being the profits they made personally that could be apportioned to the infringing acts. Both parties cross-appealed to the Supreme Court on, among others, the issues of accessory liability and account of profits.

Decision 

Before the Supreme Court decision, it was generally accepted (including by the lower court and the Court of Appeal) that, where the primary wrong is a strict liability tort, such as trademark infringement, the accessory liability is also strict in nature and does not require proof of the accessory’s knowledge that the acts done by the primary infringer were infringing or likely infringing.

However, in giving the lead and unanimous judgment and following a comprehensive review of common law cases on accessory liability, Lord Leggatt rejected this approach and clarified that, for accessory liability to arise, the accessory (eg, a company director) must have known (or turned a blind eye to) all the essential facts and features of the act done by the primary infringer (eg, a company) which make the act tortious and infringing; otherwise, it would be unjust to hold that accessory personally liable for acts done in the ordinary course of business and in good faith without knowledge of infringement.

In allowing the Ahmed siblings’ appeal on accessory liability, the Supreme Court held that the trial judge’s findings were insufficient to satisfy the aforementioned ‘knowledge’ requirement, given that the trial judge had raised only questions about, but made no findings to the effect that the Ahmed siblings knew or ought to have known that specific elements of the trademark infringement claims were present (eg, that there was a likelihood of confusion, and that the use of the infringing signs would adversely affect the reputation of Lifestyle’s trademarks and was without due cause). Of particular note is Lord Leggatt’s comment at Paragraph 138 that “there was room for argument and honest difference of opinion about the similarity and whether it gave rise to a likelihood of confusion or otherwise resulted in infringement”, such that it may not be obvious to conclude that the directors must have known the facts which made the acts infringing, as contrasted to a simple case which involved counterfeits.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, dismissed Lifestyle’s appeal on account of profits and clarified the applicable principles in awarding this equitable remedy typically sought by claimants in IP infringement cases. In particular, it was restated that a person is liable only to account for profits made personally, but not for profits made by someone else, as such would be penal in nature. Further, the profits for which an infringer is liable to account are limited to those attributable to the use of the infringing sign and caused by the confusion, and are not necessarily the whole of the profits to the infringement. It is therefore essential to consider what proportion, if any, of the sales would have been made by the infringer if the infringing signs had not been used.

Comment

In theory, this decision makes it easier for directors to escape personal liability from trademark infringement committed through companies by arguing a lack of knowledge, especially in cases which are not clear-cut, where there are plausible arguments on both sides of issues such as similarities of marks and likelihood of confusion. This may leave trademark owners with no real financial recourse where the infringing vehicle has become insolvent.

It remains to be seen whether, and in what circumstances, such knowledge can be implied, and accessory liability can be attached. As the burden now clearly rests on trademark owners to prove that accessories (eg, directors) have knowledge of infringement, litigants will no doubt take extra steps to specifically plead and collate good evidence to prove and support findings on the requisite mental state of the accessories.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in May 2024.
For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Simon Miles, Nick Phillips, and Claire Lehr have been recognised as leaders in the World Intellectual Property Review’s Leaders Directory for 2024. Simon has been on the list since 2016, and Nick and Claire since 2023.

The WIPR Leaders Directory is a one-stop guide to the leading IP practitioners in the world. Leaders are nominated by IP professionals and then vetted by the WIPR research team. The team considers each nominee’s practice history, industry proficiency, notable cases, and additional contributions, such as writing and teaching responsibilities.

World IP Review is a publication that provides news and guidance on the challenges facing businesses and legal practitioners active in intellectual property, as well as marketing and branding professionals who operate online.

The directory is available online here, where you can view Simon, Nick, and Claire’s profiles.

Congratulations to Thomas Johnson of our Commercial Disputes & Class Actions team, who has been shortlisted by The Bar Council of England and Wales for their ‘Employed Barrister of the Year in a Law Firm’ award.

The Employed Bar Awards 2024 showcases the wealth of talent amongst employed barristers. Launched in 2017, they celebrate the vital contributions that employed barristers make across numerous practice areas and sectors including the public sector, law firms, commerce and the armed forces. The awards are presented for high quality legal advice and an outstanding contribution by employed barristers to the work of their organisations and the law more generally.

The judging panel for the 2024 awards includes Patrick Walker, Gaynor Wood, alongside Bar Council Chair Sam Townend KC and Vice Chair Barbara Mills KC.

The winners will be announced at the Employed Bar Dinner and Awards which this year, will be held at Gray’s Inn on Thursday 10 October.

You can read more about the nominees and the awards on the Bar Council’s website.

Wallball is a rapidly growing sport with a thriving World Tour and ongoing discussions about Olympic inclusion. In this fast-moving sport, players hit a ball against a wall using their hands – like squash, but without a racquet.

The court was created as part of the launch of the Fleet Street Quarter Fusion Games, a ten-week programme of free sporting events and leisure activities transforming some of the Quarter’s streets into hubs of activity, designed to inspire movement and spirited play. Pop up sporting activities include: bocce, outdoors chess, corn hole, circuits, table tennis and quoits. More details can be found on their website.

The Fleet Street Quarter Business Improvement District was created in 2022 by local businesses to position the area as a thriving and vibrant destination. Whilst Fleet Street is its heart, the quarter covers Chancery Lane, Holborn, Ludgate Hill and New Street Square.

London-based Ondo InsurTech Plc is a world leading provider of claims prevention technology for home insurers and has been awarded London Stock Exchange’s Green Economy Mark for companies who derive the majority of their income from Green activities. Ondo’s focus is currently on ‘LeakBot’, which is a British-made, patented Internet of Things solution that connects to the home wireless network and, if it detects a leak, notifies the customer via a mobile app. When a leak is detected, an approved expert plumber is sent to find and fix it. According to recent research by Consumer Intelligence, LeakBot could reduce the cost of water damage claims for insurers by 70%.

Daniel Bellau, leading Edwin Coe’s team, expressed his satisfaction with the successful fundraising, stating, “It was a privilege acting for Dowgate Capital once again to facilitate another milestone fundraising for Ondo. The strong support from both existing and new investors underscores the market’s confidence in Ondo’s vision and technological prowess despite difficult macro-economic conditions.”

You can read Ondo InsurTech’s news release here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that six of our solicitors are included in the thirteenth edition of The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom, which has just been released. The 2025 UK edition recognizes the professional excellence of 6,458 lawyers in 85 practice areas, and in particular, recommends the following solicitors at Edwin Coe:

• David Greene (Competition Law and Litigation)
• Linky Trott (Employment Law)
• Rachel Harrap (Employment Law)
• Simon Miles (Intellectual Property Law)
• Christopher Berry (Insolvency & Restructuring Law and Litigation)
• David Goepel (Charities Law)

Congratulations to all!

The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom 2025 Guide
For over 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional and national publications across the globe.

Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based on a rigorous peer-review survey. Their process is designed to capture the opinion of leading lawyers regarding the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers asks voters the question: “If you were unable to take a case yourself, how likely would you be to refer it to this nominee?”

In the article, Sean covers the following topics:

• The most common concerns that cross-border clients are bringing regarding their tax administration (not including non-dom change concerns).
• Legal or regulatory changes (current or future) that will help/hinder cross-border taxation planning/efficiency.
• What is being done by tax advisors to anticipate/prepare for the non-dom regime change.

Read the full article on the Citywealth website here (registration is required).

London-based Premier IT offers workforce planning, development and performance solutions for the healthcare sector. They serve 125+ organizations in the UK healthcare sector spanning the primary, secondary and independent healthcare landscape, supporting healthcare professionals from consultants, doctors and GPs to nurses, midwives, and care support staff.

The Edwin Coe team was led by Head of Corporate Russel Shear and Associate Michelle Ansah. Russel commented “This is the ninth transaction we have completed successfully with VitalHub in the UK. It was a pleasure to work with them once again and I wish them every success with their expansion plans.”

VitalHub Corp., which is publicly traded on the TSX Venture Exchange, develops and supports mission-critical information systems in the social service, mental health, long term care, community health service, home health and hospital sectors across Canada, USA, UK, Australia, the Middle East, and Europe. It has a two-pronged growth strategy, targeting organic growth opportunities within its product portfolio whilst also pursuing an aggressive M&A plan. VitalHub is based in Toronto, Canada, with an offshore innovation hub in Sri Lanka.

VitalHub’s announcement is available here: VitalHub Corp. Announces Acquisition of Premier IT Partnership Limited

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce its support of The Law Society’s Art Group Annual Exhibition for 2024.  The Exhibition will be held online, and at the Landmark Arts centre from 11^th to 15^th June 2024.

At a Private View at the Landmark Arts Centre on the evening of the 14th June, Karen Iredale, an established artist who has exhibited in London Galleries such as Bankside and Southbank including at the Royal Art Society in Sydney, Australia, will judge the artwork on display, and a number of prizes will be awarded. Many of the works including paintings, sketches, sculptures and other 3D work will be available for purchase.

The Law Society’s Art Group is a small membership group, first set up in 1959, of practising or retired solicitors, staff of solicitors’ firms and to solicitors’ close family members, with an interest in or appreciation for art. The Group runs art events throughout the year including an annual exhibition, painting days, talks and visits to art collections and galleries.

Further information:

The Exhibition is online / in the Landmark Arts Centre (Ferry Road, Teddington, TW11 9NN) from Tuesday, 11^th June to Friday, 14^th June: 10am to 4pm; and Saturday 15^th June: 10am to 1pm.

The link for the online viewing is here.

The Private View will be held at the Landmark Arts Centre, on Friday, 14^th June from 5.30pm to 7.30pm, judging from 6.30pm.  It will be open to Law Society’s Art Group members, their guests & the Public. No booking required / free admission.

Dinner after Private View: Open to Law Society’s Group members & guests; prebooking is required.

The Art Group’s Facebook page is here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Sundeep Rathod, our Head of Immigration is recommended in the new edition of the Spear’s 500 guide for the Immigration Lawyer category.

Sundeep specialises in all aspects of UK immigration work particularly focusing on representing HNW individuals and prominent individuals operating within the media, creative and sporting sector on appropriate immigration routes to the UK. He represents individuals in making successful Global Talent applications. Sundeep deals with personal immigration matters and often represents clients with spousal, settlement, complex nationality and EU Settlement Scheme applications. He assists with Youth Mobility, High Potential Individual, and BN(O) applications.

Sundeep commented: “I was very keen to be included in Spear’s 500 guide. This honour underscores our commitment to providing exceptional service to our clients.”

Spear’s 500 is a guide to the best HNW private client advisers across a wide range of categories including Immigration Lawyers. Rankings are ascertained from peer nominations, client feedback, and interviews, as well as a written submissions by firms and information gathered from Spear’s 500 editorial and research team.

Sundeep’s Spear’s 500 profile can be accessed here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Linky Trott, Head of Employment is “Top Recommended” is “Recommended” in the Employment Lawyers category in the Spear’s 500 Directory for 2024.

Linky’s practice incorporates advice to senior executives on a broad range of issues from bonus disputes, team moves, issues arising with post termination restrictions and confidential information, whistleblowing and discrimination claims.  She advises on claims arising in the High Court and the Employment Tribunals.

Linky commented: “I am delighted that I am included in the Spear’s 500 guide.  This prestigious recognition reflects the high level of service we offer to our clients.”

Spear’s 500 is a guide to the best HNW private client advisers across a wide range of categories including Employment Lawyers. Rankings are ascertained from peer nominations, client feedback, and interviews, as well as a written submissions by firms and information gathered from Spear’s 500 editorial and research team.

This year’s edition of the Spear’s 500 guide for Employment Lawyers can be found here, where you can also read Linky‘s profile.

David Greene, our Head of Commercial Disputes & Class Actions spoke to Eleanor Oldroyd and Nick Bright on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Saturday Breakfast, where he discussed how compensation claims work for class actions, particularly with regard to the compensation due to the sub-postmasters affected by the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal.

You can listen to the whole interview on the BBC Sounds website  (from 1:26:30, available until 18 June 2024).

With more than 100 unresolved insurance cases in the High Court related to Covid-19, Roger Franklin, our Head of Insurance Litigation recently spoke to the Financial Times for an article examining the ongoing pursuit of claims made by businesses across hospitality sector.

Four years since Covid-19 lockdown curbs forced Burger & Lobster to close its restaurants, the purveyor of gourmet patties and crustacean rolls is still battling with its insurance company to recover some of the resulting losses.

Alongside more than 20 other businesses including the owners of Hawksmoor steakhouses and Newcastle Falcons rugby club, the chain has brought a claim against Allianz in London’s High Court after the insurer declined to pay out on its business interruption policy, a type of cover designed to compensate for lost revenues.

The case is one of dozens being fought between insurers and UK policyholders from national hotel chains to local hairdressers, breweries and tattoo parlours angered at how their claims have been handled…

Roger Franklin, head of insurance litigation at law firm Edwin Coe, said that while insurers were under guidance from the FCA not to “litigate everything to the nth degree”, a lot were taking to court “every point under the sun”…

Read the full article here (subscription may be required)

Over the past few years Edwin Coe has been at the forefront in advancing claims on behalf of policyholders for Business Interruption losses suffered as a result of Covid-19.  If your business was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, and your have a potential or disputed claim for Business Interruption losses please contact our Covid-19 Business Interruption team and we can advise on your available options.

Writing in IFA Magazine on behalf of the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP), Katherine Simpson, examines the expected impact of the proposed Leasehold and Freehold Reform bill.

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is making its way through Parliament at speed, having been first introduced in November last year.

This article considers the impact of one significant change to the existing legislation, namely the proposal to raise the 25% non-residential limit in collective enfranchisement claims to 50%. This proposed has been welcomed by leaseholders and will almost certainly be enacted. But the amendment, whilst not as controversial as other proposed changes, will have a much greater impact on landlords and the commercial property sector than might at first glance have been appreciated.

A number of landlords, including the Grosvenor Estate, submitted evidence to the Select Committee challenging the proposed increase and highlighting the need to explore the unintended consequences of the proposal…

• Fragmented ownership of the high street
• Impact on investment
• Impact on building management and safety
• Conclusion

You can read the full article on IFA Magazine’s website

Litigator Barry McGouran (Restructuring & Insolvency) has been promoted to Senior Associate.

Former Edwin Coe trainees Nicole Davis (Restructuring & Insolvency) and Lara Persell (Private Client) have been promoted from Solicitor to Associate.

Finally in our Tax team, Bradley Gabriel has been promoted to Tax Manager along with Henry Hinton who becomes a Tax Executive.

Edwin Coe’s Managing Partner Alison Broadberry commented, “Sincere congratulations to all on their well-deserved promotions. We wish them every further success as they continue their career journey which we will fully support them on.”

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Hetal Sanghvi, Partner in our Tax team was named in the Citywealth Top 100 International Powerwomen List.

Citywealth’s Powerwomen list identifies the women working in the wealth management industry who are not only exceptional in their roles but also inspire and support their fellow women in their achieving their career goals​​​​​​​.

Hetal has a wealth of experience in advising clients with multi-jurisdictional exposure, specialising in working with non-domiciled individuals seeking to optimise their position in a tax compliant framework and non-resident individuals seeking to have a UK nexus be it through asset acquisition or physical relocation. She has many years of experience assisting clients with various different forms of HMRC dispute (regularisation to enquiry) and leads the Tax Compliance offering at Edwin Coe.

You can view the 2024 Top 100 Powerwomen list for 2024 on Citywealth’s website.

Edwin Coe LLP is delighted to announce that it is now a Certified B Corporation (B Corp).  B stands for Benefit for all and we are proud to have joined a growing global community of purpose-driven businesses who are leading the movement for an inclusive, equitable and regenerative economy.

Our purpose at Edwin Coe extends beyond simply making a profit.  It is enshrined in our LLP deed that we will carry out our business to have a material positive impact on society and the environment.

We aim at all times to focus on constantly improving our purpose, and our people, alongside our profit. We strive to uphold our duties to support the welfare, growth, empowerment, and appreciation of all our people.  We aim to fulfil our commitment and responsibilities to all our stakeholders including our clients, our suppliers, and the environment.

We realised in 2021 that our long-standing aim of being a force for good was very much aligned with the B Corp Movement. We also realised that we had achieved so many individual “good” standards that the B Corp Certification offered a fantastic, comprehensive, umbrella framework for us to support our focus on our continuous improvement.  So we began our journey to B Corp Certification, with a committed team across all areas of the firm working together towards meeting high standards of social and environmental impact (the B Lab Standards).  This is a rigorous process of demonstrating performance, accountability and transparency covering  B Lab’s five Impact Area Pillars of community, customers, environment, governance and workers.

Alison Broadberry, our Managing Partner commented “I am thrilled that we are now a B Corp Certified firm. This is a fantastic achievement to recognise the significant effort, commitment, and passionate belief in the importance of the mission of the B Corp community that we share across the firm.   We are all proud that Edwin Coe is one of the first few law firms in the UK to join the global B Corp community.  I would like to thank very sincerely all those who have contributed so much to this certification and who contribute to our journey of continuous improvement.”

Tim Nash, Chief Executive added “A score of 88.2 is very satisfying; however, this is only the start of the journey. There is still much further to go – B Lab encourages businesses to focus on continuous improvement delivering for their clients, their people and other stakeholders, along with continually improving their environmental and social performance.  Our aim is to improve our score when we are recertified in three years’ time!”

If you would like to talk to us about our B Corp Certification, please contact Alison Broadberry or Tim Nash.

Lara provides English legal and UK tax advice to individuals, particularly those with international connections, including the US, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.  She advises those coming to or leaving the UK on UK tax and structuring, and works with advisers in other jurisdictions to provide co-ordinated cross-border advice, taking into account not only tax but a client’s overall life goals.  She frequently also advises professionals including trustees, foreign lawyers and wealth managers.

Lara, who is recommended in Spear’s 500 and ALM’s Private Client Global Elite, joins Edwin Coe having previously worked at BDB Pitmans in London and Ogier in Hong Kong.

Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner and Head of Private Client commented, “I am so delighted to welcome Lara into our growing team. We always strive to provide the very best advice and service, and the wealth of international experience that Lara has, further strengthens our offering to clients.”

Edwin Coe’s Private Client team is recognised by eprivateclient as a Top Private Client law firm, and is recommended in the Private Wealth Law category of the 2023 Chambers High Net Worth directory and The Legal 500 UK 2024 Guide.

Rosie specialises in transactional and financing work involving high value residential properties in Prime Central London as well as country houses, equestrian properties, farms and estates for a mix of HNW and UHNW individuals plus developers and investors many of whom are from overseas.

Katherine is recognised as a pre-eminent expert in the specialist area of leasehold enfranchisement and is particularly renowned for her expertise in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Rosie commented: “We are delighted to have been included in the Spear’s 500 guide which reflects the high level of service that we offer to our clients.”

Spear’s 500 is a guide to the best HNW private client advisers across a wide range of categories including Property Lawyers. Rankings are ascertained from peer nominations, client feedback, and interviews, as well as a written submissions by firms and information gathered from Spear’s 500 editorial and research team.

This year’s edition of the Spear’s 500 guide for Property Lawyers is here, where you can also read Rosie and Katherine’s profiles.

This is the first time that WIPR have ranked UK Trade Mark firms and individuals. In order to be ranked in WIPR’s UK Trade Mark rankings, firms and individuals are assessed through research, peer review and client testimony.

Simon Miles, Head of Intellectual Property (IP) comments: ‘I am really pleased that we are recognised in the 2024 UK Trade Mark firm rankings by WIPR and further that Claire and I are listed in the UK Trade Mark WIPR individual rankings.  It is testament to the dedication and passion of our team for all-things IP, and the resulting expertise and client service that we provide to our clients.”

Edwin Coe’s status in the WIPR UK Trade Mark firm rankings builds on last year’s success in the WIPR Leaders Directory 2023 where Simon and Claire, along with Nick Phillips were recommended.

To view the WIPR Trade Mark rankings please see the WIPR website.

Congratulations to the IP team.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner and Head of Private Client won the silver award in the Champion of the Year category in the 2024 Citywealth Powerwomen Awards International.

Alison commented “I am delighted to have received such a prestigious award and have been recognised as a leading role model to women in the private wealth sector.  I would like to thank Citywealth and everyone who took the time to support my nomination for this award.”

Citywealth’s Powerwomen Awards programme champions women in the wealth sector and highlights the female leaders of today and tomorrow. The awards spotlight individuals and companies who support caregiving responsibilities, female leadership, and celebrate diversity.

Please click here to view the winners.

Hall of Fame status is awarded to individuals who have received constant praise from their clients for continued excellence. The Hall of Fame highlights, to clients, the law firm partners who are at the pinnacle of the profession. David, who is also our Head of Class Action and Finance Litigation is a member of two Halls of Fame, for Commercial Litigation and for Group Litigation.  As reported in the directory, a client commented that David, is considered as “one of the best litigation solicitors practising in the City who commands the respect, and fear, of his peers.”

In the interview, David looks back on his career, spanning forty years as a partner, how the legal sector has changed particularly in the field of litigation and he selects a number of his career highlights.

The full interview can be read here.

Talking on relocation for Indian clients to UK, Hetal comments that the main issue “is establishing clean capital (more challenging if they have already triggered tax residency in the UK) and increasing the amount of money that they are legitimately able to take outside of India.”

Read the full article on the Citywealth website here (registration is required).

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that our Insurance Litigation team continues to be recognised within the newly published edition of Chambers Global, alongside many of our colleagues from across our global legal network, Ally Law.

Our “fantastic from start to finish” team is recommended in the Insurance: Mainly Policyholders category, along with lawyers Nicola Maher “very astute and consistently at the top of her game” and Roger Franklin “efficient and knowledgeable”.

A client commented “Their handing of matters is always of the highest standards. Edwin Coe’s lawyers give well thought-out advice, which is then acted upon in an extremely efficient manner.”

Additionally, Ally Law has retained its ranking as a ‘Global Market Leader’ law firm network in Chambers Global 2024, as well as a recommended ‘Leading Regional Law Firm Network’ in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2024.

Clients commented “It is a dynamic network that is flexible and brings fresh ideas.” and “The network covers the globe and it does a really nice job. All of its members are high quality.”

Within the new Chambers Global directory, twenty-one Ally Law member firms are ranked across twenty-four practice areas. The edition also recommends eighty-nine lawyers from Ally Law firms including four ‘Associates to watch,’ two ‘Foreign experts,’ and four ‘Up and Coming Partners.’

Congratulations to all our colleagues!

Edwin Coe is recommended in the Chambers’ UK, High Net Worth and Global directories. Their independent research collects information about organisations, individuals and the marketplace, conducting thousands of interviews a year with in-house counsel and third-party experts, such as barristers and accountants, to deliver detailed insight into providers of legal services. You can view our results on Chambers’ website.

You can read Ally Law’s comprehensive summary on their website.

Our team was led by Edwin Coe’s Head of Corporate Russel Shear, alongside Associate, Henry Wright. Russel commented “We’re delighted to be able to assist VitalHub on the completion of another acquisition, the eighth such transaction on which we have worked together successfully.”

BookWise offers specialist scheduling software for healthcare and corporate organisations ranging from general room booking software to more specialist scheduling systems. Formed in 2010, and based in Burton-on-Trent, BookWise supports 150+ healthcare organizations throughout the United Kingdom and Australia.

