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

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.

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.”

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)

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).

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!

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.

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.

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).

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?”

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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).

David Greene writes in the latest edition of the Law Society Gazette on the Civil Justice Council’s recent report on guideline hourly rates – the tool used by Costs Judges in assessing the costs a successful party can recover from the opposing party if their claim is successful.

I was on the last attempt to revise guideline hourly rates (GHRs), the Foskett Inquiry, and the problem it faced was lack of data. This latest attempt, which reported on Friday, sought to override that problem by an entirely different approach. But it still faced data problems and, as it has explained, itself has taken in some aspects a broad brush approach.

Foskett J’s committee sought to establish a true foundation to guideline hourly rates through assessment of the cost of time. This is an old exercise that was used from time to time in assessments of costs. In order to establish the correct hourly rate parties might submit to the assessment court an expense of time statement. This would then be used as the foundation for the hourly rate allowed by the court.

Foskett and the experts sought to apply this exercise more generally, although they had to do so within the constricts of competition law which had previously stopped a similar exercise. The problem however was that the data collected was not sufficient to establish rates of general application.

The committee made recommendations, but because of the lack of data the then master of the rolls decided not take up the recommendations. The exercise was almost completely wasted. It was thought then that GHRs would wither on the vine and courts would start using their own rates.

The CJC decided that was not good enough, did not provide a sound basis and meant that there would be no uniformity or record of what was likely to be allowed…

Read David’s article on The Law Society Gazette’s website.

HHJ Kaul QC commenced both High Court proceedings and Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice alleging mistreatment by high ranking members of the judiciary in relation to a substantial criminal trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court over which she presided. All three defended on the basis that the constitutional relationship and position of judges meant that none of them had any duty of care or liability for judges’ conduct. They prayed in aid that the independence of the judiciary meant that judges are independently working for the purposes of the

administration of justice in accordance with their oaths of office and in relation to grievances, effectively, self-governing.

Today the Government accepted that this element of the Defence is no longer sustainable and in a formal admission[i] to the Court accepted that the Government does owe a duty of care to judges and is liable for judges’ conduct.

David Greene, Senior Partner of Edwin Coe LLP and past President of the Law Society, representing HHJ Kaul QC said;

“My client is naturally happy that this concession is now made albeit two years into the case. She took a stance at great emotional and personal expense, for all judges to ensure she and they work in a safe environment and that the Government takes responsibility for it”

“The Government has maintained throughout this case and many others, against the flow of modern obligations; the age old constitutional position that the independence of judges meant it had no duty to ensure that judges worked in an environment absent of bullying or mistreatment.  They said that that obligation might apply to everyone else but not to judges.  We are pleased that they have abandoned that core element of their defence.  It is unfortunate that it has taken so long to do so, until just before the first hearing. In the statement to the court the Government has accepted blame for the delay.[ii]

“This is an issue of some constitutional and practical importance for judges and the administration of justice. The independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct but the Government now accepts, for the first time, that it has an obligation to ensure a safe and secure working environment even in the relationship between judges. We may well see a flood of claims by judges now emboldened to speak out against bullying and mistreatment.”

Hopefully this admission will now lead to action and the Government will live up to its admitted responsibility. We want our great judges to do the day job without fear of their working environment”

“For the future and taking my client’s diminutive name, I hope this sea change will in future be known as “Kally’s Law” in recognition of her fortitude and bravery in pressing this issue”

END

Liam Ryan of 7 Bedford Row is counsel for the Claimant

GLD acts for the Defendants

[i] “If negligence is found on the part of those judges against whom allegations of negligence are pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, or on the part of the other Defendants, then the Crown will be liable to the Claimant in damages, and the Ministry of Justice is the correct authorised government department for the purposes of Section 17 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

[ii] “The Defendants accept that it would have been better had the admission been made sooner.

The Defendants wish to reassure the court that they have given careful and detailed consideration to this claim throughout.

The decision to make the admission has been the subject of very careful consideration. The Ministry of Justice hopes that by making the admission now, it narrows the issues in dispute, saves expense to both parties, and reduces the burden on the court’s limited time and resources.” Government statement to Court of 22 July 2021

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that six of our solicitors were included in the tenth edition of The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom which has just been released. The 2022 UK edition recognizes the professional excellence of 5,436 lawyers in 83 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 2022 Guide
For 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.

Lawyers who are nominated for consideration are voted on by currently recognized Best Lawyers working in the same practice area and located in the same 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 to make sure they are currently still in private practice. Only then can these top lawyers be recognized by Best Lawyers.

