In a business environment unfortunately disputes arise. Small or large they need to be resolved as efficiently as possible either to restore the relationship or to ensure the best commercial result possible. This may require urgent action to be taken to protect commercial assets.
Edwin Coe is a leader, in London, in the field of commercial litigation. It has the experience and resources to represent clients in disputes from day to day transactions to international contracts and relationships. Whilst the litigation’s teams focus is in London our lawyers have litigated for clients in many jurisdictions round the World and in many tribunals, including arbitrations in the all the major international institutions.
Some disputes may require very urgent relief in order to forestall further breaches of contract, the disposal of assets or the destruction of evidence. This is particularly true when allegations of fraud arise. Our civil fraud practice is well noted in the legal guides. We have the capacity and experience to ensure that clients secure early protection against fraud and its effect.
Whilst the background to our work is litigation our aim is to resolve disputes and crises for clients in the most effective manner. This often involves mediation and other alternative methods, such as arbitration. We have long experience in the mediation process, both as mediators and representative of parties. Similarly our lawyers include both arbitrators and those very experienced in the arbitration process.
Legal 500 2019 Ranking
- Commercial Litigation
Examples of our recent work include:
- Jolyon Maugham QC v Uber  EWHC 391 (Ch)
Instructed by Mr Jolyon Maugham QC to prosecute Uber London Limited (“Uber”).The relief sought is a declaration that Uber is required to provide Mr Maugham with a VAT invoice in relation to the supply of transport services in the form of a private hire vehicle on 15 March 2017. The requirement is said to arise under regulations 13 and 14 of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995. Mr Maugham also seeks an order that Uber provide him with a VAT invoice in relation to that supply.
Uber denies that it provides transport services. Its case is that it acts as an intermediary between the user and the third party driver who provides the transport. It follows, so Uber contends, that the only person from whom Mr Maugham could be entitled to receive a VAT invoice is the driver, and whether one will be provided will depend on whether the driver is registered for VAT. In this case (and doubtless in most other cases) the relevant driver was not registered for VAT.
- ICSID arbitration arising from investment in gold mining in Armenia
- A major international partnership dispute in the Commercial Court and in three other jurisdictions
- Claims against banks relating to the sale of Interest Rate Hedging Products
Edwin Coe LLP has a hands-on litigation department that goes beyond what would normally be expected of litigators to ach...
The Legal 500 2019
Team is known for its strong litigation credentials, and excellent technical knowledge.
Chambers UK 2015