Edwin Coe has advised publicly traded VitalHub on its expansion plans in the UK health technology market for several years. VitalHub is based in Toronto, Canada, with an offshore innovation hub in Sri Lanka which develops and supports mission-critical information systems in the social service, mental health, long term care, community health service, home health and hospital sectors. It has a two-pronged growth strategy, targeting organic growth opportunities within its product suite, and pursuing an aggressive M&A plan.

VitalHub’s announcement is available here: VitalHub Corp. Announces Acquisition of BookWise Solutions Limited

Claire Lehr of our Intellectual Property team recently wrote an article in World Trademark Review, examining the decision in Industrial Cleaning Equipment (Southampton) Ltd v Intelligent Cleaning Equipment Holdings Co Ltd ([2023] EWCA Civ 1451, 6 December 2023),  where in a departure from EU law, the Court of Appeal found that the clock for the five-year period for statutory acquiescence starts ticking when the earlier trademark owner becomes aware of the use of a later trademark.

Background
The claimant had been using the ICE logos for the sale and rental of cleaning machines in the United Kingdom since around 2007. The defendant manufactured floor cleaning machines in China which were imported (through a further defendant in the proceedings) in the United Kingdom since 2013.

The defendant’s trademark rights included an International Registration (word mark) for ICE, received at the EUIPO on 23 July 2015, and a logo mark, received at the EUIPO on 13 August 2015. Both marks were registered at WIPO on 18 June 2015. Upon Brexit, the defendant’s EU marks were taken on to the UK register with filing dates of 18 June 2015 and dates of entry on the register of 25 May 2016 and 15 June 2016, respectively.

The claimant filed for a UK trademark incorporating ICE in October 2015. The mark proceeded to registration in January 2016.

The parties were aware of each other in 2014. There was later contact from around 2017, not least because the claimant maintained some of the defendant’s products in the United Kingdom.

On 2 July 2019 the claimant sent a letter before claim alleging infringement and passing off. The defendant’s response letter of 26 July 2019 denied the claims and relied on the defendant’s registrations. Some further discussion ensued but negotiations broke down; a claim form was issued on 24 May 2021 and served on 21 September 2021. The defendant raised the defence of statutory acquiescence.

You can read the full article here (pdf).

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in (January 2024). For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

We are pleased to announce that Edwin Coe has achieved a place in the well-known World Trademark Review 1000 firm rankings (WTR 1000). Simon Miles, Head of Intellectual Property and Claire Lehr, Partner have retained their places in the WTR annual rankings for individuals. They are joined by a third Partner Nick Phillips in this year’s edition.

Edwin Coe offers a complete IP solution combining the complementary strengths of IP solicitors and trade mark attorneys with related specialists in commercial contracts, IT and tax.

Simon Miles commented: “I am delighted that Edwin Coe has been recognised in the WTR 1000 firm rankings and that myself and colleagues Nick and Claire are also included in the rankings for individuals. We’d like to thank our clients who took the time to recommend us to WTR.”

The WTR 1000 ranks the top Trade Mark Professionals and Firms in key jurisdictions around the globe. WTR 1000 describes itself as the ‘definitive ‘go-to’ resource for those seeking world-class legal trade mark expertise’. Following a written submission to WTR, WTR researchers conduct interviews with clients and Trade Mark professionals to identify the leading professionals and firms that are deemed outstanding at obtaining, protecting, managing, enforcing and monetising trade marks.

The 2024 edition for the WTR 1000 rankings can be viewed here (subscription required).

City AM previews The Eclipse Litigation: Upham & Ors -v- HSBC UK Bank PLC which will be heard in the Commercial Court for the next eight weeks in front of Mr Justice Bright. David Greene and Thomas Johnson are leading the group action of investors against HSBC over a Disney film tax scheme that resulted in large tax bills.

HSBC is set to defend itself today from a £240m legal action by more than 500 investors over a Disney film tax scheme.

The investors are suing the bank for what they say are losses caused by HSBC’s marketing of film financing schemes called Eclipse Partnerships.

The tax scheme was devised by HSBC’s Private Wealth Solutions’ team, and marketed by Future Capital Partners (now in liquidation) to investors between 2005 and 2008.

The claimants allege that HSBC were the key players in the development and marketing of the Eclipse Partnerships which were sold to them as an opportunity to invest in transactions with Disney in relation to certain film rights.

The investors believed they would benefit from tax relief by putting their money into film productions, with any losses being written off against their tax bills…

You can read the full article on City AM’s website .

Updates on our work on The Eclipse Litigation can be seen on this page.

“One minute with…” is a series of questions on the reflections of key tax people in their career.  Featured questions include “What’s keeping you busy at work?”, “If you could make one change to tax…” and “Are there any new rules that are causing a problem?”

On the question “What should we look out for this year?”, Hetal comments: a looming election with the very real possibility of a Labour government which has pledged to rework the non-domicile regime. A whole scale removal of the system without any appropriate replacement and substantial grandfathering provisions for offshore trusts in Hetal’s opinion could result in economic loss created by capital flight.

Read the full article in the LexisNexis Tax Journal.

William Edwards from our Private Client team recently spoke to The Sunday Times Money supplement for the third part of their new years’ guide to getting your life in order, looking at how you can help to stop your loved ones from getting a large inheritance tax bill.

Inheritance tax was once reserved for the super-wealthy, but ordinary families are expected to hand over a record share of their estates to the taxman this year…

William Edwards from the law firm Edwin Coe said: “When you nominate the beneficiaries of your pension with your provider you can specify different people depending on whether you die before the age of 75 or after. It can be good tax planning to nominate beneficiaries who pay a lower rate of income tax in the event you die after 75…”

Read the full article in The Sunday Times (subscription may be required).

The decision handed down on Friday in Gatwick Investment Limited & Others v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE addressed a number of preliminary issues in a lengthy judgment which confirmed earlier decisions, notably Corbin & King Ltd v AXA¹.

Head of Insurance Litigation, Roger Franklin, said: “This is another important stage in the clarification of the rights of policyholders to recover business interruption losses suffered as a result of Covid-19. It is now hoped that insurers will finally begin to implement the conclusions of these test cases, rather than run similar arguments when there is no real hope of them succeeding.”

Edwin Coe LLP specialises in representing policyholders against insurers. If you have a claim which you think should be pursued as a result of this decision, please contact Roger Franklin or our Covid-19 Business Interruption team and we can advise on your available options.

Read the full judgment here (PDF).

————
¹ Edwin Coe acted for Corbin & King and its various subsidiaries in this matter.

William Edwards from our Private Client team recently spoke to the Daily Mail for an article looking at how to avoid falling for common inheritance tax traps when inheriting a property.

Giving a property to a loved one is done by many Brits without a second thought, as they look to protect their original investment and ensure that hard-earned money to buy a house does not go to waste.

However, while many people may inherit a house as a means of stepping onto the property ladder, there are a number of common mistakes made when it comes to how inheritance tax works and how you might be charged for inheriting a property.

Here are some of the most common inheritance traps and how you can avoid falling victim of them…

…William Edwards, who works at law firm Edwin Coe, said: ‘It is really important that it is clearly set out in a will who has the burden of paying the tax on a failed gift, because it can get messy when there is more than one beneficiary of an estate….’

Read the full article in the Mail Online.

Employment Partner Clare Gilroy-Scott and Solicitor Charlotte Gittins have adapted their article discussing the recent allegations made against Russell Brand, which has been published by the Entertainment Law Review.

You can read the full article form the Entertainment Law Review here.

This material was first published by Thomson Reuters, trading as Sweet & Maxwell, 5 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AQ, in Entertainment Law Review and is reproduced by agreement with the publishers. For further details, please see the publishers’ website.

More Acquisitions also announced the appointment of real estate specialist Neil Sinclair as Executive Chairman and entrepreneur, former owner of IRG plc and Stanley Davis Group, Stanley Davis as a non-executive director of the company. Both were previously co-founders of the London Stock Exchange listed REIT Palace Capital PLC.

More Acquisitions Plc is a London Stock Exchange listed investment company whose focus was on investing and developing businesses which are advancing the energy sector’s shift from fossil-based systems to renewable sources, such as wind and solar and lithium-ion batteries. It will now be focusing on targets in the real estate sector.

Neil Sinclair said “Daniel and his team were absolutely first class and we look forward to working with them as we seek a suitable Reverse Takeover.”

Edwin Coe’s team was led by Daniel Bellau (Corporate Partner) together with Henry Wright (Corporate Associate). Daniel commented, “I am delighted to have had the opportunity to advise Neil and Stanley again, having worked on many deals with them over the last 15 years. I’d also like to congratulate More Acquisitions on their successful fundraising and look forward to supporting them in their future success in developing growth plans for their business.”

You can read more about More Acquisitions’ transaction here

A Chartered Tax Advisor, Sean is the Head of the Tax practice at Edwin Coe and acts for high-net/ultra-high-net worth individuals, their families and their advisors.

Sean is also recommended in Citywealth’s Global Top 100 Tax Professionals List 2023, Spear’s 500 guide for Tax Advice and was also twice listed as one of eprivateclient’s Top 35 Under 35 private wealth advisors. He is also Edwin Coe’s Head of Corporate Social Responsibility.

He commented, “I am delighted to be to be recognised on the Most Influential list. This award is a testament to the entire tax team’s hard work to provide outstanding advice and service to our clients. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my clients and colleagues who took the time to nominate me for such a prestigious award.”

The fifty individuals on the list were selected by PAM Insight judges after a review process where the industry knowledge of the judging panel and any achievements, promotions and progress that potential candidates had made in the past 12 months were considered, along with nominations from eprivateclient readers across the UK and UK Crown Dependencies’ private client practitioner sector.

Edwin Coe is also listed as a top private client law firm in eprivateclient’s Top Law Firms rankings.

You can see the full list on eprivateclient’s website. (subscription required)

William Edwards from our Private Client team recently spoke to The Sunday Times Money supplement as part of their new years’ guide to getting your life in order, about why it makes sense to appoint someone who could step in to manage your money in the event of illness, accident or unforeseen circumstances.

William said: “It is really important to have a power of attorney in place. Without it, managing someone’s affairs becomes a nightmare. But the process is fraught with danger, especially doing it yourself online, and it is vital to appoint people you trust.”

He added: “Don’t leave it too late. If you really want to have control of your finances it is something you should put in place while you can.”

Read the full article in The Sunday Times (subscription may be required).

Millions of claimants, billions of pounds, and a smorgasbord of international cases: 2024 promises to be another landmark year for the English courts. The Lawyer’s annual preview of the most important cases to hit the courts this year includes our work, led by David Greene and Thomas Johnson, on The Eclipse Litigation: Upham & Ors -v- HSBC UK Bank PLC which will heard in the Commercial Court later in the month.

This £240m claim against HSBC has all the hallmarks of a Hollywood blockbuster, with claimants alleging deceit, conspiracy and joint tort-feasance against the banking giant. HSBC has instructed Norton Rose Fulbright to defend two jointly managed actions being pursued by Edwin Coe and Stewarts on behalf of claimants who contend they suffered financial losses because of the tax-advantaged film investment scheme, ‘Eclipse’.

The tax scheme was devised by HSBC’s Private Wealth Solutions’ team, and marketed by Future Capital Partners to investors between 2005 and 2008, with profits shared by both entities. Claimants allege the scheme was marketed as a genuine film distribution business involving feature films produced by Disney, as such participants believed they could claim statutory tax reliefs that were available for investments in businesses “trading with a view to a profit”.

You can read the full article on The Lawyer’s website (subscription required)

Updates on our work on The Eclipse Litigation can be seen on this page.

Padel is the world’s fastest growing global sport, and whilst the UK is a newcomer to the padel market, with around 300 courts nationwide, the number is expected to grow exponentially over the next five years. It is played on an enclosed court about a third the size of a tennis court, with a foam bat and softer balls than tennis. It is designed for groups of mixed ages and abilities to play together.

Edwin Coe’s multi-disciplinary team was led by Daniel Bellau, alongside Henry Wright, with input from Nick Phillips and Karen Lee. Daniel commented “I am pleased to have worked with AD Global Sports on this complex transaction and look forward to cheering the team on when they take to the courts in February!”

You can read more about padel and the Hexagon Cup on their website.

London-based Ondo InsurTech Plc is a world leading provider of claims prevention technology for home insurers. Ondo’s focus is currently on ‘LeakBot’, which is a patented self-install solution that connects to the home wireless network and, if it detects a leak, notifies the customer via a mobile app which in turn provides access to a team of expert engineers to ‘find and fix’ the problem.  Recent independent research by Consumer Intelligence found LeakBot can reduce the cost of water damage claims for insurers by 70%.

Ondo is one of the first InsurTech companies trading on the London Stock Exchange holding the coveted London Stock Exchange Green Economy Mark awarded to companies who derive the majority of their income from Green activities.

Edwin Coe’s team was led by Daniel Bellau who commented, “It was a pleasure to work with the team at Dowgate Capital on this successful fundraising. I’d like to congratulate Ondo and wish them success in developing growth plans for their innovative technology.”

You can read Ondo InsurTech’s news release on their website.

Eva Moynihan of our Private Client team recently spoke to PAM Insight/eprivateclient for an article examining the attitudes of the next generation of HNW families to their philanthropy.

Discussions surrounding the next generation of clients do not appear to be slowing down anytime soon, and often philanthropy and generational differences take centre stage in these conversations.

A survey from HSBC Global Private Banking found that the next-in-line from second and third generation businesses are more likely to be involved in philanthropy compared with those in first generation businesses.

It also found that 23 percent of families said the next generation is actively involved in philanthropy, which was the third most common role behind strategy and planning (44 percent) and finance (36 percent) business functions, respectively…

…Many have also noted that, with the rise in social media and increase in influence of global news reporting, it is not surprising that the next generation are building upon the foundations set by the generation before them, and developing their sensitivity to philanthropy.

“Information is far more readily available and the next generation are increasingly aware of their influence when it comes to the philanthropic arena,” Eva Moynihan, a senior associate in Edwin Coe’s private client department, explained.

For example, The Sunday Times Giving List, which celebrates the work of philanthropists in Britain, may be making the relation between public image and philanthropy increasingly pressing.

For example, not using one’s public profile to promote social good has often been a point of contention for netizens.

For the next generation, promoting ESG is often applauded, making it important that individuals and entities are receiving the right advice.

Ms Moynihan cautioned: “With the increase in media attention, there is more room for scrutiny of philanthropic structures and it is paramount they are set up correctly and receive up to date advice on their operations and activities.”

With all these added complexities that only seem to be accelerating in the digital age, giving clients the right advice is paramount.

You can read the full article on eprivateclient’s site (Subscription required)

Enfranchisement specialist Katherine Simpson spoke to The Sun’s Money team recently in an article covering the current leasehold legislation, the pitfalls for homeowners and the Government’s proposed reforms to the system.

Millions of homeowners will get greater control of their properties under changes to the leasehold system.

Housing Secretary Michael Gove put long-awaited reforms before Parliament this week, making it easier and cheaper to extend leases or buy freeholds.

But until the plans become law – which could take months – buyers and current leaseholders should remain on their guard…

…“In a happy marriage of leaseholders, the incentives for buying a share of the freehold are compelling,” says Katherine Simpson, property partner at law firm Edwin Coe…

You can read the full article on the Sun’s website.

Edwin Coe’s Commercial Real Estate team of Joanne McIvor advised Lush on their return to Covent Garden. “It is always a pleasure to work on projects with Lush, and in particular on the successful completion of this transaction, which was transformed into a Lush property in just 6 short weeks. The new store is in a great location and looks fabulous. We wish them every success in their plans to develop it further in the new year.”

Our long-term client Lush was established in 1995, and now operates in 48 countries with over 850 shops, 38 websites shipping worldwide and a global network of native apps, broadcasting channels and digital communities in over 30 languages.

You can read more about this new store on the Lush website.

Edwin Coe is happy to announce that our Head of Tax, Sean Bannister has been named in the Citywealth Global Top 100 Tax Professionals List for the first time.  This is an annually curated directory of the leading Tax Professionals in international private client and wealth management.  For inclusion in this prestigious list, Sean was recommended by clients and his peers with references independently verified by Citywealth.

Sean commented: “It’s an absolute privilege to be chosen as a top Global Tax Adviser by Citywealth. This award honours not only me, but is a testament to the hard work, client service and expertise of our fantastic Tax Team here at Edwin Coe.”

Sean principally acts for clients with assets and business interests globally.  He is well versed on multi-jurisdictional issues and has a wealth of experience advising those who are seeking to ensure their tax affairs are administered in a framework that is both effective and compliant. He has been described by a client as a priceless asset for Edwin Coe. Sean and his team specialise in Tax Advisory Services, Tax Dispute Resolution and Tax Compliance.  For more details, please see here.

Edwin Coe is pleased to announce that it has once again been recognised as a Top Private Client Law Firm in the newly published eprivateclient rankings for 2023.

Our leading Private Client team assists individuals and families for whom wealth preservation is a fundamental objective. We act as trusted advisers to individuals, families, trusts and family or owner-run businesses both in the United Kingdom and internationally.

Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner and Head of Private Client commented “I am delighted that we have once again been recognised by eprivateclient. It is a well-deserved reward for the expertise, dedication and client service that the team provides to our clients.”

The rankings are based on a survey of over 150 law firms in the UK assessing not only the size of firms’ private client teams, but also their reputations within the private wealth sector and the emphasis placed upon looking after wealthy clients and their families. This year 64 firms made the list. The judging team at eprivateclient ranked UK law firms providing high quality private client services to wealthy individuals and families based in the UK and internationally.

The recognition builds on the team’s recent success in the Private Wealth Law category of the 2023 Chambers High Net Worth Directory and The Legal 500 UK 2024 Guide.

For more information please see the eprivateclient website (subscription required).

Congratulations to all involved!

Edwin Coe once again appears in The Times Best Law Firms Guide – The Times’ annual list of the top 250 legal practices in England and Wales. The newspaper highlights our expertise in litigation – on this occasion we were commended for both commercial dispute resolution and insolvency & restructuring.

Edwin Coe is renowned for its contentious practice, often for large groups of claimants in insurance, competition and complex financial disputes as well as property litigation, contentious trusts and insolvency. It has practitioners covering international and domestic litigation, mediation and arbitration. Our lawyers also take a full part in the profession, including leadership in INSOL Europe, R3 Association of Business Recovery Professionals and The Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA).

Our top-ranked restructuring and insolvency team advises individuals facing personal insolvency, companies requiring advice on corporate restructuring, and Insolvency Practitioners acting as an office holder, on all aspects of insolvency, bankruptcy and liquidation.

The Times engaged international market research firm Statista, to ask solicitors and barristers across England, Wales and Scotland to recommend the best law firms covering business, public and private-client fields. Lawyers could not vote for themselves and could only vote once in the survey, to create a ‘definitive’ list of the most respected lawyers and firms in the industry. Only 250 of the approximately 9,425 firms in England and Wales made the list.

This success follows Edwin Coe’s recent rankings in the newly published Chambers UK 2024 and The Legal 500 UK 2024 directories.

Congratulations to all involved!

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that 13 lawyers including 2 Senior Statespeople, and 5 practice areas have been recommended in the 2024 edition of Chambers UK: A Client’s Guide to the UK Legal Profession. As reported in the guide, clients say: Edwin Coe “punches above its weight in a range of different areas.”

Restructuring & Insolvency retain their band 1 ranking for Personal Insolvency, whilst Simeon Gilchrist has retained his top individual ranking – “He is great, he’s very straightforward and he’s a good technical lawyer,” whilst Ali Zaidi has also retained his band 2 “He has very good technical awareness and the ability to identify issues.”

Senior Partner David Greene is newly appointed as a Senior Statesperson in the UK-wide Group Litigation: Claimant category, “David Greene is a very safe pair of hands. He knows this field and what he’s doing,” and our “knowledgeable and experienced” Class Action Team makes its first appearance in the same category.

Our Employment: Senior Executive team, “Every person within the legal team at Edwin Coe is a trustworthy, capable and strong lawyer,” retain their band 2 ranking, along with recommendations for Head of Department, Linky Trott who “has a wealth of experience to draw on. She builds great rapport and delivers a great service,” Rachel Harrap “She is very results-oriented, savvy and pragmatic,”.

In addition our Insurance team is again ranked twice – for Insurance Litigation: Mainly Policyholders and also for Professional Negligence. Clients comment that the team is “fantastic from start to finish.” Roger Franklin “just brilliant”, and is ranked in both categories. Nicola Maher is again ranked for Insurance Litigation and is described as “very astute and consistently at the top of her game.”

Russel Shear, our Head of Corporate retains his ranking for Mid-Market M&A “Russel understands our business and objectives”, Sundeep Rathod is newly recommended for Immigration: Business “Sundeep is a dynamic and phenomenal individual with great drive and passion,” Head of Intellectual Property Simon Miles is ranked again, one client said “Simon is fantastic – a commercially astute IP lawyer who consistently delivers results with pragmatic and clear advice,” and finally, Joanna Osborne is recognised for Property Litigation, and is described as “astute, tenacious, personable and an excellent lawyer.”

Congratulations to all involved!

Edwin Coe is recommended in the UK, High Net Worth and Global directories. Chambers’ independent research collects information about organisations, individuals and the marketplace, conducting thousands of interviews a year with in-house counsel and third-party experts, such as barristers and accountants, to deliver detailed insight into providers of legal services. You can view our results on Chambers’ website.

Property is now included in most inherited estates but can lead to an unnecessary tax bill for the recipient. William Edwards from our Private Client team recently spoke with The Times Money Supplement about common misconceptions about gifting property and the seven-year rule which is a valuable tool when estate planning.

William said: “Gifting property in your lifetime can be a good way to manage inheritance tax if done correctly, but it is fraught with danger. You need to be really careful when gifting the family home — it is better to give away assets that you know for sure you will not need in the future, for example a second home.”

Read the full article in The Times (subscription may be required).

• After the claimants sued the defendants for infringement of AC COBRA, the defendants counterclaimed for a declaration of invalidity and an order for revocation for non-use
• The court found that CSL did not have the locus standi to apply for a declaration for invalidity
• As genuine use of the Ford COBRA registrations was found during the relevant period, this was sufficient to defeat the revocation claim

A recent Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) decision has sparked interest in the automobile world since it looked at the right to use the iconic sign AC COBRA on cars in the United Kingdom (Acedes Holdings LLC v Clive Sutton Ltd ([2023]EWHC 2005 (IPEC)), 7 August 2023).

Background
Cobra history
The mark COBRA has, like many trademarks, an interesting history. It was first used in 1962 in relation to a car with an engine from The Ford Motor Company in a chassis manufactured by AC Cars, created at the direction of American racing driver Carroll Shelby. Mr Shelby’s company, Shelby American Inc, sold the cars in the United States under the name ‘Shelby Cobras’, and AC Cars sold them in the United Kingdom and Europe under the name ‘AC Cobras’.

The first claimant, Acedes Holdings Ltd, acquired some of the assets of AC Cars’ business, including goodwill relating to AC Cobra in 1996. The first claimant is the owner of a UK comparative mark, AC COBRA. The second claimant, AC Cars (England) Ltd, has made cars in the United Kingdom and sold them under the name ‘AC Cobra’ since 2016.

The defendants, Clive Sutton Ltd (‘CSL’) and its sole director and shareholder, Jeremy Sutton, have imported and sold replicas of the 1960s Shelby Cobra cars made by an American company, Superformance LLC, since 2021.

The trademark registrations
Acedes is the owner of AC COBRA (UK trademark No UK00905883806) for “automobiles, cars and sports cars”, filed on 23April 2007 (‘the AC COBRA registration’).