• Can one individual represent millions of unnamed consumers in pursuit of a claim. This is a first in English procedure outside cartel cases and reflects US style class actions. Will the court’s support it?
• A whole string of cases for data breaches has followed the appeal decision and they will be affected by the decision in the Supreme Court.
• Do all consumers whose data has been used suffer the same damage
• What damages are payable for the misuse of data in breach of the Data Protection Act and the EU Data Directive
• If the Court of Appeal judgment does not stand how do consumers pursue compensation available under the statute.

David Greene, Senior Partner of Edwin Coe LLP said “This is a super important case in establishing the respective rights of the consumer to control information about them and the rights of platforms and web sites to garner information through cookies and then sell or use it. If the Supreme Court goes the way of the Court of Appeal it will open up a whole range of possibilities for consumers not just in the field of data farming but in other wider consumer claims.”

David Greene, partner in Edwin Coe LLP said “Vostochny Bank (often referred to as Orient Express Bank) has been mired in controversy since U.S. investor Michael Calvey, the founder of private equity group Baring Vostok, was detained along with other fund executives in 2019 after state investigators accused them of embezzlement related to the bank.”

“The issue the bondholders had was unrelated but turned on a change to the terms of the bonds. With claims of US$75 million the issue looked set for litigation in London but discussions between the parties lead to resolution and the bondholders reached agreement on terms that are wrapped up in the acquisition of Vostochny by Sovcombank. This is a great result for the Edwin Coe team in their continuing work for major Russian clients.”

The litigation was handled by the Group and Finance litigation team at Edwin Coe LLP, led by Senior Partner David Greene and Senior Associate Fred Sheppard.

AstraZeneca appears to be in danger of breaching its contract to supply the EU, and may have to renegotiate its contract to supply Covid-19 vaccines to the EU, the UK or both, warned David Greene, our Senior Partner and current President of The Law Society when he recently spoke to The Guardian.

To the anger of European leaders, the Anglo-Swedish company has said it will only be able to deliver 25% of the 100m doses pledged to the bloc by the end of March due to a production problem in Belgium.

AstraZeneca has claimed that its vaccine contract with the EU obliges it only to make “best efforts” to supply the bloc. Although the terms of the deal are unknown, AstraZeneca has indicated it may publish the contract on Friday…

…David Greene, the president of the Law Society and a senior partner at Edwin Coe, where he litigates contracts, said: “If they [AZ] gave assurances that they made reasonable best efforts to supply the EU but were in fact diverting material from one place to another, that would on the face of it be a potential breach of obligations to use reasonable best efforts.”

Read the full article on the Guardian’s website and a second piece: Lawyers disagree over AstraZeneca’s duty to supply vaccines to EU.

The challenge to the A Level algorithm met with immediate success. The firm was acting for a student from a school with a challenging academic record who had a place at Bristol to do law. His predicted grades were reversed by the use of the applied algorithm and he lost his place. A letter before action was written following which the Government abandoned the algorithm and restored assessment undertaken by schools.

David Greene, Senior Partner, said “This severely affected our client who, was the first of his family going to University, had a place to read law at Bristol University. He lost that place as a result of the recalculation of his A Level results on the application of the Government’s algorithm. We wrote a letter before action in accordance with the pre-action protocol. It is a real pleasure that the Government has reversed its decision because, like thousands of others, the result gives the client the chance of getting back his place. The problem many face now, however, is the level of oversubscription at University. We remain hopeful that the client will secure his place. He’ll make a great lawyer.”

“We also issued proceedings on 14th August against the Post Office for judicial review of aspects of their compensation scheme for sub-postmasters established following a devastating judgment by the High Court in December on their treatment of sub-postmasters. Following that judgment the Post Office has set up a scheme to compensate those that were not party to the proceedings. That scheme has several flaws and is wholly inappropriate to establish the level of compensation due. We have issued on behalf of a former sub-postmaster whose life has been devastated by the utterly disgraceful conduct of the Post Office.”

Thomas Johnson‘s recent article “Frustration, it is a common mistake” – Termination of agreement arising from Covid-19, was republished in the May edition of the British Malaysian Chamber of Commerce’s newsletter and on their website:

Governments around the world have taken extraordinary measures to curb the novel and mutating Covid-19 to alleviate its economic consequences. In the struggle to get a grip on the virus’s devastating effect, businesses, large and small, are taking matters into their own hands and exploring ways to mitigate losses by terminating commercial agreements which have been rendered redundant or simply no longer viable. Many seek to do so without risk or penalty. The doctrine of common mistake may, in certain circumstances, provide the answer that companies are looking for…

Read the 11th May edition of the British Malaysian Chamber of Commerce’s newsletter. More information on the BMCC and the services it offers, please see their website.

Read Thomas Johnson’s original article here.