Ford is the owner of the marks COBRA (UK trademark No UK00000893168) for “motor land vehicles”, filed on 7 December1966, and COBRA (UK trademark No UK00902055416) for goods including “motor land vehicles”, filed on 25 January 2001(the ‘Ford COBRA registrations’).

What happened?
The claimants sued the defendants in 2022 for trademark infringement of the AC COBRA registration. The defendants denied infringement and counterclaimed for a declaration that the AC COBRA registration was invalidly registered and an order for revocation of the AC COBRA registration for non-use. In June 2023 the claimants served a notice of discontinuance of their infringement claim. This decision is concerned only with the issues arising from the counterclaim.

Decision
Application for invalidation
A declaration for invalidity, if granted, has effect ab initio and parties who may apply for a declaration are restricted to the proprietor of an earlier trademark and licensees of that mark. As well as considering whether there had been acquiescence by Ford in the use of the AC COBRA registration, Hacon J examined closely the chain of title from Ford of the Ford COBRA registrations, and whether these registrations, relied on in the application for invalidation, had met the use condition of Section 47 of the Trademarks Act. Hacon J concluded that the application for a declaration failed because CSL had never been a licensee of the Ford COBRA registrations and, therefore, did not have the locus standi to bring a declaration for invalidity.

However, Hacon J did find that the use conditions of Section 47 had been met, noting that “genuine use” has been considered by the courts, as multi-factorial and dependent on (among other things) the nature of the goods, so that a small quantity of goods “is more likely to qualify as genuine use where the goods are passenger airliners than where the goods are potatoes”. Use of the Ford COBRA registrations in the United Kingdom was established for the period from 29 June 2017 to 28 June 2022 by evidence that showed that Superformance sold about eight Shelby Cobra cars in the European Union and three such cars in the United Kingdom in the (undisputed) five-year period in question. Moreover, CSL had advertised Shelby Cobra cars on its website with Ford’s consent in this country and there was advertising in the European Union of Cobra-branded cars for sale through Ford dealerships in the European Union.

Revocation for non-use
As part of the revocation claim, a period of non-use was required to be nominated by the defendants, which in this case was from 23 November 2017 to 22 November 2022. The revocation claim ultimately rested on the defendants’ argument that, if it was found that there had been insufficient use of the Ford COBRA registrations during the period from 29 June 2017 to 28 June 2022 in relation to the invalidation claim, then there was no use of the AC COBRA registration. On this basis, as genuine use of the Ford COBRA registrations was found during the relevant period, Hacon J found this was sufficient to defeat the revocation claim.

Takeaway points
The COBRA registrations did have trademark venom.

Trademarks often have a complicated chain of title and, before embarking on disputes, a deep dive into ownership is essential. The failure of the invalidation claim resulted from a “missing link” in the chain.

A claim for revocation for non-use should be carefully pleaded and prosecuted. As Hacon J appreciated, there is no “catch all” amount of use which will decide a claim; consideration must be taken of the circumstances of the goods/services and of their use. Practitioners should take care to treat each registration on its own merits, in particular in cases where there are interlinked proceedings. Evidence of use for one mark may not satisfy the use requirements for another.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in August 2023. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

David Greene, our Head of Class Action and Finance Litigation recently commented on the decision in Smith and another v Royal Bank of Scotland plc 

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that two claims concerning Royal Bank of Scotland’s misselling of PPI were brought in time.

In Smith and another v Royal Bank of Scotland plc two former credit card-holders were sold payment protection insurance (PPI) policies by the bank, which received ‘very large undisclosed’ commissions.

Each claim was brought more than 10 years after the PPI policy ended and the last payment was made, but less than six years after the credit card agreement with the bank ended.

David Greene, senior partner of Edwin Coe and former president of the Law Society tweeted that the ruling was ‘very important’, stating: ‘Supreme Court overturns decision of Court of Appeal on issue of limitation in consumer credit claims. SC decided that limitation period starts when credit relationship ends extending period possibly by many years.‘

A district judge had allowed each claim, and both were successful in the subsequent appeal. The Court of Appeal, which heard the cases together, dismissed the claims on the ground that the time limit had expired before the proceedings began in 2019.

The two appellants – Karen Smith and Derek Burrell – appealed to the Supreme Court…

Read the whole article on The Law Society Gazette’s website.

The Legal 500 UK 2024 directory has recently launched. This year, after extensive research and feedback from clients and contacts, their researchers have recommended our work in 16 categories.

Individuals
Across our practices, our lawyers are recommended 68 times by the Legal 500’s expert researchers, with new mentions/reappearances for Jamal Saleh (M&A); Clare Gilroy-Scott (Employment); Kate Dwyer (Insurance Litigation); Anna Primrose and Eva Moynihan (Personal tax, trusts and probate); and Claire Lehr (Intellectual Property).

Our Senior Partner, David Greene is now the member of two ‘Halls of Fame’ for Commercial Litigation and newly for Group Litigation.

Matthew Barnett (Personal tax, trusts and probate) is a new ‘Leading Individual,’ and joins David Goepel (Personal tax, trusts and probate) and Daniel Bellau (M&A), who retain their rankings ‘Leading Individuals.’

Zahira Hussain (Commercial Litigation) also retain their ‘Next Generation Partner’ rankings and Tom Johnson (Commercial Litigation: Mid-Market) becomes our third ‘Next Generation Partner.’

Practices
Two practices received their first recommendations this year – Group Litigation: Claimant, where the team was described as a ‘Lean and nimble team, which punches well above its weight in heavy duty commercial litigation. They have particular expertise on claimant side mandates in group actions.’ along with our Contentious Trusts and Probate team which is a ‘flexible and focused team which is committed to the client and determined to succeed.’

Still in the Private Client sector, our team was recommended for Personal tax, trusts and probate along with Charities and not-for-profit. One client said the team is ‘a very discreet, Rolls-Royce practice, where the client is far more important than the solicitor, and service is everything.’

Our Employment team was ranked for Employment: employers and for Employment: senior executives, with one referee commenting that the team are ‘Good at understanding the nuances of the case. Meet deadlines. Good communicators.’

Our Commercial Litigation team were recommended for Mid-Market matters whilst our Insurance Litigation team were ranked for Professional Negligence and For Policyholders, where one contact stated ‘…Always courteous and respectful to their client and others, Edwin Coe is a winning team.’ Our litigators were also recommended for Fraud: Civil – ‘Right on the spot with a clear strategy to achieve the final goal.’

Our ‘very professional and highly regarded’ Property team is recommended for Residential Property; Property Finance and also Property Litigation: ‘In the service we received, everything was spot-on – more a 7-star than a 5-star service from the property litigation team.’.

Other practice areas recognised in the UK directory are Intellectual Property; M&A: smaller deals ‘very commercial corporate practice,’ and Equity Capital Markets: Small-Mid Cap.

Congratulations to all involved!

You can read all the rankings and testimonials at the Legal 500 website.

Greg predominately advises on private mergers and acquisitions, fundraising, joint ventures and shareholders’ agreements, as well as on partnership and LLP matters, with experience acting for both corporate and individual clients across a diverse range of sectors.

Head of Corporate Russel Shear said: “I’m pleased to welcome Greg to the team. Greg’s wealth of knowledge and experience will undoubtedly enhance our ability to provide innovative and tailored legal solutions to our clients.”

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Sean Bannister has been recommended as a tax advisor in the new edition of Spear’s 500 guide.

Sean is Edwin Coe’s Head of Tax and acts for high-net worth individuals, their families and those that advise them (financial service providers and corporate service provider/trustees). He has been recommended in Spear’s 500 for tax advice since 2021.

Sean commented “I am delighted to be recommended in the Spear’s 500 directory once again. The entire tax team at Edwin Coe works hard to provide outstanding advice and service to our clients, and Spear’s continuing recommendation is testament to that.”

Spear’s 500 is an annual guide to top private client advisers, wealth managers, lawyers and service providers to high-net-worth individuals, produced by Spears magazine. A team of researchers and journalists assess a combination of company submissions, analyst survey data, client feedback and market nominations from experts to compile their recommendations across the private wealth sector.

The 2023 guide has recently been published in paper and will be gradually launched online over the next 12 months on the Spears 500 website. Sean’s Spear’s 500 profile is here.

David specialises in private client international work with a particular focus on trusts and succession planning. Much of David’s time is spent in advising private clients on cross-border issues, including the co-ordination of advice in a number of different jurisdictions.

“David has a pleasant attitude with great knowledge and a technical approach; he knows what he’s doing. He leads the firm’s practical approach and on the technical side he’s top-notch. If you come across a situation that is out of the ordinary, he is a go-to,” commented a client in the latest edition of Chambers HNW.

Matthew acts for predominantly UK-based high-net-worth individuals, families, executors, trustees and beneficiaries on a wide range of tax, trust, estate and succession planning issues.

“Matthew is charming, warm and knowledgeable. If you want a really good expert on wills, probate, tax trusts and estate planning who can handle complex matters sensitively and compassionately, then look no further than Matthew,” said a client in Chambers HNW 2023.

Alison acts for high-net-worth individuals and families on matters relating to tax, trusts, estate and succession planning, UK and cross-border probate.

“Alison’s energy and positivity is inspiring to her clients and those that work with her. Her wealth of experience at the very top level of private client is impressive and she manages an excellent team very adeptly,” noted a client in Chambers HNW 2023.

Speaking about the promotions, Alison Broadberry said, “I am thrilled to announce the well-deserved promotions of David and Matt. Their exceptional skills, dedication, and client-centric approach make them the perfect choices to lead our International and UK practices.”

She continued, “As our client base continues to grow; their needs and external factors become ever more complex, we felt that now was the time to ensure that we had practice areas dedicated to serving their UK and International requirements. David and Matt will guarantee that there is appropriate leadership and focus in our thriving team, ensuring that we will provide all our clients and contacts with the very best advice and service.”

By Claire Lehr

• The hearing officer refused to register STITCH in Class 41 following an opposition by TikTok, finding that the mark was objectionable under Section 3
• While the court agreed with the finding that ‘stitch’ was apt to describe the joining of media, it questioned how this had been applied to each of the services at issue
• The court allowed the appeal as a result of the hearing officer’s flawed reasoning and decisions on Section 3

In an unusual and rather rare instance, an appeal against an opposition based on Section 3 of the Trademarks Act 1994 was recently ruled on by the High Court (Stitch Editing Ltd v TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd ([2023] EWHC 1167 (Ch)). The applicant, Stitch Editing Ltd, brought the appeal following the hearing officer’s refusal to register the trademark STITCH following an opposition by TikTok Information Technologies Ltd.

Background
Stitch applied for the STITCH mark in October 2020 for services in Class 41, including “editing of music, television programmes, films, commercials, internet videos and video programmes; multimedia entertainment services in the nature of development, production and post-production services in the fields of video and films.” TikTok’s opposition was based on Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(d) of the act, claiming that the mark was devoid of distinctive character, was descriptive and involved customary language in the trade. Stitch defended the opposition and claimed acquired distinctiveness as a result of the use made.

At first instance, the hearing officer considered that, “at its most basic level… STITCH is a way of joining things together.” In relation to the use of the term ‘stitch’ for technology, the hearing officer determined that “STITCH therefore appears to be the apt word to use in this descriptive sense of joining images”, before going on to state that “this usage describing the stitching together of images, film and music also appears to be prevalent in the informal comments and postings made in [user forums].” Accordingly, the hearing officer concluded that STITCH was descriptive of the kind and intended purpose of the applied-for services and, therefore, the mark was objectionable under Section 3 of the act.

The appeal
The appeal was heard by Justice Sir Anthony Mann and concerned the hearing officer’s perceived misapplication of principle and legal requirements in order to reach her findings. Counsel for Stitch submitted that the hearing officer had made three errors:

1. All the services within the specification were treated in the same way, with no attempt made to consider each separately.
2. There was no detailed consideration of whether STITCH was actually descriptive of the intended purpose of the applied-for services.
3. There was a real and unaddressed question of whether a word which was descriptive of a technique within a service could be described as being a service or descriptive of the service, or whether a word which was associated with a service could go further and be descriptive of it.

Mann J considered at the outset that there were problems with the ultimate determination of the hearing officer. Although he agreed with the finding that the word ‘stitch’ was apt to describe the joining of media in all sorts of context, he questioned how this had been applied to each of the services in the specification. What had not been expressly laid out was that the meaning attributed to STITCH would mean that the average consumer would take it to describe the activities in each of the listed services in the specification. As the hearing officer had not carried out this exercise, Mann J considered the decision in relation to Section 3(1)(c) to be flawed and, as a result, the determination for it, as well as the determinations under Sections 3(1)(b) and3(1)(d), needed to be revisited.

The appeal was allowed as a result of the hearing officer’s flawed reasoning and decisions on Section 3. In respect of the evidence for acquired distinctiveness, Mann J held that the hearing officer did not approach the examination of the evidence in the right light. Accordingly, Stitch’s application was remitted to a hearing officer for a fresh determination.

Key takeaway
The appeal decision underpins the interaction between examination and opposition and the need for an examiner/hearing officer to consider separately each single term of a specification and/or consider evidence of acquired distinctiveness. Even if a mark is accepted for registration, although somewhat unusual, an application may still be challenged on the basis of Section 3 of the act — namely, that the mark fails to satisfy certain requirements of a trademark. Interestingly, Mann J noted that “a judgment is not impeachable just because it does not expressly articulate each and every little step towards a conclusion.” However, that does not obviate the need for a full consideration of facts for judgment to be found sound.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in July 2023. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce the appointment of Kathryn Goswami to the newly created role of Head of Strategic Operations. She joins the firm after 17 years at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.

Kathryn will be working closely with Alison Broadberry, our Managing Partner and Tim Nash, our Chief Executive, along with our Management Committee with the remit to advise on, create and assist in implementing strategies to make positive changes to improve the overall profitability, productivity and performance of Edwin Coe’s fee-earning and business operations areas.

Alison Broadberry commented, “Kathryn and I first worked together at Speechly Bircham and I am excited to have the opportunity to work with her again. Her strategic acumen and extensive legal sector experience will enable her to drive positive change.”

Tim Nash added, “Kathryn’s appointment comes at a crucial time for our firm, as we aim to navigate an increasingly complex and competitive legal market. Her expertise in legal operations and her ability to address complex challenges will be invaluable as we evolve our processes and systems to continue delivering exceptional service to our clients.”

A recent photo from Elon Musk’s astronautics company SpaceX included a crest comprising the white outline of a goat with a thin crescent moon behind. This appears to be almost identical to Scottish amateur football team Haddington Town FC’s goat badge. Nick Phillips recently spoke to The Times on the copyright implications of the apparent copying of the crest and whether they might have grounds to sue for copyright infringement.

Nick commented: “The first thing they [Haddington Town] would need to do is establish that they own the copyright of the badge or logo. The basic rule is the person who designed or created it would be the first owner of the copyright, so it might well be a question of getting that copyright assigned and transferred to Haddington Town.”

Read the full article in The Times (subscription may be required)

Our M&A team was headed up by Alexandre Terrasse (Partner) and Michelle Ansah (Associate). Alexandre Terrasse commented “I am pleased to have advised Options Greathire on the successful completion of this transaction. I wish them every success in their plans to grow their business in the UK.”

Founded in 1981 in Paris, Options is a European leader in tableware and furniture hire, with more than 800 employees located in 23 offices across France and Europe. Options Greathire Ltd was created in 2020 by the merger of Options GB Limited and Greathire Limited, a supplier of high end furniture rentals to the UK events industry.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Eva Moynihan, a Senior Associate in our Private Client team has once again been named in the prestigious eprivateclient NextGen Leaders list.

One nominee said of Eva: “Eva is a solid and well-rounded private client solicitor but what sets her apart are her soft skills – she is excellent at communicating with intermediaries and clients and is positive and cheery even in the most pressured situations. A delight to work with.”

Alison Broadberry, Managing Partner and Head of Private Client commented “Eva is a key member of the our team and I am delighted she has once again been recognised by eprivateclient. Congratulations to Eva.”

The eprivateclient NextGen Leaders list (previously called the Top 35 Under 35 award) is designed to identify, recognise, introduce and promote the rising stars of the private wealth advisory sector. It is the definitive annual list of young private client practitioners including lawyers, accountants, trustees and other professional intermediaries.

The judging process involved the collection of nominations and feedback from clients and fellow professionals on the upcoming stars within the private client sector. This year there were 500 nominations for individuals from firms across the UK and the UK Crown Dependencies. These nominations were then collated and the eprivateclient/PAM Insight judging panel drew up the final list.

The full list for 2023 is available on eprivateclient’s website (subscription may be required)

With a professional background in cross-border advisory work for both office-holders and insolvent entities, Simeon is looking forward to supporting INSOL Europe in its role as the profession’s meeting place, representative body and ideas forum.

Edwin Coe is particularly proud to deepen the firm’s relationship with INSOL Europe, having for several years sponsored the Academic Forum.

Simeon said about his election to office: “It is hugely exciting that UK members of INSOL Europe have placed their confidence in me to represent their interests at Council moving forward. Thank you to all of the membership for engaging with the election process, and I look forward to seeing you all at Amsterdam 2023 in October”.

The firm and Simeon look forward to working with the council of INSOL Europe in furthering its mission as a membership led organisation.

The successful qualifying solicitors who have secured positions within the firm are as follows:

• Carlos Sharrock – Residential Property
• Charlotte Gittins – Employment
• Ninad Bhagwat – Private Client

Edwin Coe’s Managing Partner, Alison Broadberry commented, “Congratulations to all five of our newly qualified solicitors, who have chosen to continue their journey with Edwin Coe. We wish them every success as they embark on the next chapter of their careers.”

Nicola Maher and Nick Phillips, the Partners who have overseen the trainee programme added, “Edwin Coe prides itself in its trainee programme and a growing number of our solicitors, associates and partners trained at the firm. Congratulations to Katie, Carlos, Ninad and Charlotte on qualifying as solicitors. The skill and dedication which they have all demonstrated as trainees will undoubtedly enrich their respective departments and enhance the experience of our valued clients.”

Founded in 1985, Interland is a private real estate and renewable energy investment group which owns, develops, and operates assets in the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Belgium. Interland’s wide-ranging portfolio includes private rented sector, social and council housing, student accommodations, hotels, youth hostels, offices as well as investments into energy storage.

Edwin Coe’s team included Stephen Brower. The team  commented “We are delighted to complete this transaction successfully for Interland, which will enable the group to reduce its overall cost of debt, and achieve its strategic and financial goals.”

Predator Oil & Gas is a Jersey-based oil and gas company, listed on the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market (LSE: PRD). The company is currently undertaking exploration and appraisal drilling for gas onshore in Morocco; exploration and appraisal drilling for oil onshore in Trinidad; and injecting carbon dioxide into existing and potentially future wells in Trinidad for enhanced oil recovery and carbon dioxide sequestration. It has a further interest in offshore gas fields in the Republic of Ireland’s territorial waters.

Daniel, who is a Partner in Edwin Coe’s Corporate team commented, “I am delighted to have worked with my colleagues at Fox-Davies and Novum on this successful transaction, one of a number of natural resources deals that the experienced capital markets team at Edwin Coe has advised on in recent times. I also wish Predator Oil & Gas every success with their plans.”

You can read Predator Oil & Gas Holdings’ announcement and news release on their website.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that its Private Client and High Value Residential Property lawyers have been recommended again in the latest edition of the Chambers High Net Worth guide.

Our Private Client team retained its band 4 in the Private Wealth Law category, and three partners from the team are ranked – David Goepel has been promoted to band 2, Alison Broadberry keeps her band 3 ranking and Matthew Barnett makes a first appearance in the Guide, in band 5.

In addition, our Residential Property team is newly ranked in band 4 for Real Estate: High Value Residential, and Head of Department, Rosie McCormick Paice has retained her band 4 ranking.

Congratulations all!

A sample of our client feedback received in this edition includes:

Edwin Coe’s Private Client team “instinctively knew what we needed to know and what was superfluous. Their commercial awareness for a professional client was really good.” – Private Wealth Law client, whilst a Real Estate: High Value Residential interviewee said: “Edwin Coe is responsive and has good judgement.”

Rosie McCormick Paice “Rosie was entirely professional, helpful and efficient throughout the process.”

Alison Broadberry “is great at advising on trust and tax, including related insurance and pension products, and thoroughly understands what makes private clients tick.”

David Goepel “is extraordinarily hard-working and very technically able.”

Matthew Barnett “has a really good private client offering, putting clients in a far better position.”

Chambers HNW is an independently produced and researched annual guide which also feature listings and information about many of the top accountancy and tax firms, private banks, wealth management firms and multi-family offices acting for high net worth individuals. Their team researches in than 55 countries around the world, including every major private wealth market across six continents. Further information can be found on the Chambers High Net Worth website.

Advocate is the Bar’s charity which works with over 4,500 volunteer barristers to make legal advice and advocacy more accessible.  Thomas Johnson recently spoke about his experiences volunteering on pro bono work for clients who are often in quite desperate situations. 

“Being an employed barrister can have several advantages… not least the administrative support that law firms offer and the opportunity to collaborate with talented solicitors in-house…dip your toe in by becoming a panel member of Advocate and keep an eye out for new instructions that are of interest”.

Thomas Johnson, a barrister in the Class Action and Finance Litigation Team at Edwin Coe LLP, has spoken to us about how he first got involved with Advocate as a panel member. He provides us with his insight into how taking on pro bono work can have unique advantages for the Employed Bar.

1. How did you first get involved with Advocate and pro bono work?

A commitment to access to justice and an interest in pro bono work has always been an important feature of my practice at the Bar. I have for years undertaken ad hoc instructions, such as in relation to Boris Johnson’s decision to (unlawfully) prorogue Parliament, and Advocate was recommended to me as a natural progression from those.

2. What was the most memorable case you worked on, and what did you do?

The most memorable case I worked on was representing for appeal appellants in a knotty dispute concerning the terms of an unless order and the bankruptcy orders paratactic on the alleged breach of it. Mr Chai and I were successful in arguing (5 years out of time!) at the oral renewal hearing that the appeal ought to proceed to a full hearing, at which both Mr Chai and I appeared.

3. What have you found most rewarding about doing pro bono work?

I think this is best articulated by a message received from the daughter of an applicant for whom I successfully defended a claim under a personal guarantee for £250,000 recently:

“Speaking to my father today, he is beyond disbelief that such an outcome has resulted from what was a crippling and dire scenario our family were in. We felt hopeless from the injustice that we faced and we can now focus and look forward to his recovery and my brother’s care… Thank you again, Thomas. You have been the light in our dark times.”

4. How has your experience as an employed barrister affected your experience of doing pro bono work?

Positively. Being an employed barrister can have several advantages (but also drawbacks, of course), not least the administrative support that law firms offer and the opportunity to collaborate with talented solicitors in-house.

5. What would you recommend to other employed barristers unsure about whether to start doing pro bono work?

Assuming the firm by which the barrister is employed supports it, dip your toe in by becoming a panel member of Advocate and keep an eye out for new instructions that are of interest. Pick a relatively straightforward assignment and, if it suits, just give it a go!

You find out more about Advocate’s work on their website.

David Greene spoke to Law360 recently about his work with the Deprived Pensioners Association, a pressure group aiming to challenge the government over rules that prevent older pensioners from having their retirement benefits rise in line with inflation.

A pressure group has said that it plans to challenge the government over rules that prevent older pensioners from having their retirement benefits rise in line with inflation.

The group, the Deprived Pensioners Association, said it has retained David Greene of Edwin Coe LLP as it crowdfunds a “judicial review” over legislation dating back to 2004.

The association said on Sunday that 60,000 Britons over the age of 80 whose retirement benefits are paid by the Pension Protection Fund do not get so-called pension indexation. Benefits increase in line with inflation, up to 2.5% a year, under the provision. The cost of living as measured by the Consumer Prices Index rose 8.7% in the year to May 2023.

“At a time of high inflation the effect of this provision of the law is devastating for thousands of pensioners,” Greene, a former president of the Law Society, said in a statement. “There can be no doubt that the effect of this is to discriminate on the basis of age: older pensioners suffer more than younger. We will seek to challenge this discriminatory law in court and campaign for government action to right this fundamental wrong.”

The association was set up by former directors at construction company John Mowlem & Co. PLC, which was bought by Carillion PLC in 2006. Carillion itself became insolvent in 2018, and the company’s pension schemes entered into PPF assessment that year…

Read the full article on Law360’s website (subscription may be required).

Further coverage of this story includes:

• Daily Express, 17 July: ‘Devastating’ pensions technicality means 260,000 risk inflation hit with no protection
• Daily Mail, 18 July: I’m still working at 78 – 260,000 pensioners miss out as PPF lifeboat fails to match inflation

The DPA
The campaign is being run by the Deprived Pensioners Association.

The Association is crowdfunding a “judicial review” with CrowdJustice.

With the news that the Financial Conduct Authority is to write to UK banks telling that they should communicate better savings rates to customers and still meet data protection rules, GDPR expert Nick Phillips recently spoke to the Financial Times to explain how lenders might achieve this.

UK Banks have recently faced criticism for not passing on benefits of increased interest rates communicate better savings rates to customers and still meet data protection rules under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The UK’s financial regulator and information watchdog will warn banks that they cannot hide behind data protection rules if they fail to alert savers to better deals.

Under pressure to pass on the benefits of higher rates, banks told the Financial Conduct Authority at a meeting earlier this month that they could not tell certain savers about deals if they had opted out of marketing communications, according to people familiar with the situation.

But on Tuesday the FCA and the Information Commissioner’s Office are planning to send a letter to UK Finance, the banking lobby group, disputing that position, according to two people familiar with the situation.

The letter is expected to tell lenders that they can communicate better savings rates to customers and still meet data protection rules under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)…

Nick Phillips, intellectual property partner at law firm Edwin Coe, said: “Companies are not allowed to send marketing messages without an individual’s consent. But they are allowed to send system messages — for example alerting customers they have changed their terms and conditions . . . provided the messages are neutral in tone. It’s quite a difficult area of the law, though — and is one which people often get wrong.”…

Read the full article here (subscription may be required)

William said: “If done properly trusts work very well for tax planning, so we have seen increased interest from clients. They can also make a huge difference to a family and avoid any unnecessary disputes and unhappiness, especially if the family structure is not straightforward.”

Read the full article in The Sunday Times (subscription may be required)

Thomas Johnson spoke to Law 360 recently to comment on the landmark decision by the UK Supreme Court which unanimously held that banks do not owe a duty of care to customers tricked into instructing their bank to send money from their account to fraudsters.

Justices ruled that the core, contractual relationship that a bank has with its customers requires it to promptly execute its customer’s instructions and not to “concern itself with the wisdom or risks of its customer’s payment decisions.“…

Wednesday was the first time the court had been asked whether a bank’s Quincecare duty — which requires prompt payment execution except in certain cases — was triggered by authorized push payment fraud, a scam that parted Britons from £485 million ($627 million) of their money in 2022.

Lenders have objected to moves to expand the legal duty to cover the fraud, which in principle would have required them not to carry out payment instructions from a customer when they suspected he or she might have been tricked into authorizing payment.

The duty has only ever applied to an agent of a customer rather than the customer them-self. Banks are in breach of the duty if they fail to check whether the agent had authorization from the client to make the payment.

Barclays Bank UK PLC, and UK Finance, an industry group for lenders, have warned that a more expansive reading of Quincecare would be unworkable, forcing them to anticipate their customers’ instructions at every turn.

The court agreed. Expanding the scope of the legal duty to cases in which customers are deceived into directly authorizing payment is “inconsistent with the ordinary obligations owed by a bank to its customer,” Justice Leggatt…

“The law and morals make odd bedfellows, and this decision is a symptom of the court’s constitutional position, which is not to step into the shoes of Parliament and regulators,” Edwin Coe LLP barrister Thomas Johnson said.

Read the full article on Law360’s website (subscription may be required).

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Simon Miles, Claire Lehr and Nick Phillips have been recognised as leaders in World Intellectual Property Review’s Leaders Directory for 2023.

The WIPR Leaders Directory is a one-stop guide to the leading IP practitioners in the world. Leaders are nominated by IP professionals and then vetted by the WIPR research team. The team considers each nominee’s practice history, industry proficiency, notable cases, and additional contributions, such as writing and teaching responsibilities.

World IP Review is a publication that provides news and guidance on the challenges facing businesses and legal practitioners active in intellectual property, as well as marketing and branding professionals who operate online.

The directory is available online, here.

Governments & corporations worldwide are facing ever-increasing challenges relating to climate change, as David Greene explains in his latest article for the New Law Journal.

The development of climate change and environmental, social and governance (ESG) litigation across the world gathers pace but, as evidenced by recent UK decisions, there remain some basic hurdles for campaigners and litigants as they test fundaments of responsibility and liability at law.

Getting claims off the ground
As covered previously in NLJ the court in McGaughey and another v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd (USSL) and others [2022] EWHC 1233 (Ch) refused permission for members of the USSL pension scheme to pursue a derivative action against the investment policies of the trustees in relation to fossil fuels (see 172 NLJ 7994, pp9-10), They sought to bring a derivative claim through USSL, not under the procedure for shareholders governed by Pt 11 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), but at common law as non-shareholders. This will always be a challenge and the court set out in the judgment the very high hurdles to be overcome for a derivative claim of this nature to get off the ground.

More recently, ClientEarth issued derivative proceedings as shareholders in Shell PLC under Pt 11, CA 2006 seeking to claim for Shell PLC on a derivative basis against its directors for breaching their duties under CA 2006. The right to bring a derivative action under CA 2006 is hemmed in with many primary conditions, for which the court is the gatekeeper, and ClientEarth’s action fell at the first fence. On 12 May in ClientEarth v Shell plc and others [2023] EWHC 1137 (Ch), the High Court refused to allow ClientEarth to proceed with a substantive application for permission to continue the derivative action, holding that its application and evidence did not disclose a prima facie case for giving permission.

One of the foundations for this claim and that of others in various jurisdictions is the net-zero commitments of the Paris Climate Agreement adopted by 196 parties in 2015 at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21)…

Read the full article on the NLJ website (subscription may be required).

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that seven of our solicitors are included in the twelfth edition of The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom, which has just been released. The 2024 UK edition recognizes the professional excellence of 6,344 lawyers in 137 practice areas, and in particular, recommends the following solicitors at Edwin Coe:

• David Greene (Competition Law and Litigation)
• Linky Trott (Employment Law)
• Rachel Harrap (Employment Law)
• Simon Miles (Intellectual Property Law)
• Christopher Berry (Insolvency & Restructuring Law and Litigation)
• David Goepel (Charities Law)

Congratulations to all!

The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom 2024 Guide
For over 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional and national publications across the globe.

Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based on a rigorous peer-review survey. Their process is designed to capture the opinion of leading lawyers regarding the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers asks voters the question: “If you were unable to take a case yourself, how likely would you be to refer it to this nominee?”

By Claire Lehr

• The UKIPO dismissed Instagram’s opposition against the mark SOUNDGRAM based on the earlier marks INSTAGRAM and GRAM
• Richards J stressed that appellate courts have been repeatedly warned “that they should not lightly interfere with factual findings of a first-instance tribunal”
• The “plainly wrong” bar was not met and the appeal failed

A trial judge’s decision must be “plainly wrong” for the appeal court to interfere or overturn it. This is a high bar for an appealing party to meet and it also begs the question: what does “plainly wrong” look like? Appealing a trial judge’s decision is an uphill battle from the outset; Lady Hale, in AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2007] UKHL 49, Paragraph 30), noted that the court should approach the appeal on the basis that it is probable that an expert tribunal, charged with applying the law in their specialist field, has got it right.

The case
The expert tribunal in this case was the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), at a hearing between the parties, Instagram LLC and Meta 404 Ltd, in trademark opposition proceedings.

Instagram had opposed the registration of the mark SOUNDGRAM under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) of the Trademarks Act 1994 based on its earlier registered marks for INSTAGRAM and GRAM. The hearing officer found that, in respect of Section 5(2)(b),there was low similarity between the marks, despite the common suffix ‘gram’, and that ‘gram’ had only a low level of distinctiveness in respect of the goods and services for which it was fi led. In respect of Section 5(3), the hearing officer found no link or bringing to mind between INSTAGRAM and SOUNDGRAM. Instagram’s opposition therefore failed on both counts.

Instagram was not happy and appealed the decision at the High Court, claiming, among other things, that the hearing officer had erred in his assessment of the distinctiveness of the GRAM mark and in his assessment of the similarity of GRAM and INSTAGRAM with SOUNDGRAM.

The challenges of an appeal
Richards J noted that appellate courts had been repeatedly warned, even recently, “that they should not lightly interfere with factual findings of a first-instance tribunal”, and referred to Volpi v Volpi ([2022]), which clarified that an appellate court would not set aside a trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts, unless the trial judge was “plainly wrong”. It did not matter whether a different decision could have been reached, what was important was whether the decision was one “no reasonable judge could have reached”. Further, a decision could be set aside by the appellate court if the trial judge had failed to give a balanced consideration of evidence “only if the judge’s conclusion was rationally insupportable”. Richards J remarked that these principles applied not just to the hearing officer’s findings of primary fact, but also to the evaluative conclusions, drawn from primary facts, such as the degree of similarity between the marks. He also noted that, in the present case, the hearing officer’s findings were largely evaluative and drawn from uncontroversial matters of primary fact.

The appeal
Instagram submitted that, in relation to the Section 5(2)(b) claim, the hearing officer’s decision was “perverse”, being one that no reasonable hearing officer could have made. Richards J disagreed, finding that the hearing officer did consider the evidence (on the alleged distinctiveness of GRAM in relation to Instagram’s goods and services) and was reasonably entitled to draw his conclusion on the lack of distinctiveness of GRAM.

In respect of the arguments on similarity, Richards J concluded that the hearing officer did set out an overall evaluative conclusion, which took into account all the evidence presented to him. Whilst Richard J noted that another hearing officer might have stopped in his analysis of the word ‘gram’ at an earlier point, this hearing officer did not – but that was reasonable. The result was that the “plainly wrong” bar was not met and the appeal failed (Instagram LLC v Meta 404 Ltd [2023] EWHC 436(Ch)).

Takeaways
This judgment has drawn attention to the role the High Court takes when considering appeals from the UKIPO. Richard J has reminded appellants that the appeal court will not interfere with the decisions of hearing officers unless the decision reached was so beyond reasonableness that it was “plainly wrong”. Different hearing officers will inevitably draw different conclusions, but this does not give rise to unreasonableness. Hearing officers may and do draw upon their own expertise and opinion.

Whilst it will always be appealing to challenge a decision which has not fallen in your client’s favour, it may be wise to manage the client’s expectations of what can be achieved on appeal.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in April 2023. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Laura McGuire of City AM interviewed our Head of Class Action and Finance Litigation, David Greene this week about the troubled cinema chain Cineworld, which dropped plans to sell its businesses in the US, the UK, and Ireland after failing to find a buyer, and has filed a reorganisation plan in a Texas bankruptcy court that will effectively wipe out existing shareholdings, sending its stock to an all-time low.

Shares in Cineworld tanked over 30 per cent this morning after the embattled cinema chain revealed that it would be forced to wipe out shareholders as part of its plan to exit bankruptcy.

The London-listed firm, which filed for bankruptcy in the US last autumn, said today that it has filed a “plan of reorganisation” with the US Bankruptcy Court in Texas.

The plan aims to help the beleaguered company reduce its $4.53bn (£3.68bn) debt pile in order to exit Chapter 11 insolvency during the first half of this year.

“In light of the level of existing debt that is proposed to be released under the plan, the proposed restructuring does not provide for any recovery for holders of Cineworld’s existing equity interests,” Cineworld said in a stock market announcement this morning…

…David Greene, committee member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, added: “Cineworld Group PLC shareholders will be smarting at the news that the value of their shares has been wiped out under plans presented to a Texas court to restructure debts and capital in a plan of reorganisation under Chapter 11 of the US Code.”

The full article is available on the City AM website.

David Greene recently spoke to the Daily Mail about the class action that he is leading for the passengers of TUI’s Marella Discovery 2 cruise ship, following the mid-voyage cancellation of a Caribbean cruise, reportedly due to a technical issue with the catering facilities.

Cruise passengers forced to fly home just days into their dream holidays are set to launch legal action against travel company TUI.

Refunds and compensation is expected to total more than £1 million when lawyers at a top London firm act on behalf of a large group of passengers left furious after being forced to cut short their Caribbean cruise after just three stops.

Notes were slid under cabin doors in the dead of night citing problems with catering equipment.

With no further explanation from officials or the ship’s Captain, passengers say their experience was ‘traumatic’…

… Last night Mr Greene, a senior partner at the firm, said: ‘For many a cruise round the Caribbean starting in Montego Bay is the holiday of a lifetime for which they have saved over years.

‘These are special events often afforded out of savings at these difficult times. It makes it distressing when the whole thing goes wrong and is then cancelled with hurried flights home.

‘The blame for this lies squarely with TUI. It’s a disgrace that those affected have not had all their money refunded plus compensation which TUI should pay.

‘Time for TUI to hold its hand up, accept the wrong and pay these people back their money…’

The full article is available on the Daily Mail’s website.

Karen joined Edwin Coe as a trainee, qualifying into the Intellectual Property team, and is also a qualified Chartered Trade Mark Attorney. She deals with all aspects of intellectual property law, both contentious and non-contentious matters in the fields of trade marks, passing off, copyright and design rights.  Karen also regularly prosecutes trade mark and registered design applications at UK, EU and international level. She manages, co-ordinates and deals with the enforcement aspects concerning the clients’ trade mark and registered design portfolios.

Thomas Johnson is dual qualified Barrister–Partner and is recommended as a ‘Rising Star’ for litigation in the Legal 500 UK directory. His practice spans all aspects of commercial litigation and alternative dispute resolution.  He has particular experience in high value, complex fraud cases, finance disputes, and company law.

David Greene, Edwin Coe’s Senior Partner commented “I’m delighted to welcome Karen and Thomas into the partnership at Edwin Coe. Both are dedicated, talented lawyers who are a great asset to our clients and the firm.”

Based in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, Dormeo UK is the British wholesaler and retailer of the Dormeo® bedding and sleeping solutions brand, which offers top quality Italian-designed, European-made memory foam mattresses direct to domestic customers in 40 countries worldwide.

Adam Harris and Mark Siddall of Mazars said: “We are delighted to have been able to complete the sale of Dormeo as quickly as possible with the assistance of the Edwin Coe team. The sale of Dormeo protects hundreds of jobs, ensures that customers don’t lose out and preserves the brand that Dormeo has built up over the last 20 years.”

“A quick sale has meant that customers, suppliers and staff have not had to go through a period of protracted uncertainty, something that we are always keen to avoid in administrations.”

Edwin Coe’s multi-disciplinary team was led by Corporate Partner Jamal Saleh, with assistance from Elliot Francis (Associate) on the employment side, and Neil Flynn (Senior Associate) on property matters.

Jamal commented “It was a pleasure to successfully complete this transaction alongside the team at Mazars in just 4 days. It’s the latest in a series of business and asset sales on a pre-pack basis or otherwise out of administration which Edwin Coe has worked on across a range of business sectors, acting for not only administrators but also buyers.”

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Linky Trott has been elected to the Executive Board of our global legal network Ally Law. Linky is our Head of Employment and is a Chambers-ranked lawyer who advises on the full range of employment issues arising for established businesses and senior executives.

The Executive Committee is elected by Ally Law’s members and is comprised of prominent lawyers from member firms around the world. Members of the Executive lead various committees and also act as regional liaisons. The 2023 vote took place during Ally Law’s Annual General Meeting which took place in Sydney, Australia in mid-March.

Edwin Coe has been the member of Ally Law for England and Wales, since 2016.

You can read Ally Law’s press release announcing Linky and the rest of their leadership team on their website.

About Ally Law

Ally Law firms provide sophisticated legal services to major corporations, with a sharp focus on value and efficiency. Our 60+ firms include more than 2,800 lawyers in 100 business centres worldwide. Each has been subject to a rigorous vetting process and many are ranked by respected legal guides, including Chambers, The Legal 500 and Best Lawyers. For more information, visit www.ally-law.com.

Denise advises high net worth individuals and families to ensure their wealth and succession objectives are met. Her clients often have intricate and complex family backgrounds, property in offshore jurisdictions and valuable business holdings. She joins Edwin Coe from the Private Client team at Charles Russell Speechlys.

Alison Broadberry, Head of Private Client commented: “I am excited to have the opportunity to work with Denise again, having worked with her previously when we were both at CRS. Her addition to our thriving team will strengthen the very best advice and service available to our clients and contacts.”

David Greene, our Head of Class Action and Finance Litigation recently spoke to Law360 about the state of litigation funding sector, in the light of the current economic situation, particularly as interest rates continue to rise.

Litigation funders have been buoyed by more than a decade of low interest rates. But central banks worldwide have hiked up rates to fight inflation — and other more traditional asset classes, such as bonds and money market assets, could make risky litigation funding look less appealing.

Whether this will actually harm the sector — and if so how much — remains unclear. Some industry players even argue that the sector could use the moment to grow bigger…

…David Greene, senior partner and head of group action litigation at Edwin Coe LLP, also expressed concerns about whether funders would have enough capitalization to see their cases through.

“Capital has become a bit of an issue, with one or two funders finding it difficult to continue to trade through the lack of capital,” Greene said at the forum in October.

Observers say that whether a third-party litigation funder is hit by the rising cost of capital will depend on where their own money comes from…

…Greene of Edwin Coe told Law360 that the rise in interest rates has an effect on funding firms for two reasons.

“If the returns on other investments rise, like simple bank deposits, which have little or no risk, the returns on alternative investments which carry high risk will need to increase,” he said.

The result is that funders are trying to reduce risk as much as possible, for example by rejecting those cases with lower value and higher risk, Greene added. Returns have to be higher as costs rise.

This is a potential double-whammy for law firms, with the cost of funding and of litigation going up. The labor market has remained tight as salaries in the capital have been pushed upward.

“In London, the cost of labor is increasing,” Greene said…

You can read the full article on Law360’s website (Subscription required)

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that World Trademarks Review has once again recommended Head of Intellectual Property Simon Miles for trade mark enforcement and litigation, and Partner, Clare Lehr for trade mark prosecution and strategy, in the new edition of their WTR 1000 directory.

Simon commented, “It is an honour for Claire and I to be recognised for our trade marks work by WTR’s researchers and to be listed in ‘the 1000’, we’d like to thank those in the market who took the time to recommend us.”

The 2023 edition of WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals focuses exclusively on trade mark practices and practitioners. Each year, WTR undertakes an exhaustive qualitative research project to identify the firms and individuals that are deemed outstanding in this critical area of practice. When identifying the leading firms, factors such as depth of expertise, market presence and the level of work on which they are typically instructed were all taken into account, alongside positive peer and client feedback.

World Trademark Review is a daily news and information service dedicated exclusively to reporting on trademark issues for in-house and private practitioners internationally.

You can view the directory here.

David Greene analyses the growing number of class actions in the UK banking sector, and suggests how banks should prepare for them, in a new article written for Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence.

Claims against banks by existing or former clients for loss arising from bank conduct are nothing new. Due to clever online frauds and stricter regulation, this is a fast-developing area of law. One example is the recent development of the Quincecare (Barclays Bank Plc v Quincecare Ltd ([1992] All ER 363) duties, which were reviewed last year in a number of courts, including at the High Court in Federal Republic of Nigeria v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA [2022] EWHC 1447 (Comm.).

Recent press headlines suggest that there is a new trend for claims to be brought against banks by large groups in class actions fuelled by third-party funders.

Lying behind the headlines is a piece of research undertaken and reported by law firm RPC, which suggested that there are 109 class action lawsuits being brought against the major UK banks in the FTSE 100. This includes proceedings brought in the UK and the United States. The UK proceedings are just a small part of the overall picture, accounting for only six of the 109 lawsuits.

What is a class action?

In the United States, the term has tended to dominate public perception of the litigation process. Class actions can be huge, ground-breaking and newsworthy. The lawyers associated with them can be controversial, brash and loud, feeding off the media frenzy that may follow them, but the vast majority simply get on with the job. A typical class action in the United States relates to a state or federal issue, ranging from mass tort to price-fixing and securities fraud.

The action may be issued in the state or federal courts. The procedure in the latter is largely contained in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The normal procedure for claims follows the usual opt-in procedure, which is that if you wish to start proceedings, you issue in your own name. The U.S. class process works on an opt-out procedure; if the class is certified by the court, then everyone within the class and bound by settlement or judgment is included unless they opt out. Unlike most jurisdictions, the losing party does not usually have to pay the winning party’s costs — that is, there is no cost shifting. This makes the certification process all the more important and hard-fought.

The reputation of the U.S. class process and litigation is generally unfavourable on this side of the Atlantic. Considerable press attention has been paid to the more fringe claims, such as the action over jelly beans for containing sugar and the claim against Subway for “foot-long” sandwiches that are less than 12 inches.

Perhaps the most infamous claim was the “hot coffee” claim against McDonald’s, in which the damages awarded amounted to $2.9 million. Many of these claims are dismissed at an early stage, and there was more to the “hot coffee” claim than the press suggested, but the headlines define its reputation.

That reputation has undoubtedly affected European views of class actions. The description itself remains contentious, with the European Commission and domestic regulators using any description but “class action” for “collective actions” or “group litigation”.

You can read David’s article in full on Thompson Reuters website (subscription may be required)

The development is located on the North Cornwall coast near Bude, comprising more than 411 acres, a range of residential properties, a five-star holiday letting business with substantial development opportunity to further increase the number of units on site. There are also purpose built facilities including a restaurant and bar, leisure club and other recreational pursuits.

Edwin Coe’s team was led by Property Partner, Joanne McIvor and Corporate Partner, David Kinch and with support from other members across the firm, namely Neil Flynn (Property), Michelle Ansah (Corporate), Ruth Hickling and Elliot Francis (Employment).

Joanne commented “I’m delighted to have successfully completed this transaction – one of a number of similar acquisitions that Edwin Coe has acted on over the past few years. We’d also like to wish our client every success with their future plans for Whalesborough.”

For more information on this transaction, read this article on Savills website – the vendor’s agents.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Alison Broadberry has again been listed as one of eprivateclient’s 50 Most Influential Private Client Practitioners.

Alison is the Head of Private Client at Edwin Coe and will take on the role of Managing Partner from April 2023. She acts for high-net-worth UK and non-UK domiciled clients on a wide range of tax, trust and estate planning matters. She advises on and creates solutions to manage, protect and pass the wealth of her clients to minimise tax and maximise protection against threats to the family wealth including relationship breakdown, financial vulnerability and family conflicts.