David Greene, Senior Partner at Edwin Coe LLP, says:

“The issues are of supreme constitutional importance. It is vital that those issues are fully developed in court.  Our clients, who are members of parliament, seek naturally a political resolution in Parliament to the question of whether the UK should leave the EU without a deal but believe that their entitlement as MPs to take a full part in that debate and decision is being unlawfully curtailed. They join the action to ensure that the voice of backbench MPs is heard in the question of whether the foundation of the proroguing of Parliament is lawful”

Jess Phillips MP commented:

“When the Prime Minister took the decision to prorogue Parliament it was a sad day for our democracy. Not only does he seek to gag Parliament from its clear opposition to ‘no deal’ but he is throwing out pending legislation including the Domestic Violence Bill. The Bill is dedicated to addressing the issues faced by victims of violent crime, and those who provide the services that respond.

Since 2013, the All-Party Parliamentary Group in partnership with Women’s Aid and in collaboration with survivors, national and regional specialist services, academics and professionals (such as those working in the criminal justice system and local authorities), have worked together to shape and promote the Bill, a key aspect of which is the barring of abusers from cross-examining their victims in the family courts – a practice which can, from first-hand experience does, cause immense distress and amount to a continuation of abuse. This is a vital piece of legislation to protect the victims of domestic abuse, an urgent piece of legislation that will be lost. Those that it seeks to protect will be victims of the Prime Minister’s decision to ride rough shod over our democracy.”

Alex Sobel MP said:

“It is absolutely clear that the proroguing of Parliament is a device to shut down the opposition to ‘no deal’. The intent of the Prime Minister to rob Parliament of its constitutional rights is unlawful.  As a Member of Parliament, I have been elected by the electorate to represent them but Boris Johnson now wants to take away from the electorate their rights that are part and parcel of our democracy by shutting me out of the constitutional decision making process in Parliament. In seeking to challenge that in court I am standing up for my constituents’ democratic rights to be exercised through Parliament.”

The claim will be presented alongside Ms Miller’s legal team in the High Court on Thursday.

In the August 19 issue of Claims Focus, The Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters membership magazine, Oliver Pannell discusses the progress made in the two years passing of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and the replacing of potentially dangerous cladding.

“Two public investigations were launched following the tragedy. The one which has featured most in the press is that chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, examining the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the Grenfell fire and which, when complete, aims to make recommendations as to the action needed to prevent a similar tragedy happening again”.

To read the full article, please click here. 

The Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters (CILA) is an organisation of individual members. The Institute sets the professional and ethical standards for those who work in the handling of insurance claims.

This article was first produced by The Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters and has been reproduced in kind.

To suggest the Law Society has failed to discharge its responsibility to the public over non-disclosure agreements is simply not correct, says Senior Partner of Edwin Coe and deputy vice president of the Law Society, David Greene.

Few legal issues have caused more controversy and debate in recent months than the use, or misuse, of confidentiality clauses or non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

The #MeToo movement and scandals such as Harvey Weinstein and the Presidents Club have dragged NDAs out of the shadows and into the limelight. Legitimate fears have been raised that such tools have been used to cover up abuse, or even allow it to continue.

The role of solicitors in drafting these clauses is a vital public issue: it’s both appropriate and right that we have embraced this debate. The profession has a public legal education role to play – it’s clear there needs to be a better awareness amongst the public of what all parties need to know before signing an agreement.

You can read the full article here

The order was made in proceedings in which Edwin Coe represents over 90 claimants, individuals from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, who lost approximately £3.5 million paid to purchase holiday homes in the South of Italy. The Italian mafia and the IRA were involved in the developments in question, which were seized by Italian financial police and never completed. In the meantime, the purchasers’ deposits were paid away unlawfully by the firm who had been nominated by the developers and were acting for the purchasers.

The purchasers brought suit against the firm, whose defence was in large measure funded by their insurer, AIG. As the Court found, the litigation was fought fiercely and unreasonably on the part of the defendants:

“Every possible point was taken on behalf of the Defendants and such concessions as were made were made very late and made only when the position being maintained hitherto was plainly untenable.”

The purchasers prevailed at trial on all points and then again before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, in appeals pursued fruitlessly by the defendants. After having been awarded its costs against the defendants, the purchasers then applied to have those costs paid by their insurer.

Costs are not automatically awarded against an insurer who funds the defence. In this case, however, the Court was persuaded that such an order was appropriate: Mr Justice Foskett found that AIG had bankrolled the Defendants’ unreasonable conduct for their own commercial reasons and in so doing had failed to exercise the powers they enjoyed to require the Defendants litigate reasonably. In the judge’s words:

“The objective observer, which I was for this purpose, could readily conclude that this was a war of attrition, but one which would probably have been substantially avoided if AIG’s funding had not been provided and AIG had exercised proper control over the expenditure.”