“It is an honour to be recognised alongside such illustrious company on the Most Influential list. I am very grateful to everyone who took the time to nominate me for a place on this prestigious list,” commented Alison.

The fifty individuals on the list were selected by PAM Insight judges after an exhaustive selection process where the industry knowledge of the judging panel and any achievements, promotions and progress that potential candidates had made in the past 12 months were considered, along with nominations from eprivateclient readers across the UK and UK Crown Dependencies’ private client practitioner sector.

Edwin Coe is also listed as a top private client law firm in eprivateclient’s Top Law Firms rankings.

You can see the full list on eprivateclient’s website. (subscription required)

Based in London, with a key research centre in Lisbon, Truphone has a long list of international subsidiaries with coverage in over 200 countries and with over 400 direct network agreements.  The business offers communication services to over 2,000 multinational enterprise customers notably offering compliance solutions for recording phone and text messages for major global investment banks as well providing eSIM technology to major customers including Apple.

The transaction, which required both the approval of the Department of Business Enterprise and Industrial Strategy and of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, was undertaken following an M&A sale process undertaken by FRP’s corporate finance team, led by Matthew Flower.

The transaction called on the services of a large Edwin Coe team across the breadth of the firm’s wide expertise. Daniel Bellau (Corporate Partner) led on the corporate side together with Jamal Saleh (Corporate Partner), Michelle Ansah (Corporate Associate). Working alongside were Linky Trott (Head of Employment), Nick Phillips (IP Partner) and Joanne McIvor (Property Partner).  Nelson Mullins advised on US law aspects.

The Buyer, TP Global was advised by law firms Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Walker Morris LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and by investment bank Robey Warshaw LLP.

“We were delighted to be able to advise the FRP Team on this exciting and ground breaking transaction and in being able to unlock the significant potential of the Truphone business.  I’d like to thank the whole team for their hard work on completing this highly challenging and complex transaction,” commented Daniel.

Joint Administrator and CEO of FRP Geoff Rowley stated “This has been a complex transaction which has seen multiple challenges to address which has been greatly assisted by the multi-disciplinary team fielded by Edwin Coe working together with all the professional advisors.”

Further information on the transaction can be found on the Truphone website.

In an article for Juriste International, the magazine of the International Association of Lawyers (UIA), David Greene, our Head of the Class Action & Finance Litigation examines how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across the world have sought to enforce the Paris Agreement on climate change through the courts.

…Conference of the Parties (COP) is the decision-making body of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. For the international legal community, the most momentous COP took place in Paris in 2015, leading to the Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, which COP oversees. The Agreement seeks to establish transparent national plans to reduce emissions and keep the global temperature rise this century to, at best, 1.5 degrees Celsius. At the core of the plans are Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) whereby national goals are set to reduce emissions. NDCs have often led to domestic legislation seeking to bring emission reduction plans to the domestic level.

One does not need reminding of the effects of climate change, with July 2021 being earth’s hottest month on record. The past seven years since the Paris Agreement have seen a wave of litigation by NGOs, communities, and charities seeking to enforce the Agreement obligations at both a national and corporate level. The Paris Agreement and the NDCs have been a core basis for groups seeking to enforce those obligations. Courts across the world have shown a willingness to develop normal tortious principles to meet the growing clamour for nations and corporations to meet climate change challenges.

Litigation often turns on guaranteed constitutional rights. Typically, those rights (taken here from the European Convention on Human Rights but reflected in most national constitutions) are the right to life, the right to liberty and security, and the right to a private and family life. But the invoking of constitutional rights is not one size fits all, and each jurisdiction interprets its own constitution’s language…

David’s article is available in full, in the December 2022 issue of Juriste International (pdf p17-18).

Corporate Partner Daniel Bellau commented “We’re delighted to be able successfully to assist Ethernity Networks once again in raising funds to support their growth strategies in what are undeniably challenging conditions for equity capital markets fundraisings.”

Mark Reichenberg, CFO Ethernity Networks commented “Once again, Daniel and his team acted efficiently, effectively, and always with the Company as their focus in getting this Placing done in extremely difficult markets. Having worked with Daniel over the past many years, he and Edwin Coe are our go-to team for our UK transactions.”

Ethernity Networks (AIM: ENET) is a leading provider of networking and security software solutions on programmable hardware for accelerating the performance of telecommunications and cloud networks. Headquartered in Lod, Israel, Ethernity was founded in 2004 and has its technology deployed in over 700K systems worldwide, connecting over 100 million end users. The proceeds of the transaction will be used to strengthen the balance sheet, to support the growing number of and field deployments of its products and for general working capital purposes.

You can read Ethernity Networks’ news release here with further information on their website.

Della AI is a provider of leading artificial intelligence technology based on advanced natural language processing. Their innovative technology allows legal professionals to review contracts in multiple languages by simply asking questions. The company was founded in 2018 and now employs 16 professionals based in London and Paris.

Edwin Coe’s cross practice team on this transaction was led by Corporate Partner Jamal Saleh, working alongside Henry Wright (Corporate Associate), with contributions from Ali Zaidi (Restructuring & Insolvency), Linky Trott (Employment) and Nick Phillips and Carlos Sharrock (Intellectual Property).

Jamal commented “I’m delighted that we have successfully completed this transaction to an end of year deadline, and would like to thank the team for their hard work during the festive period. This transaction further demonstrates our knowledge and expertise in the tech M&A sector. I wish the teams at Della AI and Wolters Kluwer every success in their plans to continue the development of category leading products for the corporate legal market.”

Della CEO and co-founder Christophe Frèrebeau added: “We were pleased to have had Edwin Coe by our side to facilitate a smooth and efficient sale process. The broad experience of Jamal Saleh, in particular, was ideally positioned to support us in this exciting step in Della’s journey.”

You can read more about the transaction on Wolters Kluwer’s website.

The care home portfolio has 438 high quality beds, of which 400 have en-suite bathrooms, with five homes in Shropshire and one in Cheshire. The Morris Group has granted a licence for the homes to continue to trade under their ‘Morris Care’ brand for three years and the current operational management team will transfer to Welford Healthcare, which will operate the homes. The structure of the transaction allows Welford to take immediate operational control of the six homes, thereby avoiding a potentially lengthy transition period while regulatory approvals are sought to register the operation of the homes in new legal entities.

Lyndsey O’Loughlin, Group General Counsel and Company Secretary of Morris & Company commented: “This transaction represents another significant milestone in the Morris Group 153-year journey. The prompt, comprehensive and pragmatic advice delivered by every member of the Edwin Coe team made them the perfect choice as legal advisers reflecting  our own commercial philosophy  ̶  ‘Excellence as Standard’.”

Daniel Bellau (Corporate Partner) led Edwin Coe’s team alongside Joanne McIvor (Property Partner) undertook the property work and Linky Trott (Head of Employment) advised on employment issues. Daniel commented “We are delighted to have successfully completed this transaction for the Morris family, a new and exciting client for the firm, in what is a key sector of expertise for Edwin Coe. I’d like to thank the team for their assistance and we wish Morris every success in their property investment plans.”

You can read more about the transaction on Impact Healthcare REIT’s website.

Edwin Coe’s cross-practice team was led by Corporate Partner, Alexandre Terrasse, along with members of our Employment, Property, Intellectual Property and IT teams. Alexandre commented “We are pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Xynergy Groupe, and delighted that the success of the transaction will allow them to move forward with their plans in the UK.”

London-based Jane Plan offers bespoke diet food delivery programmes, which are portion and calorie controlled, supported by psychological support and guidance from a team of nutritionists and behaviour change psychologists.

The transaction is part of the growth strategy initiated by Siparex (a leading French independent private equity investment company), which took a majority stake in Winncare in 2021 to reinforce its leadership on the European market. Their target, Herida Healthcare is a Leeds based healthcare company, developing and manufacturing mattresses, cushions & various accessories to help treat and prevent pressure injuries in long term care, home settings, acute and residential settings.

Alexandre Terrasse commented “It was a pleasure to work with Siparex and the Winncare Group on this transaction. I wish them every success in their plans to grow their business in the UK and globally.”

You can read more about the transaction here.

In an article for Law360, David Greene, our Head of the Class Action and Finance Litigation examines the actions that Amazon is currently facing across the world.

The world tech giants are receiving much attention from competition regulators in many jurisdictions. As night follows day class action lawyers are not far behind.

Like some other tech companies, Amazon.com Inc. faces a swath of regulatory and class action claims in Europe and the U.S., including the latest class action to be filed in the U.K. by Julie Hunter acting as class representative in what has been termed the Buy Box claim.

Do these actions spell radical change in the workings of Amazon or just short-term adjustment in the startling growth of the e-commerce giant?

From its beginnings in Jeff Bezos’ garage in 1994, Amazon has grown to be one of the most influential economic and cultural forces in the world. In the past 10 years worldwide sales have grown from $7 billion to $470 billion, of which some $32 billion are in the U.K.

In the U.S., Amazon has some 46% of the e-commerce market and in the U.K. it is 34%, with 90% of U.K. shoppers using it for some of their shopping.

While Amazon may not yet fulfill the European description of super dominant applied to Google LLC, which holds between 75% in the U.S. to 94% in India of domestic desktop search traffic market, it has become dominant enough to grab the attention of regulators in Europe and the U.S.

In 2017, Amazon resolved an investigation by the European Commission into its distribution deals with European e-book publishers, leading the commission to end its investigation without issuing a fine.

In 2019, the commission opened a formal investigation to assess whether Amazon’s use of nonpublic data from independent retailers selling in its marketplace breached EU competition rules.

In that investigation in November 2020, the commission issued a statement of objections outlining its preliminary view that Amazon should not rely on independent sellers’ business data to calibrate its own retail decisions when acting as a competitor to those independent sellers, because the practice distorts fair competition on its platform and prevents effective competition.

At the same time, the commission opened a second investigation into Amazon’s buy box facility, and Amazon’s Prime program.

The commission has the power to fine Amazon up to 10% of its global turnover if found guilty of breaching EU rules.

One of the purposes of a statement of objections is to set out the grounds for a resolution of concerns. Last month, the commission indicated that it will resolve the investigations on the basis of undertakings to be given by Amazon to:

• Cease using sellers’ data for its own competing retail business and its private label products;
• Treat sellers equally when ranking their offers for the buy box on its website that generates the bulk of its sales; and
• Ensure that sellers and offers on its Prime program are chosen based on nondiscriminatory criteria, with sellers also allowed to choose their own logistics and delivery services company instead of Amazon’s competing logistics services.

Domestic regulators have also been considering Amazon’s sales practices. In the EU, that step is taken in coordination with the commission to ensure consistency across the EU.

In Italy, Amazon was fined by the Italian competition authority in 2021 for pressing its own logistic service — fulfillment by Amazon — for vendors through the ascription of the Amazon Prime label.

The Federal Cartel Office in Germany has been investigating Amazon for some years. The result of the early investigations was a resolution of sorts in 2019, and they led in part to the introduction of new legislation that reflects the new EU Digital Markets Act and seeks to widen the oversight and regulation of tech giants such as Amazon.

The German legislation prohibits self-preferencing, denying interoperability and exclusively bundling their own services to the detriment of rival offerings, among other prohibitions listed in Section 19b of the 10th Amendment to the German Competition Act, commonly known as the GWB Digitalisation Act.

Not being satisfied with the earlier resolution the German authority has opened up fresh investigations under the new legislation as to Amazon’s conduct and algorithms.

In the U.K. the Competition and Markets Authority has started its own investigation. This is somewhat behind the European curve with the CMA yet to determine Amazon as dominant. Only on that finding can it then move on to investigate whether any dominance is being abused.

The European regulators’ stance reflects the coming new regulatory regime for digital gatekeepers, the providers of the core platform services on which businesses depend to reach their customers. The new regime is reflected in the U.K. Digital Services Act, which came into effect on Nov. 1, and the EU Digital Services Act, coming into effect in May 2023.

In the U.S., Amazon has been under investigation by both state and federal investigators for some time. Here allegations will be litigated either by state or federal authorities. The latest filing against Amazon is by the California state attorney general alleging breach of state antitrust legislation.

Where the regulators tread, litigation is bound to follow, much these days on a class basis. In the U.S. a massive would-be class action was commenced in 2020 in Seattle. That recently survived an application to strike out when the court found that the class representatives had standing to sue and that they “sufficiently allege the requisite anti-competitive conduct.”

As one might expect, Amazon denies wrongdoing on its part and says that its offering is not anti-competitive and serves the public well. It certainly does not roll over, and it strenuously litigates allegations with some success.

A claim accusing Amazon of anti-competitive behavior by preventing third-party sellers from offering lower prices for their products on other platforms, including their own websites in Washington, D.C., by the D.C. attorney general, was recently dismissed by the D.C. Superior Court. The dismissal was made upon Amazon’s application, because the court concluded the plaintiff had failed to evidence sufficiently anti-competitive behavior.

In the U.K., a tentative class action has been commenced in the Competition Appeal Tribunal by a consumer advocate, Julie Hunter, seeking to be the class representative of all consumers in the U.K. who purchase goods on Amazon. Similar to the European claims and the inquiry by the CMA, the complaint centers round the buy box on the Amazon website.

The complaint suggests that consumers are given a choice that is manipulated in favor of Amazon to the exclusion of other vendors, who may be offering the same product cheaper or on better terms.

It is claimed thereby that customers are enticed to pay more than they need to and are more restricted in choice. The claim for unlawful abuse of dominant position is based on Section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

The claim raises many factual and technical issues on the way in which the buy box is designed, both physically on the page as the interface with the consumer and technically through algorithms.

The claim suggests that for its own commercial purposes, Amazon may exploit human biases on where we focus attention first, not just in positioning but also in color and font size. As a result, one element of expertise the court may require is evidence from behavioral scientists.

The claim is what is termed a stand-alone action. By Section 58A of the Competition Act, as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002, the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal is bound by decisions of regulators of breaches of the Competition Act or the relevant articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, at least until the U.K. left the EU.

Damages claims that are filed after such a finding are termed follow-on actions. If there has been no finding, the claimant must prove the breach in a termed stand-alone action. If a claim is started before a regulatory decision but one is subsequently made, a stand-alone action might be converted into a follow-on claim.

The claim by Hunter is brought under Section 47B of the Competition Act 1998, as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This section allows for collective actions either on an opt-in or opt-out basis. It matters not whether the claim is a stand-alone or follow-on claim.

We can foresee each stage of the collective process being heavily litigated on both sides. The class representative will need to secure certification of the class in a collective proceedings order and the claim on an opt-out basis. In this fashion Hunter will be seeking to represent all consumers who it is said have been affected by the alleged unlawful abuse.

Following the guidance given by the U.K. Supreme Court in Merricks v MasterCard in 2020^[1], a follow-on action, the process of securing a collective proceedings order is undoubtedly easier, and recent decisions by the Competition Appeal Tribunal have been positive for claimants seeking collective proceedings orders. But there remain hurdles and no doubt these will be furiously fought.

We have yet to see consumer cases following the granting of a collective proceedings order resolved either by settlement or trial. This is an area of the law in development. In addition to questions of dominance and whether or not conduct is abusive, the major question will be whether and to what extent consumers suffer loss as a result of Amazon’s practices.

In all competition litigation this is a hard-fought area with economists and econometricists taking center stage. It seems likely that the headline figure of a claim for £1 billion ($1.24 billion) will substantially reduce in any resolution.

Are the U.K. proceedings of significance to the future of Amazon? Certainly not. With an annual turnover of $470 billion, the proceedings in the U.K. are but a small issue. It is likely, however, that Amazon will fight the issues hard to avoid setting any precedents under current or future legislation.

Of more concern to the tech giant is European regulation and ensuring Amazon’s trading practices do not fall foul of the impending EU Data Services Act and any separate U.K. legislation, and what may follow. Whether, as intended, the opening up of competition has a long-term commercial effect on Amazon remains to be seen.

David’s article first appeared on in Law360 and is reproduced with thanks. It is available in full as a pdf here or on the Law360 website (subscription required)

^[1] Mastercard v Merricks [2020] UKSC 51.

Alexandre Terrasse of our Corporate team recently spoke to Lawyer Monthly about working with the Swaine Group (part of the Chargeurs Group) on its acquisition of The Cambridge Satchel Company.

A French textile company, the Swaine Group’s aim in the merger is to extend the reach of its British-made luxury leather goods division, which is seeing fast growth. Cambridge Satchel Company was set up in 2008 by founder Julie Deane CBE and has a factory in Leicester. The company grew quickly and fans of the brand included Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga.

The Edwin Coe team comprised corporate partner Alexandre Terrasse, property partner Joanne McIvor, employment partner Ruth Hickling and intellectual property and IT Partner Nick Phillips.

Can you tell us more about the role you played during the acquisition?
Led by Alexandre Terrasse, the French M&A team of Edwin Coe assisted Swaine Group Limited (an entity of the French luxury textiles group Chargeurs) in the acquisition of The Cambridge Satchel Company Limited, to extend its fast-growing British-made luxury leather goods division. Our involvement started at the negotiation stage until completion of the transaction.

Did you encounter any challenges over the course of the transaction? If so, how did you overcome them?
Like in all transactions, there are complications and deadlines that need to be met. In this case, both parties were willing to progress the matter within a very short time window. As a result, our team had to undertake a due diligence review in record time whilst ensuring that the documentation was in agreed form within the imposed timeframe.

What impact do you expect this deal will have on the luxury goods sector in the UK?
Prior to the acquisition, the Cambridge Satchel Company was already a well-established brand in the luggage industry in the UK. With the Swaine Group at its head, it is expected that the brand will benefit from the expertise, the knowledge and the financial strength of a large group capable of growing the company and its business even further.

Alexandre has been assisting French investors for over 20 years. He believes that the UK is experiencing high inflation, low investment confidence and a weaker currency, making it an attractive moment for European suitors to pounce on struggling British assets. There is, for the moment, a global recognition that businesses in the UK are very attractive financially so it is an ideal time for foreign investors to make the most of the Brexit discount and pound.

This article first appeared in the December issue of Lawyer Monthly which can be found on their website.

Brenna Baye from our Construction team recently discussed the new guidance from the Construction Leadership Council concerning the use of retention clauses under NEC forms of contract, in an article in November’s Construction Law magazine. 

Construction lawyers have welcomed new guidance on the use of retention clauses under NEC forms of contract, which emphasises that a retention fund may not always be required on projects. However they question the value of proposed alternative protections for clients, particularly on smaller schemes.

The guidance comes from the Construction Leadership Council – in collaboration with NEC – and forms part of the group’s ambition to move the industry to zero retentions by 2025.

Retention funds are used to provide security against defective work and the risk of insolvencies in the supply chain. However they are known to create problems for businesses due to late and non-payment, or ‘upstream’ insolvency resulting in withheld funds being permanently lost.

“The long term aim is to eliminate the need for retentions altogether,” said the CLC’s Business Models Workstream chair Steve Bratt. “This guidance illustrates that often the need for retentions can be avoided through good contract management and selection of contractors with a good track record of quality work.”…

Read the full article on Construction Law’s website (free account required)

Edwin Coe’s team was led by Corporate Partner, Daniel Bellau. Daniel commented “We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with Brandshield again, and delighted that the success of the transaction will allow them to move forward with their growth plans.”

BrandShield is a UK and Israeli based provider of cybersecurity solutions that protect some of the world’s largest brands. By utilising artificial intelligence and big-data analysis, BrandShield monitors, detects, and removes online threats facing companies. These threats include social phishing, executive impersonation, fraud, brand abuse and counterfeiting.

BrandShield’s announcement is available here: BrandShield Systems – Fundraise of £1.75 million and BrandShield Systems – Result of the Placing and Subscription.

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted a number of imbalances within the UK economy, and an area that has particularly suffered is the Adult Social Care Sector. Hit by two unprecedented events, first Brexit and then the Covid-19 pandemic, the sector suffered an increase in the demand for services at the same time as a reduction in the number of potential workers when freedom of movement ended, and the supply of overseas workers diminished.

Recognising the need for change, the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) has announced a temporary expansion to the eligibility requirements of the Health and Care Worker Visa, making the permission available to care workers. While Senior Care Workers have been eligible since the launch of the new Points-Based System, the new changes aim to combat the lack of workers available to fill the “hands-on” practical roles of caring for the vulnerable and elderly.

The change means that the roles within SOC Code 6145 (which includes Care Assistants, Care Workers, and Support Workers) will be added to the Shortage Occupation List (SOL) – this follows an early recommendation from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). It is also the only role below RQF Level 3 to be added to the SOL.

The SOL comprises roles deemed by the Government to be in short supply within the UK labour market – such roles benefit from lower visa fees, a lower minimum salary threshold and individuals are exempt from having to meet a higher salary threshold before being able to apply for settlement.

Kevin Foster, Minister for Safe and Legal Migration, confirmed in his letter dated 24 December 2021 to Professor Brian Bell of the MAC that the inclusion of roles falling under SOC Code 6145 would be a temporary measure (12-month window) and that there would be an internal review at a later stage in 2022.

The expansion of the SOL is certainly a welcome move and one we hope will go some way to easing the recruitment shortages faced within the social care sector. Individuals who may be eligible for a Health and Care Worker visa will benefit from a 50% visa fee reduction, an exemption from the Immigration Health Surcharge and a quicker decision on their application.

Next Steps for Employers

To obtain a Health and Care Worker Visa, eligible care workers will need to have a valid Certificate of Sponsorship for their given role. This will need to have been issued by an employer who is an approved Sponsor Licence holder.

Care providers who do not already hold a Sponsor Licence can take advantage of the expansion to the Health and Care Worker route by making an application for a Sponsor Licence now. Processing times for a Sponsor Licence application can take eight weeks, so it is advisable to apply before any confirmed recruitment plans.

Should you have any questions about the changes that have been announced, please do not hesitate to contact Sundeep Rathod or a member of the Immigration Team.

Our multidisciplinary Later Living & Care Services team of lawyers provide practical, expert advice to care home businesses.

Tim Nash, our CEO recently spoke to Briefing magazine as part of their annual survey of strategic leaders in the legal sector. The report ‘Ready To Respond’ law firm strategy and investment survey 2022/2023 examines and benchmarks perspective on market change, top strategic and transformation priorities, and most pressing organisational challenges.

Recruitment and retention
“It is still possible to find good people. Clearly some, mostly larger, firms have thrown money at a challenge here – and so in order to counter that you need a really authentic alternative message about the quality of work, culture, colleagues, overall experience, and other benefits on offer. Candidates need to experience that promise as they walk through the door.”

Hybrid-working
“There’s still a lot of variation between firms. It will probably take some years for a consensus modus operandi to emerge. There’s an opportunity to differentiate, but risk that you may need to reverse out of it.” Edwin Coe itself has guidance and expectations around hybrid working. “They can flex depending on circumstances, but there are benefits of some days in the office for culture, collaboration, supervision and learning.” The last of these is particularly hard to handle fully remotely, he says.

Environmental, Social and Governance
“We’ve run a number of people surveys during the pandemic to gauge attitudes, and found they are increasingly alert to progress on gender and ethnic diversity, to equal opportunity, and support for more disadvantaged groups.”

“As well as formalising the many activities we undertake already, this can unlock insight into areas we could enhance. We already measure, but are now improving the monitoring of the tiers of emissions.”

“Scenario-planning against changing variables was crucial when adapting business in the pandemic, and that focus on profitability and commerciality really must now remain – everything leads back to it.”

You can read the full report on Briefing’s website.

Alison joined the firm in 2016 and over the last six years has grown the Private Client team, their revenue, profit and market position rankings.   Alison will remain as Head of Private Client and maintain her practice with the support of her award winning team.  Commentators to The Legal UK 500 and Chambers HNW 2022 note: “Alison is a whirl of energy and can-do approach”; she is “fizzing with enthusiasm and utterly dedicated to delivering for her clients”; and “She is lovely to work with and is an uplifting presence”.

Alison has been on the firm’s Management Committee for the last three years and has been a key driver behind a number of initiatives of great benefit to the firm and its people.

Alison comments: “I am honoured and humbled to have been elected as the next Managing Partner of Edwin Coe.  We are all very grateful to David who has steered us so well particularly through the significant uncertainty and changes brought about by Covid and more recent challenges.  I look forward to continuing to build on Edwin Coe’s growth strategy and to further our reputation and success for the benefit of all our stakeholders.”

David comments:  “It has been an honour to have been Edwin Coe’s Managing Partner over the last four years and to have played a part in our growth and the delivery of some important projects over that time.  Alison has been elected by acclamation by the firm’s senior equity partners and I have no doubt that she will do a fantastic job.  I look forward to remaining as a Corporate partner at the firm.”

Edwin Coe has once again been included in The Times Best Law Firms Guide – The Times’ annual list of the top 250 legal practices in England and Wales. The newspaper highlights our expertise in commercial dispute resolution.

The votes on this occasion highlighted Edwin Coe’s outstanding claimant dispute resolution team. Edwin Coe is renowned for its contentious practice often for large groups of claimants in insurance, competition and complex financial disputes as well as property litigation and insolvency. It has practitioners covering international and domestic litigation, mediation and arbitration. It also takes a full part in the profession, boasting the current Presidents of R3 Association of Business Recovery Professionals and The Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA).

“I’m delighted that The Times has recognised the hard work and expertise of Edwin Coe’s outstanding litigation team,” said David Greene, Edwin Coe’s Senior Partner, “our litigators, throughout the firm, work tirelessly to achieve commercial and often innovative solutions for our clients, and it is particularly gratifying to receive recognition from the solicitors and barristers who we work with every day.”

Ali Zaidi, Edwin Coe’s Head of Litigation and Insolvency added, “Congratulations to our talented lawyers. This listing is a great reflection of the expertise and quality of work being produced across the firm for our clients.”

The Times and Statista, an international market research firm, asked solicitors and barristers across England, Wales and Scotland to recommend the best law firms in any of 28 categories covering business, public and private-client fields. Lawyers could not vote for themselves and could only vote once in the survey, to create a ‘definitive’ list of the most respected lawyers and firms in the industry. Only 250 of the approximately 9,700 firms in England and Wales made the list.

This success follows Edwin Coe’s recent recognition in the newly published Chambers UK 2023 and Legal 500 UK 2023 directories.

Alison Broadberry, Head of Private Client at Edwin Coe, commented “It is great news that the team’s hard work, expertise and dedication to our clients has again been recognised by eprivateclient – a leading authority in our market.”

The rankings are based on a survey of over 150 law firms in the UK assessing not only the size of firms’ private client teams, but also their reputations within the private wealth sector and the emphasis placed upon looking after wealthy clients and their families. This year 56 firms made the list.

The team was recently also recommended in the Private Wealth Law category of the 2022 Chambers High Net Worth Directory and The Legal 500 UK 2023 Guide.

For more information please see the eprivateclient website (subscription required).

In an article written for Practical Law, David Greene examines the rise of specialised commercial courts and tribunals worldwide and its impact on London as a hub for cross-border commercial dispute resolution.

London has long prided itself on having a prime place at the table of global legal centres. However, Brexit and competition from other jurisdictions may be undermining some of the confidence of the City legal community and is certainly driving home the message that England and Wales cannot rest on its common law laurels as a home for international dispute resolution.

A recent updating of the Global Soft Power Index 2022, which measures the nation’s brand and perceptions, which would include elements of the rule of law and justice process, maintains the UK as second in the World, as it did in 2021.

UK exports of legal services have been growing exponentially over the past 15 years with net exports running at some GPB7 billion per annum. This growth arises from many factors, one of which being that the common law and the English language remain lingua franca in international commercial contracts. While both have their historical roots in the UK, that tie is, however, of less and less importance. Of perhaps more consequence is retaining a predictable and consistent body of law, the quality and expertise of practitioners, judges and arbitrators, and an efficient and cost-effective process for resolution for modern trade disputes.

But London is not alone in the growth of legal services…

You can read David’s article in full on the Practical Law website (subscription required)

Here is an extract from the CNBC article, which can be read in full here:

“Class action lawsuits of this type aren’t common in the U.K. They’re “opt-out,” meaning they’re brought on behalf of every individual that falls within the class unless they expressly opt out, similar to U.S.-style class action cases. A recent change in U.K. law paved the way for a flood of opt-out class action suits, with other cases against Meta and Google ongoing.

“It is a new process and all the courts involved in it are feeling their way but there is clearly a trend for these mega actions for consumers claiming many billions of pounds,” said David Greene, committee member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association.

“Clearly Amazon will fight the case at all stages including class certification but the Tribunal has made a number of orders recently for similar actions, certifying the opt out process. It is of course difficult at this stage to assess the likelihood of success in these cases but the Big Tech companies are well resourced to fight.” “

The BBC article can be read in full here:

Here is an extract from the article:

‘”A particular contention was whether claimants should be indemnified on BI losses if they had claimed furlough relief. Butcher J held that furlough pay should be considered when calculating losses under the insurance policy...

It’s not game over for the claims, however, with CSR client Stonegate planning an appeal. ‘It was always likely to be the case that whoever lost would seek leave to appeal the point, so the waiting goes on,’ commented Edwin Coe insurance litigation chief Roger Franklin.

Meanwhile, BI claims are mounting against the insurance sector. Earlier this year, the court ruled in favour of Edwin Coe client Corbin & King against AXA in separate matter which also dealt with gaps in the FCA BI test case including denial of access.

Franklin noted that the most recent trio of judgments didn’t cite the Corbin & King ruling. He explained: ‘There are a number of such claims preparing for court and already in court that will offer further guidance on this topic in due course.’ “

If you are a subscriber to The Lawyer, please click here to view the full article.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that 14 lawyers and 4 practice areas have been recommended in the 2023 edition of Chambers UK: A Client’s Guide to the UK Legal Profession. As reported in the guide, clients say: “Edwin Coe provides advice which is consistently strong and technical in nature.”

Restructuring & Insolvency retain their band 1 ranking for Personal Insolvency, whilst Simeon Gilchrist has retained his top individual ranking – “Simeon Gilchrist’s depth of knowledge is second to none”, whilst Ali Zaidi has also retained his band 2 “Ali Zaidi has good commercial awareness of the issues faced by a trustee.”

Our Employment: Senior Executive team, “They are my go-to team of advisers” retain their band 2 ranking, along with recommendations for Linky Trott “She has a vast knowledge of employment law, is highly intelligent and I have never found her flummoxed by anything”, Rachel Harrap “brilliant at determining the desired outcome and then works to deliver that”.

In addition our Insurance team is again ranked twice – for Insurance Litigation: Mainly Policyholders and also for Professional Negligence. Clients recognise their “good-quality work.” Roger Franklin “our go-to person with any insurance dispute or technical query – his level of service is exceptional” is ranked in both categories. Nicola Maher is again ranked for Insurance Litigation and is described as “client-friendly, pragmatic and helpful.” Finally, Oliver Pannell has been recognised as an Up & Coming Partner “very hard-working and always well prepared.”

Head of Intellectual Property Simon Miles is ranked for Intellectual Property, one client said “Simon Miles is knowledgeable, sharp and strategically minded”, whilst Joanna Osborne recognised for Property Litigation “Joanna is so experienced and takes everything in her stride. She is very decisive and able to cut through matters.” Finally Russel Shear retains his ranking for Mid-Market M&A “Russel Shear is very responsive and supportive, knowledgeable in our sector, and gives excellent advice.”

Congratulations to all involved!

Edwin Coe is recommended in the UK, High Net Worth and Global directories. Chambers’ independent research collects information about organisations, individuals and the marketplace, conducting thousands of interviews a year with in-house counsel and third-party experts, such as barristers and accountants, to deliver detailed insight into providers of legal services. You can view our results on Chambers’ website.

On this occasion, the Edwin Coe team was led by Corporate Partner Alexandre Terrasse and assisted by Property Partner Joanne McIvor, Employment Partner Ruth Hickling and Intellectual Property & IT Partner Nick Phillips.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Sean Bannister has been recommended as a tax advisor in the new edition of Spear’s 500 guide.

Sean is Edwin Coe’s Head of Tax and acts for high-net and ultra-high-net worth individuals and families and those that advise them (financial service providers and corporate service provider/trustees).

Sean commented “It is an honour to again be listed in the Spear’s 500 directory. The entire tax team at Edwin Coe works hard to provide outstanding client service, and Spear’s recommendation is testament to that.”

Spear’s 500 is an annual guide to top private client advisers, wealth managers, lawyers and service providers to high-net-worth individuals, produced by Spears magazine. A team of researchers and journalists assess a combination of company submissions, analyst survey data, client feedback and market nominations from experts to compile their recommendations across 15 private client focussed categories.

The 2022 guide has recently been published in paper and will be gradually launched online over the next 12 months on the Spears 500 website. Sean’s Spear’s 500 profile is here.

In the recent case of Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ([2022] EWHC 1127 (Ch), 20 May 2022), the High Court has ruled that Samsung Electronics Co Ltd infringed 23 of the trademarks owned by the Swatch group of watchmakers.

Background

The Swatch group of watchmakers (‘Swatch’) includes well-known brands such as Omega, Longines and Tissot, as well as Swatch. Swatch’s claim related to 30 digital watch face apps which could be downloaded by members of the public from the Samsung Galaxy App store in order to customise Samsung’s smartwatches.

Swatch claimed that these watch face apps infringed its trademarks by using signs that were either identical or similar to Swatch’s trademarks in order to create replicas of its well-known brands’ watch faces, and as names for the apps on the Samsung Galaxy App store. The watch face apps were downloaded approximately 160,000 times in the United Kingdom and the European Union from the Samsung Galaxy App store.

The watch face apps were created by third-party app developers. Despite this, Swatch alleged that Samsung was liable as a primary tortfeasor due to its close involvement in, and control of, the process by which the apps were made available to the public. Swatch claimed infringement of its EU trademarks (and one UK trademark) under Article 9(2)(a), 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(c) of the EU Trademark Regulation (2017/1001).

Samsung contended that it did not use the signs at all but simply provided a vehicle, in the form of the Samsung Galaxy Appstore, through which app developers provided the watch face apps. Samsung relied on the Article 14 “hosting defence” in the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31), arguing that its acts were of a mere technical, automatic and passive nature.

Decision

It was held that Swatch had established trademark infringement in either the digital watch face, the app name on the Samsung Galaxy App store or, in some cases, both.

Samsung was held liable as a primary tortfeasor. It had played an “active” role in relation to the apps and even used them in its own commercial communications.

Use

In arguing that it did not use the signs, Samsung relied in particular on the CJEU’s judgment L’Oréal v eBay (Case C-324/09). In that case, it was established that the use and display of signs on an electronic marketplace’s website is not “use” by the operator of that website for the purposes of trademark infringement. Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier (Case C-238/08) and Coty Germany v Amazon Services Europe (Case C-567/18) were also referred to.

Mrs Justice Falk considered the case law and, in concluding that Samsung did ‘use’ the Swatch trademarks, she took into account, among others, the following facts:

• Samsung provided assistance to the third-party app developers in the form of development materials and tools such as the “Galaxy Watch Studio”;
• The watch face apps were designed exclusively for Samsung and to be used exclusively on Samsung’s smart watches;
• Samsung had marketed its smart watches for their “watch-like” qualities, by reference to the number of watch face apps available on the Samsung Galaxy App store;
• If a user was required to pay in order to download any of the apps, Samsung was entitled to a share in the revenue raised;
• The function of the watch face apps was not to provide third-party goods or services, but rather to adorn the smartwatch, tell the time and allow interaction with other functions; and
• Samsung fielded customer complaints about the apps and provided a degree of customer support.

Defence under Article 14

The defence under Article 14 had been considered in L’Oréal v eBay. Mrs Justice Falk stated that it was clear from L’Oréal v eBay that the test under Article 14 is whether “a diligent economic operator should have identified the illegality by reference to facts or circumstances of which it is (actually) aware”.

Samsung was found to have reviewed and approved each of the watch face apps before they were added to the Samsung Galaxy App store. Mrs Justice Falk was satisfied that this would have resulted in Samsung becoming aware of the app name and the appearance of the watch face app. Under the test set out in L’Oréal v eBay, therefore, this would have alerted a “diligent economic operator” to the trademark infringement. Samsung did not have a defence under Article 14.

Comment

This case shows that the Article 14 defence is unlikely to be available to any app store operators who are assisting in some way with the creation of apps by third parties or who are involved in the way those apps are sold and marketed. For the defence to succeed, there must be no commercial benefit gained nor active role played. Samsung had not only been entitled to a share in the revenue of downloads from the apps, but had also played an “active” role, including in assisting the app developers. Its role was not “technical, automatic and passive”.

Jamal advises on a wide variety of cross-border corporate and commercial transactions including private mergers and acquisitions, private investments, joint ventures, partnership and LLP matters and restructurings.

He has a particular focus on private capital investments, often involving family offices and high growth companies, while his sector expertise includes sport, automotive, technology and hotels and hospitality.

Head of Corporate Russel Shear said: “We are happy to welcome Jamal to the firm. We are delighted that our clients will be able to benefit from his skills and experience. He is a great fit for the team and we are looking forward to working with him.”

Since the start of 2022, Edwin Coe has grown with the addition of a new lateral hire Partner in Clare Gilroy-Scott (Employment) and promoted three Senior Associates to the Partnership – Sophia Bompas (Restructuring & Insolvency), Oliver Pannell (Insurance Litigation) and Sundeep Rathod (Immigration).

Sundeep joined Edwin Coe in 2021 as a Senior Associate, to lead the firm’s Immigration practice.  His practice has a particular focus on obtaining Skilled Worker and Global Business Mobility Sponsor Licences for businesses wishing to hire either EU or non-EU nationals, and advises businesses on their ongoing compliance duties as Sponsors.  He works with entrepreneurs and high net-worth individuals wishing to start up a business in the UK and often advises and assists clients with a Start-up or Innovator visa. He also advises on immigration matters for overseas businesses who are looking to set up a UK branch or subsidiary and represents various individuals with making a successful Global Talent or High Potential Individual visa.

Edwin Coe’s Head of Employment, Linky Trott commented “I am thrilled to welcome Sundeep to the Partnership – his promotion is very well deserved. Not only is he a highly skilled, experienced lawyer but his practice complements the work of the larger Employment team and indeed the rest of Edwin Coe.”

Individuals
Across our practices, our lawyers are recommended 54 times by the Legal 500’s expert researchers, with new mentions/reappearances for Neil Flynn (Property Finance), Sundeep Rathod (Immigration), Kate Dwyer and Oliver Pannell (both Professional Negligence: Insurance), Fred Sheppard (Commercial Litigation).

Our Senior Partner, David Greene joins the ‘Hall of Fame’ and Tom Johnson is a new ‘Rising Star’, both for Commercial Litigation: Mid-Market. David Goepel (Personal tax, trusts and probate), Daniel Bellau (M&A), retain their rankings as ‘Leading Individuals,’ as has Zahira Hussain (Commercial Litigation ‘Next Generation Partner’).

Practices
Our Commercial Litigation team were recommended for Mid-Market matters whilst our Insurance Litigation team were ranked for policyholders and Professional Negligence. Where one contact stated ‘…they handle more such claims than any other claimant firm, and they prosecute such claims much better than anyone else.’ Our litigators were also recommended for Fraud: Civil – ‘Efficient, approachable and responsive team, and particularly experienced in group litigation matters. A pleasure to work with.’

In the Private Client sector, the team was recommended for Personal tax, trusts and probate along with Charities and not-for-profit. One client commented ‘The team undertakes difficult and sensitive work for the full range of private clients with quiet competence and dedication. They are especially good at the client-care side of the job.’

The larger Employment team was ranked for Employment: employers, Employment: senior executives; Immigration: business and Immigration: human rights, appeals and overstay, with one referee commenting that ‘My experience with Edwin Coe was notable for the flexibility, empathy and resourcefulness of the senior staff.’

Our Property team is ‘A team of extremely experienced real estate finance lawyers providing practical and commercial advice to clients, breaking down complicated legal jargon into bitesize and digestible nuggets, and a nice bunch of people too.’ and were recommended for Residential property; Property Finance and also Property Litigation.

Other practice areas recognised in the UK directory are Intellectual Property ‘The unique thing about this practice is their personal attention to their clients’; M&A: smaller deals ‘Very attentive and practical’ and Equity Capital Markets: Small-Mid Cap ‘Entrepreneurial busy firm’.

Congratulations to all involved!

You can read all the rankings and testimonials at the Legal 500 website.

Nick Phillips and Selina Clifford from our IT team examine the proposed new EU Data Act and look at the chances of the UK introducing similar rules, in a recent article for Law 360.

In February, the European Commission published its proposal for a new Data Act that seeks to improve a user’s right to access and exploit data generated from their use of digital products and related services.

The Data Act is the second main legislative initiative, after the Data Governance Act, resulting from the EU’s strategy for data published in February 2020, which aims to make the EU a leader in a data-driven society.

In keeping with this strategy, one of the main objectives of the Data Act is to promote a competitive data market and drive innovation by unlocking the economic and societal potential of data and technologies.

The commission has estimated that a staggering 80% of industrial data is never used, yet this data can be used for “non-rival good,” meaning it can be used at the same time by many individuals without affecting the quality of the data or depleting its supply.

By improving users’ right to access this data and operationalizing rules to ensure fairness in the digital environment, it is envisaged that new opportunities for data-driven innovation will open up, which the commission estimates could create an additional €270 billion ($2.67 billion) of GDP by 2028.

Read the full article on the Law 360 website (subscription may be required)

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Eva Moynihan, an Associate in our Private Client team has been named in the prestigious 2022 eprivateclient Top 35 Under 35 rankings.

One nominee said of Eva: “Several years of working experience with Eva led me to nominate her. She always acted with great professionalism and is clear, efficient and reliable.”

Alison Broadberry, Head of Private Client at Edwin Coe commented “Congratulations to Eva for this well-deserved recognition. It is a reflection of the commitment and client service she provides and which we all pride ourselves on at Edwin Coe.”

The Top 35 Under 35 award is designed to identify, recognise, introduce and promote the rising stars of the private wealth advisory sector. It is the definitive annual list of 70 young private client practitioners – 35 men and 35 women – including lawyers, accountants, trustees and other professional intermediaries.

The judging process involved the collection of nominations and feedback from clients and fellow professionals on the upcoming stars within the private client sector. This year there were 500 nominations for individuals from over 79 firms across the UK and the UK Crown Dependencies. These nominations were then collated and the eprivateclient/PAM Insight judging panel drew up the final list.

The full list is available on eprivateclient’s website (subscription may be required)

Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs) are a new type of quasi-corporate entities, existing with the use of blockchain and smart contracts. Although conceptually the same, DAOs vary significantly in their organisational structure, their code, goals, functions and governance. The idea of DAO is not that new with the most well-known DAO (uninventively called “The DAO”) dating back to 2016.

The emergence of DAOs is a yet another clever way of using the blockchain technology, though this time it is to achieve corporate governance goals. DAOs do not have a board of directors responsible for the decision-making but instead they are managed by consensus of their members. Rather than purchasing shares in a company, each member is issued with tokens which grant voting rights in the DAO. All of the functions of a typical organisation can in theory be replaced under a DAO by a set of defined conditions. If the conditions are met, the program coded on blockchain will carry out a particular action.

Enthusiasts think that DAOs provide democracy and transparency often lacking in traditional corporate structures. But is it really so? The use of blockchain and smart contracts in the creation of DAOs has its pros and cons. On the one hand, blockchain offers a certain element of transparency, however, on the other hand, the use of smart contracts lacks flexibility. Once something is encrypted into a smart contract, there is no mechanism for alteration – only by scraping one contract altogether and replacing it with a new one.

There is no prize for guessing, DAOs start to present a headache for lawyers and governments around the world. Unlike private individuals or companies, DAOs are not legally recognised in the UK. As such a DAO does not have separate legal personality which, strictly speaking, means that it is unable to own property or enter into contracts in its own name. The lack of clarity around their legal status mean that many DAOs utilise a limited liability company as a form of “centralising” tool. For example some states in the USA have adapted limited liability companies to recognise DAOs, and provide for the entity to have legal obligations and ensure limited liability protection for its members, but it is worth noting that these are not “true” DAOs.

So what are some of the IP-specific issues that are relevant to DAOs?

Ownership of IP

In a recent curious example, Spice DAO paid $3 million for an original 1975 copy of the Dune bible by Alejandro Jodorowsky. Spice DAO purchased the piece with a plan to make the book free to the public as well as to produce a limited animated TV series. However, it turned out that the community members misunderstood the copyright and thought they could produce an adaptation of the book whilst, in fact, the purchase of the physical book did not mean the purchase of the underlying copyright of course. Not to mention the fact that the book was already available to the public long before Spice DAO’s involvement!

The above example, at the very least, shows that a DAO can own physical property (e.g. a book) even if the ownership of the underlying IP rights is currently uncertain. Indeed, there are many DAOs that have been created with the purpose of owning property rights, including real estate, such as the Indaod.io, which has recently announced plans to purchase and manage a collection of highly desirable vacation properties.

One might think that there should be no issue for a DAO to own intellectual property if it decided to make IP ownership its goal and if its members voted to own certain IP rights.

Authorship and Inventorship

The participation of DAOs in the actual creation of intellectual property will largely depend on the clarification of DAO’s legal status. DAOs may (at least in certain jurisdictions) be recognised as separate legal personalities, alongside companies. If DAOs were to be recognised as corporate entities, then the law that currently applies to the companies would apply to DAOs.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”) states that the “author” of a work is the person that creates it. In addition, the CDPA recognises joint authorship and the authorship of computer-generated works. In each case, there must be a named “person” or “persons” who is to be called an author. A company may, however, own a copyright in an author’s work. Such ownership sometimes arises automatically when a work has been created in the course of employment. In all other cases, however, a copyright will need to be assigned in writing in order for the company to own the rights. Summing up, if a DAO was to be legally recognised as a form of “company”, it could own the copyright in a work and its members could, as individual authors, be regarded as joint authors if they have jointly created a copyright work.

By analogy, the position of DAOs in relation to trade marks will depend on their legal status. For instance, if a DAO has commissioned a member to draw its logo, it could obtain a copyright in that logo and then register it as a trade mark with the IPO. However, it is worth noting that the UKIPO has the ability to reject a trade mark application if there is doubt as to the legal status of the applicant and might seek confirmation that the applicant has the necessary standing to hold property.

Similarly, with regard to patents, under the Patents Act 1977, an inventor means the “actual deviser of the invention”, and the owner of a patent can be a company. Therefore, although a DAO would unlikely be considered an “inventor”, a DAO could own a patent to its members’ invention, who will be named an inventor or joint inventors (as the case may be) on a patent application. As such, VitaDAO is an interesting example of a biotech DAO that was created with the purpose of funding early stage longevity research and drug discovery. It remains to be seen whether VitaDAO and other R&D DAOs will in fact succeed in their ambitious goals.

Law Commission’s scoping study

In the UK, the Law Commission has been recently asked by the Government to carry out a 15-month scoping study into DAOs “to explore and describe the current treatment of DAOs under the law of England and Wales and identify options for how they should be treated in law in the future in a way which would clarify their status and facilitate uptake”. The Commission will consider different treatment for different types of DAOs depending on their structures, as some DAOs are more/less “autonomous” or more/less “centralised”. The project is currently at an initiation stage but the work will start any time soon. Although the Commission has not been asked, at this stage, to make formal recommendations for law reform, its eventual opinion will likely lay the foundation for future legislative changes, should these be considered necessary.

Conclusion

DAOs have undoubtedly made some noise in the media sphere but are they here to stay? Will they be the next step in the evolution of corporate entities, eventually replacing the traditional corporate structures, or are they simply much ado about nothing? Only time will tell. There are obvious challenges such as what happens if a DAO is “defective” (as occurred in relation to “The DAO” mentioned above, when a vast sum was removed from it by parties exploiting the logic of the smart contract)? Owners of tokens in such DAOs might wish to have recourse under existing law to redress any losses. This seems at odds with the basis of a blockchain where its rules and functions are coded and are transparent, but shows the difficulty in recognising DAOs as legal entities.

In our opinion, it is preferable for Governments to embrace DAOs as a discrete form of corporate entity sooner rather than later. Identifying satisfactory regulatory models will likely be one of the biggest issues faced, and indeed as is clear from the above some jurisdictions have already started to look into this.

For further information regarding this topic, please contact Simon Miles, or any member of the Intellectual Property team.

The Law Commission has published its Consultation Paper on Digital Assets. The consultation opened on 28 July 2022 and will close on 4 November 2022. Responses to the Consultation Paper can be submitted here or by email to digitalassets@lawcommission.gov.uk.~

The Law Commission’s approach

“We should try to avoid the creation of a new legal and regulatory regime that will discourage the use of new technologies rather than provide the foundation for them to flourish.” Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls (speaking extra judicially).

The Law Commission’s goal is to make England and Wales “a global hub for digital assets”. At the heart of the Law Commission’s proposals is therefore an acceptance of Sir Geoffrey Vos’ words and a recognition that that the common law of England and Wales is, in general, sufficiently flexible to accommodate digital assets. The Law Commission does, however, propose some fairly fundamental reforms which are seeking to lay down an appropriate framework for the Courts to be better equipped to tackle the specific challenges of digital assets. In doing so the Law Commission is seeking to build on and expand the existing principles of personal private property law.

Summary

The Consultation Paper’s main proposals can be broadly summarised as:

• Explicitly recognising a distinct category of personal property under the law which is better able to accommodate the unique features of digital assets (the so-called “data objects”), as well as the options for how this distinct category of personal property could be developed and implemented under current law; and
• Clarifying the law around ownership and control of digital assets, as well as the law around transfers and transactions involving digital assets.

“Digital assets” are broadly defined as “non-tangible assets in digital form”. The Law Commission’s proposals are aimed at recognition and protection of digital assets. The Law Commission argues for the need of reform to ensure that digital assets “benefit from consistent legal recognition and protection”.

The unique characteristics of digital assets mean that they do not fit easily into traditionally recognised private property law categories or definitions. The proposed reforms hope to provide the necessary legal foundations to recognise digital assets as a form of intangible property and, therefore, to support technological development at large.

The Law Commission’s proposals

Some of the main Law Commission proposals can be summarised as follows:

1. Creation of a third category of personal property

We provisionally propose the explicit recognition of a “third” category of personal property distinct from things in possession and things in action, which would allow for a more nuanced consideration of new, emergent, and idiosyncratic objects of property rights. We label this category “data objects”. We describe two options for the development and implementation of this provisional law reform proposal — iterative, common law reform or (limited) statutory intervention.

No doubt, this one is the most exciting and the most awaited proposal of the Consultation Paper. This is because for the first time in two centuries, a third type of property is recognised, differing from the traditional and established categories of (i) things in possession and (ii) things in action.

This proposed third category of personal property is potentially a very useful addition, which goes in line with the recent Court decisions, such as Lavinia Deborah Osbourne v (1) Persons Unknown (2) Ozone Networks Inc, in which NFTs were recognised as personal property. The recognition of the third type of property will spark digital innovation and will encourage cryptotrading.

Whether an iterative common law reform or a limited statutory intervention will be chosen as the mechanism for the reforms remains to be seen.

2. How is a Data Object defined?

We provisionally propose certain criteria that a thing must exhibit if it is to fall within our proposed third category of personal property.

To be categorised as a “data object”, the asset must possess the following criteria:

• be composed of data represented in an electronic medium, including in the form of computer code, electronic, digital or analogue signal;
• exist independently of persons and exist independently of the legal system; and
• be rivalrous.

All of these are extensively discussed in the Consultation Paper, which is available in full and in summary versions.

The Law Commission has also proposed a non-exhaustive short-form definition of the “crypto-token”. It is likely that this definition may change over time, following the Court precedents but it will be a useful guidance and a springboard for interpretation to begin with.

3. Defining the relationship between people and Data Objects

We provisionally conclude that the factual concept of control (as opposed to the concept of possession) best describes the relationship between data objects and persons.

The concept of physical possession appears outdated when it comes to crypto-assets and the concept of control feels better suited to define the relationship between the data object and the person handling it. However, the Law Commission decided (on balance) not to set out the factual concept of control in legislation and left it for the Courts’ non-binding guidance instead. One issue for discussion here is whether it would have been better for the Law Commission to provide an outline definition of the concept of control, which could then be used by the Courts to further develop their guidance.

4. Dealing with crypto-tokens

We provisionally conclude that crypto-tokens satisfy our proposed criteria of data objects and are appropriate objects of property rights. We analyse factual transfers of crypto-tokens (as a subset of data objects) and provisionally propose that the rules of derivative transfer of title can be applied to such transfers, including in the context of the unauthorised disposition of a crypto-token.

Crypto-tokens are not the usual property assets. However, despite that, the Law Commission concluded that the existing legal rules on derivative transfers of title can apply to crypto-tokens,” notwithstanding that a transfer operation effecting a state change will typically result in the causal creation of a new, modified or causally-related crypto-token”.

This is in line with the Law Commission’s stated objective not to reform the law unless necessary and this is a particular area where the Law Commission feels that the existing legal framework works with some clarification. We are inclined to agree with the Law Commission’s approach on this issue and the proposed clarification in the law related to the transfers of property rights.

5. Good faith purchasers for value without notice

We provisionally propose an explicit clarification that the special defence of good faith purchaser for value without notice should apply to crypto-token transactions.

Being a good faith (or bona fide) purchaser for value without notice provides a defence in property possession claims, because an innocent purchaser of property who purchases for value without notice of any other party’s claim against the property is not to be punished. Therefore, so long as a bona fide purchaser properly records the transaction, they take good title to the property despite any competing claims.

This extension of the principle to data objects is entirely logical. If one is to recognise data objects as property that can be owned (or controlled), one should therefore recognise the long standing principle that good faith purchasers for value without notice of competing interests take good title to that property.

6. The requirement for writing

We provisionally propose statutory law reform clarifying the scope and application of section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 in connection with certain dealings in specified forms of equitable crypto-token entitlements.

Section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires that dispositions of equitable interests or trust subsisting at the time of disposition must be in writing and signed by (or by a properly authorised agent of) the person making the disposition. The Law Commission’s proposal of the targeted reform in this area would have the effect of clarifying the scope and application of Section 53(1)(c) to digital assets. This is one clear area where the law does appear to be out of step with technology, and reform (even if it is in the form of a clarification) is timely.

The other potential proposals discussed by the Law Commission involved the stretching of the tort of conversion to data objects (i.e. the tort of interference with someone’s tangible property) law and in the field of insolvency reform clarifying and simplifying the apportionment of shortfall losses arising out of commingled crypto-token holdings held on trust by an insolvent custodian.

Another area which will be of considerable interest is in relation to the powers of the Courts. This includes the applicability of proprietary injunctions and freezing orders to crypto-tokens and other digital assets. Here, the Law Commission concluded that no reform was necessary as the Courts already had the power to grant injunctions in relation to crypto-tokens and by extension to the newly created data objects as they were already categorised as objects of property rights.

The Law Commission was also in favour of giving the Courts the discretion to make, “monetary” awards in crypto-tokens. This is quite controversial but ultimately might put the Courts in a better position to make awards that properly reflect a party’s losses as well as being consistent with the commercial expectations of the parties.

Finally, the Law Commission is seeking views on whether the current system of enforcing judgments and orders is satisfactory in the context of data objects and, if not, how it could usefully be developed.

Conclusions

The Law Commission’s proposals are sensible and pragmatic although not without controversy in some areas. It has sought to keep its proposals targeted, to avoid making significant law reforms and to strike a fair balance between digital innovation and the certainty of the current legal system.

It may well be said by some that given the huge technical innovation and change that digital assets potentially represent that this is a wasted opportunity and that the Law Commission has missed an opportunity for a much wider ranging reform. Generally, however, these proposals have been welcomed as a step in the right direction and should be relatively easy to implement both, in common law and in statutes.

For further information regarding this topic, please contact Nick Phillips, or any member of the Intellectual Property team.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that its Private Client and High Value Residential Property lawyers have been recommended again in the latest edition of the Chambers High Net Worth guide.

Head of Private Client, Alison Broadberry and David Goepel have been promoted to Band 3 Notable Practitioners. Additionally, the Private Client team has been promoted to Band 4.

Property partner Rosie McCormick Paice was also recommended as a Notable Practitioner for her Real Estate: High Value Residential work.

Congratulations all!

A sample of our client feedback received in this edition includes:

Edwin Coe’s Private Client team “are extremely good at complex matters, with a great attention to detail,” says a source. The firm are “particularly good at understanding the business issues affecting private clients,” adds another commentator.

An interviewee says: “They are all consistently good at explaining things to the lay client and to other professionals in a clear, concise and accessible way. They help simplify things well. They are carving out a very good niche for themselves.”

Alison Broadberry is “very approachable, with a great loyal client base, and is very knowledgeable,” states a source. Another commentator adds: “She is intelligent and has seemingly unmatched reserves of energy and drive for her clients. She is lovely to work with and is an uplifting presence.”

David Goepel “is a really good and extremely loyal private client solicitor.”

Rosie McCormick Paice leads the residential property practice. She advises wealthy clients on prime London purchases and also assists with rural property matters. “Rosie has a can-do attitude,” says an interviewee.

Chambers HNW is an independently produced and researched annual guide which also feature listings and information about many of the top accountancy and tax firms, private banks, wealth management firms and multi-family offices acting for high net worth individuals. Further information can be found on the Chambers High Net Worth website.

Edwin Coe’s team was led by Property Partner Joanne McIvor and Corporate Partner David Kinch. Joanne commented “It was a pleasure to work on this complex transaction. It’s one of a number that the firm’s multi-disciplinary care homes team has advised on in the past few years, in this growing sector.”

For more information on this transaction, read this article in Impact Investor.

Claire Lehr and Lara Persell recently wrote an article for the World Trademark Review (WTR) analysing the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’s decision on a Registered Community Design and UK Unregistered Design Rights dispute concerning luxury women boots.

• Fairfax & Favor filed suit against Bruar, alleging infringement of its RCD and UKUDR in the ‘Heeled Regina’ boot
• The recorder found “with no hesitation” that all versions of the defendant’s boots had deliberately copied the claimant’s designs
• Two versions of the defendant’s boots infringed the RCD, while a third one did not

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has found a Registered Community Design (RCD) for a ladies’ boot valid and infringed by two boot products, but not the third, as well as finding UK Unregistered Design Rights (UKUDR) to subsist in a boot design (Fairfax & Favor Ltd v The House of Bruar Ltd ([2022] EWHC 689 (IPEC)).

Background

The claimant, Fairfax & Favor, is a luxury leather brand. The defendant, The House of Bruar, is a Scottish company which sells traditional attire from a number of well-known brands. The case concerned the design of the claimant’s ‘Heeled Regina’ boot. The Heeled Regina boot featured an “elasticated gusset”. There was a demonstrable evolution of the boot from its early versions in around 2013 to the Heeled Regina.

In 2015 the claimant commenced discussions with the defendant to supply them with boots – which did not lead to sales of boots. However, during the course of discussions, the claimant sent the defendant’s buyer (Mrs Meikle) a brochure which included the Heeled Regina.

In January 2016 the claimant filed the following RCD application:

Further discussions between the parties took place in 2017, which again did not lead to sales. In April 2017 Mrs Meikle purchased a pair of Heeled Regina boots, apparently for her own use. Around a month later, a further purchase of Heeled Regina boots, in a different colour, was made on the defendant’s company credit card.

In the meantime, the defendant ordered samples and stock of Version 1 boots (‘V1’) through another company, but experienced supply problems.

The defendant’s catalogue of 2017/2018 included V1 boots. The claimant, minded to send a letter of complaint, held off from doing so when Mrs Meikle placed a single, small order.

The case

The defendant’s 2018/2019 catalogue also included V1 boots. The claimant sent a letter of complaint to the defendant in August 2018. The defendant made “minor modifications” to the boots, creating Version 2 (‘V2’) and Version 3 (‘V3’) to “differentiate” its product from the claimant’s.

The claimant relied on its RCD as well as UKUDR, the partial designs being set out below:

The defendant claimed that the “elasticated gusset” was commonplace.

Decision

UKUDR
The claimant relied on seven features of the Heeled Regina:

• the mid-height heel;
• the height of shaft;
• the narrowing of the boot above the ankle;
• the narrow shape of the toe;
• the panelled gusset;
• the sloping cuff at the top of the boot; and
• the decorative features.

“With no hesitation”, Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels found all versions of the defendant’s boots had deliberately copied the claimant’s designs, noting that the “denial of copying” was “… incompatible with… documentary evidence”, as the defendant had had sight of the boot.

The recorder also found that the defendant’s V1 and V2 boots were infringing of the partial designs. V1 looked identical to the Heeled Regina at first glance, although there were some minor differences (including the narrow piping around the top and the fact the front of the boot is made in two pieces not one). V2 was also “extremely similar to the Heeled Regina”.

There were some differences with the V3 boots and, while V3 was not made exactly or substantially to the design of the Heeled Regina, it nonetheless infringed the claimant’s UKUDR.

The claimant was also successful in its claim for secondary infringement, satisfying the burden of proving that the defendant had sufficient knowledge that their boots were infringing articles, on the basis of the brochure sent over, and the employee purchases of the Heeled Regina.

RCD
The different test for infringement of an RCD brought minor relief to the defendant with the recorder holding that the V1 and V2 boots infringed the RCD, whereas V3 did not. Although V3 was closer to the RCD than V1 and V2, especially at the front of the boot, the presence of leather strips over elasticated panels at the back of the boot created a different overall impression to the RCD.

Comment
This decision has raised some interest, largely because the claimant was successful in both its claims in RCD and UKUDR.

Evidence was crucial and here the defendant was on the back foot. It amended its defence to rely on a boot which, the recorder noted, was only discovered “after a lengthy and thorough research process undertaken by their solicitors”. The boot could not be said to be “commonplace” and, while it did not materially affect the recorder’s findings, the amendment did nothing to support the defendant’s case. That, together with documentary evidence contradicting the oral denials of copying by witnesses for the defendant, contributed to the claimant’s resounding victory.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in May 2022. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce its support of The Law Society’s Art Group annual exhibition for 2022. The exhibition will be held online, with a selection of the exhibits in the Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, EC4A (open weekdays 10am-4pm). At a private view on 20th June, Tim Benson, PROI NEAC RP, President, Royal Institute of Oil Painters, will judge the 2D and 3D artwork on display, and a number of prizes will be awarded. Edwin Coe is sponsoring the ‘Best sculpture or three dimensional work‘ prize. Many of the works will be available for purchase.

The Law Society’s Art Group is a small membership group, first set up in 1959, of practising or retired solicitors, staff of solicitors’ firms and to solicitors’ close family members, with an interest in or appreciation for art. The Group runs art events throughout the year including an annual exhibition, painting days, talks and visits to art collections and galleries.

Further information:

• The exhibition e-catalogue.
• The Private View will be held on Zoom on Monday 20th June 2022, from 6.45pm to 8pm, judging from 7pm. Free registration is required.
• The Art Group’s Facebook page also includes the e-catalogue.
• The exhibition runs from 20 June 2022 – 21 December 2022.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that six of our solicitors were included in the eleventh edition of The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom which has just been released. The 2022 UK edition recognizes the professional excellence of 6,017 lawyers in 84 practice areas, and in particular, recommends the following solicitors at Edwin Coe:

• David Greene (Competition Law and Litigation)
• Linky Trott (Employment Law)
• Rachel Harrap (Employment Law)
• Simon Miles (Intellectual Property Law)
• Christopher Berry (Litigation)

The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom 2023 Guide
For over 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional and national publications across the globe.

The Guide is compiled from purely peer review data. Lawyers who are nominated for consideration are voted on by currently recognized Best Lawyers working in the same practice area and geographic region. Awards and recognitions are based purely on the feedback received from these top lawyers. Those who receive high peer reviews undergo a thorough verification process before being recognized by Best Lawyers.

“We are pleased to advised BrandShield on this transaction,” commented Daniel Bellau, the leader of Edwin Coe’s team, “and look forward to working them in the future as they build their business.”

BrandShield is a UK and Israeli based provider of cybersecurity solutions that protect some of the world’s largest brands. By utilising artificial intelligence and big-data analysis, BrandShield monitors, detects, and removes online threats facing companies. These threats include social phishing, executive impersonation, fraud, brand abuse and counterfeiting.

BrandShield’s announcement is available here: Brandshield Systems – Subscription to raise £1.0 million

Hicom has been a developer of software that automates healthcare and business processes for the past twenty years. Their software supports a wide range of healthcare-centred processes including: patient and clinical care; clinical research; workforce management; recruitment and selection; learning and development; compliance management; and health & safety.

Edwin Coe has advised VitalHub on its expansion plans in the UK health technology market for several years. VitalHub is based in Toronto, Canada, with an offshore innovation hub in Sri Lanka which develops and supports mission-critical information systems in the social service, mental health, long term care, community health service, home health and hospital sectors. It has a two-pronged growth strategy, targeting organic growth opportunities within its product suite, and pursuing an aggressive M&A plan.

The Edwin Coe team was led by Head of Corporate & Commercial Russel Shear. Russel commented “It was a pleasure to once again assist VitalHub on the successful completion of this acquisition.”

VitalHub’s announcement is available here: VitalHub Corp. Announces Acquisition of Hicom Technology Limited

Thomas was instructed to appear for an Iranian defendant at trial arising from allegations concerning conversion of sums received using ‘Havaleh’, an honour based ‘banking’ system.

Thomas achieved a positive result for the defendant and the claimant’s claim has been dismissed. Congratulations Thomas.

Further information on the 25 for 25: the Pro Bono Challenge is available on Advocate’s website.

Update November 2022: Advocate have compiled a report which highlights the impact barristers have made. Alongside the many chambers who are listed, Edwin Coe is mentioned (see page 6). We are one of only a handful of law firms that have committed employed barristers to this work.

Kendrick Resources Plc is a London-based mineral exploration and development company with projects primarily based across Scandinavia (in Finland and Sweden with an option over 3 projects in Norway). The company explores the opportunities within the natural resources sector with a focus on battery, base, and precious metals notably vanadium and nickel. The proceeds of the transaction will be used to undertake further exploration and development projects, along with funding ongoing operating costs.

The Edwin Coe team was led by Head of Corporate & Commercial Russel Shear along with Associate Dana Eyre. “We are delighted to have advised on this transaction and wish Kendrick Resources every success in their plans of building a top tier energy metals production business,” commented Russel Shear.

You can read the full announcement on the LSE’s website here.

Roger Franklin, Head of Insurance Litigation and London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) committee member explains why the industry needs to take heed of the potential impact of a key COVID-19 decision by insurer Axa in an article recently published in Emerging Risks magazine.

Just when insurers thought that the scope of their exposure to Covid-19 business interruption losses had crystallised, Axa’s decision not to appeal the recent judgment in Corbin & King v Axa has opened up the possibility of more claims, with other significant issues looming on the horizon.

In Corbin & King the claimants issued claims against Axa under the non-damage denial of access (NDDA) cover in a policy of insurance which provided business interruption cover from November 2019 to November 2020. Corbin & King’s losses arose from the enforced closure of their restaurants and cafés as a result of the regulations passed in response to the pandemic.

Axa, like many other insurers, initially rejected such claims based upon the reasoning of the Divisional Court in the test case FCA v Arch Insurance, which held that although the term “danger” was capable of including a contagious disease, the business interruption was caused by the regulations which were introduced to combat the national pandemic. Thus the proximate cause of the losses was the national pandemic rather than any case or cases of Covid-19 in any particular radius.

That logic was thrown into doubt by the Supreme Court’s reasoning on causation[3], which found that each case of Covid-19 was a concurrent cause of the restrictions, and therefore, even if there was only one case of Covid-19 in the relevant radius, there was coverage.

The judge in Corbin & King concluded that the Divisional Court judgment did not present an obstacle to judgment in favour of the Claimants. The Supreme Court’s approach to causation, although not expressly directed to NDDA clauses, had “opened up the field for a different iteration of the construction argument, which approximates to the one adopted by the Supreme Court on disease clauses.” On that basis, she found for the Claimants…

You can read Roger’s full article on the Emerging Risks website.

David Greene, our Senior Partner and the founding Co-President of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) recently spoke to the Times about the need to simplify the system for group litigation and create effective mechanisms for collective redress.

Read the full article in The Times (subscription may be required)

T.S.S. is a family owned security business, with over 6,500 front line staff, providing over 11 million hours of guarding services each year to some of the UK’s largest retailers, such as Tesco and Morrisons. The acquisition will strengthen G4S’s position as a major UK provider of security services.

The Edwin Coe team was led by Head of Corporate & Commercial Russel Shear. Russel Shear, commented “We are pleased to have advised on this transaction and wish both T.S.S. and G4S every success for their future.”

You can read more about the transaction on the T.S.S. website.

Sophia is an insolvency and restructuring specialist within Edwin Coe’s Tier 1 Chambers UK-ranked insolvency team. She has extensive experience advising on contentious and non-contentious corporate and personal insolvencies. Her broad insolvency practice sees her acting for clients across a range of industries and sectors, including insolvency practitioners, creditors, debtors, banks, directors of financially distressed companies, as well as individuals in financial difficulty.

As a Chambers and Legal 500 recommended insurance claims specialist, Oliver is experienced in acting for policyholders in claims against insurers, as well as in claims for professional negligence against insurance brokers and other professionals. He regularly acts in claims involving breach of contract, allegations of negligence, breach of warranty, breach of condition precedent, misrepresentation, material non-disclosure and fraud.

David Kinch, Edwin Coe’s Managing Partner commented “I’m delighted to welcome experienced litigators Sophia and Oliver into the partnership at Edwin Coe. It is particularly pleasing that they are ‘home grown’ talents, both having joined us as trainees.”

Ali Zaidi, Head of Litigation added, “Congratulations to Sophia and Oliver. They are both talented, tenacious litigators and a great asset to our clients and the firm.”

In the past 6 months Edwin Coe has also added three new lateral hires to the Partnership in Clare Gilroy-Scott in the Employment team and William Edwards within the Private Client practice.

At the time of the judgment, Roger Franklin commented “This judgment is a very important step for Policyholders in their efforts to recover the losses they have suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of Covid-19.  Those in the hospitality sector have been particularly hard hit, and this decision will be significant for many of them.”

The judgment may affect not only those restaurants, bars and cafes with similar NDDOA clauses in their business interruption insurance, but also other similar businesses that were forced to shut by the Government during the pandemic, including nightclubs, betting shops, hair salons, gyms and auction houses (a full list below).

What you should do now

If your business has suffered serious losses as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and your claim was denied by your insurer, we can review the constituent elements of your NDDOA clauses in light of the judgment. In the first instance, please contact Roger Franklin or any member of our Insurance Litigation team and we can advise on your available options.

Edwin Coe LLP specialises in representing policyholders against insurers and acted for Corbin & King and its various subsidiaries in this matter.

The affected businesses

1. Restaurants, including restaurants and dining rooms in hotels or members’ clubs.
2. (1) Cafes, including workplace canteens (subject to sub-paragraph (2)) but not including—
   (a) cafes or canteens at a hospital, care home or school;
   (b) canteens at a prison or an establishment intended for use for naval, military or air force purposes or for the purposes of the Department of the Secretary of State responsible for defence;
   (c) services providing food or drink to the homeless.
   (2) Workplace canteens may remain open where there is no practical alternative for staff at that workplace to obtain food.
3. Bars, including bars in hotels or members’ clubs.
4. Public houses.
5. Cinemas.
6. Theatres.
7. Nightclubs.
8. Bingo halls.
9. Concert halls.
10. Museums and galleries.
11. Casinos.
12. Betting shops.
13. Spas.
14. Nail, beauty, hair salons and barbers.
15. Massage parlours.
16. Tattoo and piercing parlours.
17. Skating rinks.
18. Indoor fitness studios, gyms, swimming pools, bowling alleys, amusement arcades or soft play areas or other indoor leisure centres or facilities.
19. Funfairs (whether outdoors or indoors).
20. Playgrounds, sports courts and outdoor gyms.
21. Outdoor markets (except for stalls selling food).
22. Car showrooms.
23. Auction Houses.

Source: Paragraph 52 [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm)

In an article for April’s PLC Magazine, Lauren Murphy from our Insurance Litigation team examines the recent Corbin & King v AXA Covid-19 business interruption judgment and and how this welcome news for policyholders is an important step in their efforts to recover the losses that they have suffered as a result of the pandemic.

In a decision that policyholders will welcome, the owners and operators of a number of well-known restaurants and cafés in and around London have succeeded in a claim for business interruption losses suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of their insurer’s rejection of their claims, Corbin & King Limited sought declarations that the insurer was bound to indemnify them.

In a decision that policyholders will welcome, the owners and operators of a number of well-known restaurants and cafés in and around London have succeeded in a claim for business interruption (BI) losses suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (Corbin & King Limited and others v Axa Insurance UK Plc [2022] EWHC 409).

Pandemic closures
The claimants, Corbin & King Limited and its subsidiaries, issued claims against their insurer, Axa Insurance UK Plc, under the non-damage denial of access (NDDA) cover in a policy of insurance which provided BI cover from November 2019 to November 2020. Corbin & King’s BI losses arose from the enforced closure of their restaurants and cafés as a result of the regulations passed in response to the pandemic. In light of Axa’s rejection of their claims, Corbin & King sought declarations that Axa was bound to indemnify them…

You can read Lauren’s article in full on PLC magazine’s website.

Edwin Coe represent Corbin & King Ltd.

Jersey based CleanTech Lithium PLC is involved in the exploration and development of lithium, which is a core component of batteries needed for the rapidly growing electric vehicle market. The company plans to produce commercial scale quantities of battery grade lithium, with near zero emissions, through the development of the Laguna Verde and Francisco Basin projects in Chile, with production projected to commence in 2024. CleanTech Lithium uses a new process called Direct Lithium Extraction which minimises the environmental impact of the metal’s extraction.

Edwin Coe’s team was led by Daniel Bellau who commented, “It was a pleasure to work with the teams at Beaumont Cornish and Fox-Davies Capital on this successful IPO. Congratulations to CleanTech Lithium and I wish them success in their forthcoming projects.”

You can read CleanTech Lithium’s news release on their website.

The exhaustion of intellectual property (IP) rights for goods exported from the UK into the European Economic Area (EEA) was one of the biggest practical changes brought about by Brexit, writes Simon Miles in the latest edition of the ECTA Bulletin.

The position pre-Brexit

Prior to 31 December 2020, the UK was still considered part of the EEA for the purposes of the EU’s regional exhaustion of IP rights regime. The principle of exhaustion of IP rights limits IP right holders’ control following the first sale of their product. The rule provides that any IP rights in goods first placed on the market by (or with the consent of) the IP right holder anywhere in the EEA would be considered exhausted in the rest of the EEA. This prevented the right holder re-asserting its national rights in one EEA country in order to prevent goods from being resold or imported in other parts of the EEA. In practice this meant that the goods could be parallel imported into the UK from the EEA and also parallel exported out of the UK into the EEA.

The position post-Brexit

After 31 December 2020 the UK chose to maintain the EEA’s regional exhaustion regime. This regime retains the status quo with regards to imports of goods into the UK from the EEA and EU right holders continue to be free to export goods into the UK. However, it is an asymmetric system because the EU has not reciprocated. IP rights in goods first placed on the market in the UK are no longer considered exhausted in the EEA. In practice this means that owners of UK IP rights are not able to prevent parallel imports from the EEA into the UK, but owners of EEA rights will be able to prevent goods put on the market in the UK from being sold in the EU.

The consultation

In June 2021, the UK Government launched a consultation seeking views on the most appropriate exhaustion regime in the UK for IP rights in the future. The consultation period ended at the end of August and the UK Intellectual Property Office and the Government are currently considering the responses submitted by stakeholders. Their recommendations will be published shortly.

The four options

The consultation paper set out four options for a future exhaustion regime in the UK:

– Unilateral EEA (UK+) regime: The current regime remains in place with no further changes. Parallel imports would be permitted only from the EEA to the UK, except to the extent that any other EEA member state chooses to reciprocate and allow parallel imports from the UK. The consultation paper notes that this option is considered compatible with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

– National regime: IP rights would only be exhausted once goods are put on the market in the UK and therefore parallel imports from outside the UK would be prohibited. Under this regime, IP owners gain greater control over the distribution of their products but the regime would be likely to be unpopular with exporters based in the EU. However, the regime could negatively impact consumers by reducing supply and consumer choice and, in-turn, increasing the price of products. The big issue here is that the UK Government considers the regime to be incompatible with the Northern Ireland Protocol, which allows goods to move freely from EU Member States (including the Republic of Ireland) into Northern Ireland.

– International regime: IP rights are exhausted in the UK if they are placed on the market anywhere outside the UK (and not just the EEA). Historically, and prior to EU-derived law relating to exhaustion taking effect in the UK, it is fair to say that relevant UK law developed along the lines of an international approach. Essentially, goods may freely be imported into the UK from the rest of the world without the permission of the right holder, whilst the extent of parallel exports being permitted from the UK would depend on the law in the destination country. This option could have the effect of reducing the value of IP rights (including their value to licensees), could cause product safety and quality issues and might impair access to certain goods such as pharmaceuticals and educational books. However, under this regime consumers could benefit from improved choice and reduced prices. Manufacturers who have a complex supply chain might also benefit from this regime.

– Mixed regime: A specific good, sector or IP right is subject to one regime, while all others are subject to a different regime. For example, Switzerland has a regime where most goods can be parallel imported but there is a separate national regime for medicines. The consultation paper notes that a mixed regime may be difficult for businesses and consumers to understand. Many goods are protected by multiple IP rights and therefore it could be difficult for a business to determine where the rights in such goods are exhausted. Any formulation of a mixed regime would need to be compliant with the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Conclusion

The UK Government has stated that it does not have a preferred option for the UK’s future exhaustion regime and will assess all options in light of representations and evidence received. However, the Government has made it clear that any new regime will need to comply with existing treaty obligations such as the Northern Ireland Protocol. This factor would count against the implementation of a national regime and, possibly, a mixed regime. The consultation sought advice not only on which options the businesses would prefer, but also the length of time that would be needed for them to adapt to a new regime. The consultation ended in August, and it is therefore expected that the results will be published in the next few months.

A link to the Government’s consultation document can be found here.

You download a PDF copy of Simon Miles’ article here.

This article originally appeared in the March 2022 edition of the ECTA Bulletin and is reproduced with their kind permission.

Law 360 recently spoke to Tom Johnson from our Litigation & Dispute Resolution team on the recent decision by the Court of Appeal to revive a lawsuit against Barclays Bank over a scam which may have reopened an avenue for duped clients to sue lenders for breaching their duty to protect against fraud – the so-called Quincecare duty.

An English appeals court has rekindled hopes that victims of push payment fraud can sue banks for compensation, although actually pinning liability on lenders for breaching a key legal obligation may prove to be an uphill battle, attorneys say.

The Court of Appeal’s decision on Monday to revive Fiona Philipp’s lawsuit against Barclays Bank UK PLC over a £700,000 fraud might have reopened an avenue for consumers who were duped to sue lenders for breaching their duty to protect against fraud…

…There are unresolved questions as a result about what a bank could and should do for its customers, according to Edwin Coe LLP barrister Thomas Johnson.

“It keeps the candle burning for victims of authorized push payment fraud,” Johnson said. “Whether it applies to any individual case is ultimately a question of fact.”

Read the full article on Law 360’s website (subscription may be required).

Shams Rahman of our Property Litigation team recently spoke to The Wall Street Journal on the restrictions placed on sanctioned Russian oligarchs forbidding routine transactions on the properties and businesses they own, and whether being unable to pay ground rent notably to The Crown Estate, might eventually trigger repossessions.

Land beneath the oligarch’s 1848-built mansion is owned by the Crown Estate, which oversees a roughly $18 billion portfolio of land and other assets on behalf of the British Crown.

Roman Abramovich isn’t allowed to pay rent to Queen Elizabeth.

The U.K. has sanctioned nearly two dozen Russian oligarchs as well as a set of Russian banks and other companies tied to the Kremlin, and added Mr. Abramovich, the Russian billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club, on Thursday.

These sanctions are designed to block oligarchs from making money in the West—to exact financial pain on those close to President Vladimir Putin. But they have also spawned a raft of rules that upend more routine transactions related to properties and businesses they own. These include ground rent payments to the monarchy…

…What happens if he isn’t able to pay or get a license for his rent? The Crown Estate spokeswoman declined to comment.

Shams Rahman, a litigator at law firm Edwin Coe, has worked on a case involving a neighbouring property with a similar lease to Mr. Abramovich’s. He said that in theory, if the Crown Estate isn’t paid, it could begin the process of taking possession of the property.

But it would be a long road that could be contested, he said, adding that the rights given to property owners in the U.K. mean Mr. Abramovich and any other oligarchs are unlikely to see their real estate seized soon….

Read the full article on the Wall Street Journal website (subscription may be required).

Clare was a Partner within the employment department at Goodman Derrick LLP; prior to that, Clare she spent three years working in HR for a recruitment company and she regularly advises clients in the recruitment sector. Clare advises across the range of contentious and non-contentious employment matters.

Edwin Coe’s Head of Employment, Linky Trott commented “I am delighted to welcome Clare to the firm. Her wealth of expertise and experience makes her a perfect fit for our Employment team and in ensuring that we continue to deliver the very best service to our clients.”

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that Property Partner, Joanne McIvor has been appointed the Women in Property’s South East Chair for 2022-23.

Joanne and a number of other members of our Property & Construction teams have been actively involved in Women in Property for several years, arranging and attending events. Joanne commented “To achieve diversity in an organisation, you have first to be inclusive. This has been the Women in Property ethos since its inception back in 1987 and our work continues with this at our core. Now, the conversation is less about gender specifically and has a greater focus on inclusion. We must continue to break through the barriers, the preconceived ideas that still make it difficult for many people to succeed, whether because of gender, race, age, disability or social mobility.”

Head of Property, Stephen Brower commented: “I am delighted that Joanne is able to take a leading role within Women in Property and its work in promoting diversity within the sector.”

Women in Property is a national influencing and networking organisation which creates opportunities, expands knowledge and inspires change for women working in the property and construction industry. They actively seek an industry that is balanced, diverse and inclusive, and encourage an exchange of ideas and expertise through their extensive schedule of best practice workshops, site visits, key note talks and social events. Edwin Coe regularly hosts events and seminars in association with Women in Property.

Further information on Women in Property can be found on their website.

The case considered two important matters of principle: the scope of the Non Damage Denial of Access (“NDDA”) cover in light of the causation analysis of the Supreme Court in the FCA test case and quantum.  In relation to the first matter, the judge concluded that the Supreme Court’s approach to causation should be adopted and that Covid-19 is capable of being a danger within one mile of the insured premises which, coupled with other uninsured but not excluded dangers outside, led to the regulations which caused the closure of the businesses and caused the Business Interruption loss. In relation to the second matter, the judge held that the NDDA cover provided a separate limit of £250,000 for each individual premises in respect of each claim (rather than a single limit of £250,000 in relation to all of the premises for any one claim).

The judgment will come as welcome news to claimant policyholders, many of whom have materially identical NDDA clauses in their policy wordings and have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of this case. Head of Edwin Coe’s Insurance Litigation team, Roger Franklin, commented as follows:

“This judgment is a very important step for Policyholders in their efforts to recover the losses they have suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of Covid-19.  Those in the hospitality sector have been particularly hard hit, and this decision will be significant for many of them.”

Edwin Coe LLP specialises in representing policyholders against insurers and acted for Corbin & King and its various subsidiaries in this matter. If you have a claim which you think should be pursued as a result of this decision, please contact Roger Franklin or any member of our Insurance Litigation team and we can advise on your available options.

A copy of the judgment can be found here. A full analysis of the judgment will be published shortly.

Led by CG Restaurants & Bars Limited, the owners of the well-known independent group of cocktail bars Dirty Martini and numerous other bars and restaurants across the UK, the group will focus on recovering an indemnity for the multiple lockdowns that have occurred as a result of the pandemic.

Head of Edwin Coe’s Insurance Group, Roger Franklin, said: “The purpose of this action group is to establish the precedent that the RSA 3 wording, which is underwritten by RSA and QIC Europe Ltd, gives rise to multiple indemnity periods and thus, potentially, responds to all the lockdowns and restrictions experienced by the hospitality sector in 2020.   So far insurers have indemnified their insureds for lockdown one only, but that ignores the reality of the policy wording and the government’s response to increasing cases of Covid-19 throughout 2020.”

This case is one of a number of test cases advanced by the firm in respect of business interruption losses caused by Covid-19.  A further test case against AXA and involving the owners of The Wolseley restaurant is due to be heard at the end of January 2022.

Daniel Coffer, Director of CG Restaurants and Bars, commented: “This has been a horrendous time for the hospitality sector, and it will continue to be difficult in the near future.  Hospitality businesses have had to fight tooth and nail to obtain an indemnity from their insurers, notwithstanding the clear terms of the policies they purchased prior to the pandemic.  The continued effect of the new OMICRON variant only highlights the need for members of the hospitality sector to take action to recover the sums to which they are contractually entitled.  Our claim alone is substantial, and there are others who no doubt have similar sized claims who need the protection that this class action will afford.”

How can we help?
At Edwin Coe LLP we have a team of specialist insurance solicitors acting exclusively on claims for policyholders. We are able to assist in reviewing your policies, advising in relation to their terms and in pursuing claims. Policyholders who have been denied claims from these insurers, and are interested in joining the group should contact Roger Franklin or any member of our Insurance Litigation team.

Atome Energy PLC is a Leeds-based green energy company, with large-scale production planned in Iceland and Paraguay targeting the fast-growing global demand for eco-friendly power. Green hydrogen is widely considered to be a key ESG clean energy resource in the UK’s bid to reach net-zero emission targets by 2050. It can be widely used in industries such as heavy goods vehicles, maritime shipping and certain industrial processes where batteries or other forms of alternative power to fossil fuels are not expected to fulfil the required needs.

Daniel Bellau, Partner, led the Edwin Coe team. Daniel commented “We are delighted to have advised our colleagues at Beaumont Cornish, finnCap and S.P. Angel Corporate Finance on this pioneering transaction. Green energy will be increasingly important to us all and we wish Atome Energy every success with their plans.”

You can read Atome Energy’s announcement on their admission to AIM and First Day of Dealings here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that 14 lawyers and 4 practice areas have been recommended in the 2022 edition of Chambers UK: A Client’s Guide to the UK Legal Profession.  As reported in the guide, clients say: “Edwin Coe is a very good firm to work with. They have partners and experts to cover all major legal areas.”

Our Restructuring & Insolvency team retained their band 1 ranking for Personal Insolvency where they are praised for their “very professional” approach.  Simeon Gilchrist has retained his top individual ranking and is seen as “a standout in the personal insolvency space”, whilst Ali Zaidi has also retained his band 2 “Ali Zaidi is very pragmatic with sensible and down-to-earth approaches to problems.”

In addition our Insurance team is again ranked twice – for Insurance Litigation: Mainly Policyholders and also for Professional Negligence. Clients recognise their: “expertise in insurance litigation and depth of knowledge.” Roger Franklin “a brilliant negotiator with a razor-sharp mind” is ranked in both categories. Nicola Maher is again ranked for Insurance Litigation and is described as “a brilliant solicitor and a superb communicator – she is invested in her clients, down to earth and super smart.” Finally, Oliver Pannell has again been recognised as an Associate to Watch.

Our Employment team have also retained band 2 for their Senior Executive work. Commentators note that the team can “handle very challenging and complex work and they are very speedy and efficient.”  Three lawyers are ranked from the team – Linky Trott “makes me feel like I am her most important client, even though she has others, and she has a prevailing understanding of market trends”, and Rachel Harrap “is excellent at identifying key issues and responding appropriately. She is always ahead of the game, anticipating the actions available to the other side and nullifying their possible choices.”

Head of Intellectual Property Simon Miles is ranked for IP, of his work, one client said “Simon’s strategy was expert and he is resilient.” whilst Joanna Osborne recognised for Property Litigation “Joanna is absolutely committed to her clients and works phenomenally hard, leaving no stone unturned.” Finally Russel Shear retains his ranking for Mid-Market M&A.

Congratulations to all involved!

Edwin Coe is recommended in the UK, High Net Worth and Global directories. Chambers’ independent research collects information about organisations, individuals and the marketplace, conducting thousands of interviews a year with in-house counsel and third-party experts, such as barristers and accountants, to deliver detailed insight into providers of legal services. You can view our results on Chambers’ website.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that it has contributed to a new report designed to promote Jersey’s expertise in managing international capital, and its commercial, legal and regulatory framework that meets the needs of its Indian clients and their advisers. ‘Jersey’s Relationship with India: Political, Commercial and Cultural Connections’ looks at what gives Jersey a competitive edge, putting it at the forefront of global banking, wealth management and corporate services.

Tax Partner Hetal Sanghvi wrote an article on how for Indian investors and their families, Jersey forms a bridge into the UK and Europe. Hetal has a substantial Indian client base and works with many families and their advisors with multi-jurisdictional investments. “For many of our clients and their families, Jersey plays a key role in their wealth structuring, as they look to diversify currency risk, asset base and jurisdictional exposure for the family’s interests,” she commented.

Funded by members of the local finance industry and the Government of Jersey, Jersey Finance has a global presence with offices in Jersey, New York, Dubai and Hong Kong, representation in London, and virtual offices in Shanghai and Mumbai. They aim to create a safe, ethical and secure environment for investors.

You can read and download a copy of the document on the Jersey Finance website.

Class Action specialist, Zahira Hussain, an Edwin Coe Partner, said “Edwin Coe is once again at the forefront of the battle against cartels. We are litigating these claims in both the High Court and the Competition Appeal Tribunal and now over 125 businesses, large and small, have come to us to use our expertise in this area of the law, from small enterprises to major breweries, to renowned high street names, all of which claim losses of tens of millions pounds at the hands of the cartel. As well as relying on our peerless experience fighting cartels, our clients have the benefit of insurance that gives a guaranteed return on damages awarded, without any risk. No wonder businesses are fighting their way to the Edwin Coe door.”

“As a result of the cartel, any business which purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 is likely to have overpaid for its trucks. Edwin Coe is seeking damages from the truck manufacturers on behalf of clients.”

“We are delighted that we are already assisting so many clients on a no win, no fee basis, with the ability to continue doing so for future claimants. Our website carries a wealth of further information on the action, and I would be delighted to discuss it further with anyone who has an interest in signing up to this class action.”

Contact us
Edwin Coe’s Trucks Cartel team is able to advise on all aspects of the claim across Europe. If you or your business used trucks (whether bought, rented or leased) in the period, please contact Zahira Hussain in order to discuss the matter further.

Background
Five truck manufacturers, MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF, have admitted to the European Commission that they participated in a price fixing cartel against purchasers of their trucks from 1997 until 2011. There has also been a finding against a sixth manufacturer, Scania, by the European Commission.

In 2018, Edwin Coe issued a first claim on behalf of clients in the High Court. The firm recently issued two more claims in the High Court on behalf of further clients in November 2020.

The team dealing with the claims is considering making further claims on behalf of clients. If you or your business bought, leased or outsourced trucks weighing 6 tonnes or more, here or in Europe, between 1997 and 2011 (the cartel period), you will have a claim.

Edwin Coe has funding in place, which means you can pursue your claim without cost or risk, subject to assessment of the claim.

Edwin Coe’s Class Action Team
Edwin Coe is at the forefront of the growing field of class actions. We are one of a handful of UK firms specialising in this type of work, bringing cases against entities whose actions have caused damage to small or large groups of people. We advise on the stages involved in pursuing a class action and the various options for funding.

Further Information
Our Truck Cartel portal is available here

Brenna Baye of our Construction & Engineering team recently spoke to Construction Law regarding the proposed Construction (Retentions Abolition) Bill 2021-22.

A Private Member’s Bill proposing to abolish cash retentions within construction contracts has had its first reading in the House of Lords. Lawyers suggest outlawing retentions is not the answer and the Bill is unlikely to make it through Parliament.

The Construction (Retentions Abolition) Bill introduced by Lord Aberdare looks to outlaw the practice – common within the construction sector – of allowing the paying party to withhold as security against the risk of contractual non-performance sums which would otherwise be due.

This latest attempt to tackle the issue of retentions comes after Conservative MP Peter Aldous’ Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill failed to complete its passage through Parliament two years ago. It sought to safeguard construction suppliers’ cash retentions through the establishment of mandatory retention deposit schemes.

The new Bill goes further by proposing to amend the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 to provide that any clause enabling a payer to withhold retentions in a construction contract entered into after the passing of the Bill would take no effect…

Read the full article here (Subscription required)

Brenna has written a series of blogs on retentions, available on our website:

• November 2021: The return of the debate on retentions
• October 2019: Retentions; to be continued
• January 2018: Private Members’ Bill introduced for construction retentions
• November 2017: Is your money being retained? Time to have your say