As well as granting the purchasers costs in the High Court, the Court also awarded them the costs of the application.

David Greene, Senior Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution at Edwin Coe and the partner in charge of this litigation, says:

“This decision is an important victory for our clients, who have suffered both delay and needless expense due to the conduct of both the defendants and AIG. The way in which AIG funded and directed (or refused to direct) the defence in these proceedings deserved condemnation, and our clients deserved compensation; this decision provides both.”

David Greene, Edwin Coe’s Senior Partner was interviewed on the Sky News programme, Ian King Live, on Wednesday evening (7th November), discussing the impact of Brexit on the legal sector and on people’s lives.

David suggested that a ‘No Deal’ Brexit could have a substantial impact on the legal sector as well as the wider British economy.

He highlighted two day-to-day areas that would be affected by this – the right to access compensation if a package holiday goes wrong and how insurance disputes would be handled after a car accident while in the European Union.

Part of his interview is available on the Sky News website.

In this article for New Law Journal, David Greene discusses the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and what this means for lawyers and their clients.

It would be underplaying the divisions over Brexit to suggest it’s like Marmite: you love or hate it. Brexit gets passions flaming in a way that is relatively unique in the British polity, vide the thousands who turned out for an anti-Brexit demonstration last week. While there are many who still do not think Brexit will happen or that it will happen in name only (coined as ‘BRINO’), as lawyers we search out something concrete, some certainty.

To read the full article, please click here.

Litigators look set to dominate the ranks of the Law Society of England & Wales’s leadership, as Chancery Lane confirms interim chief executive in post.

July will see a new face in the leadership line-up at Chancery Lane, with Edwin Coe’s senior partner David Greene being elected to the post of deputy vice president and future vice president and president. He will be one of two high profile litigators in the slate for the next three years…

Read the full article here.

The Giambrone judgment offers a warning to conveyancing lawyers who undertake wider obligations than the standard as they now might find themselves liable for their clients’ wider losses.  If nothing further this case should serve as a warning to practitioners to take extra care in the new post-BPE era.

Edwin Coe acted for some of the claimants in Giambrone.

To read the article in full, please click here.

David is the firm’s Senior Partner and Head of the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Group. He led the Article 50 Brexit litigation in 2016 and has worked on group actions in the UK since the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. He has for many years advised sovereign states on disputes in international tribunals and particularly specialises in work involving governments in sub-Saharan Africa advising on civil justice and human rights.

Managing Partner, Nick Giles said “We are delighted that David has been elected to lead the profession. It is well deserved recognition for his hard work and dedication in campaigning for civil justice and in his pioneering group action litigation work.”

In this article for New Law Journal, David Greene discusses the transitional and long term effects of Brexit for civil justice.

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best, says David Greene.

The Brexit negotiations enter a new stage and drop away from the headlines as the negotiators get down to the detail. The Transitional Agreement (TA), albeit not yet in its final form, adding just short of two years to the exit process has calmed slightly the exit jitters for business and law firms promising the general retention of the status quo until December 2020.

To read the article in full, please click here.

In this article for New Law Journal, David Greene discusses Civil justice reform and questions if Judges should be the final arbiter.

Lord Justice Jackson retires this week with some unfinished business. His contribution to civil justice has been immense and NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan described some of this in NLJ last week (see ‘Jackson LJ: a lasting legacy’). I am sure Jackson would have preferred to remain in place to see all his reforms completed but the conscripted retirement age for the judiciary has seen him leave the bench at the height of his career.

To read the article in full, please click here.

In this interview with The Law Society Gazette, David Greene gives an overview of his career as a lawyer, discussing Brexit and some of his most notable cases.

Greene observes: ‘The passion instilled in the whole issue of Brexit is unfortunately reflected in the “hate mail” that we and others have received. This Article 50 argument is about the rule of law. Is what the executive proposes in giving notice of withdrawal from the EU without further parliamentary assent lawful?

To read the article in full, please click here.

In this article for New Law Journal, David Greene discusses the progress of the UK’s transition out of Europe. 

It is, of course, an old political trick to keep going on about the detailed mundane issues relating to a policy, in order to bore stakeholders into submission. Brexit might be taking on that guise…

To read the article in full, please click here.

“I’ve been lucky” repeats David “One may make one’s own luck by putting yourself in the right place at the right time but the great thing about the life of the litigator is that you simply do not know what will
come through the door.”

To read more please click here.

First published in The City of Westminster and Holborn Law Society magazine.

In this article for The Law Society Gazette, David Greene discusses the future of civil justice and litigation as we head towards Brexit. 

London remains the premier jurisdiction of choice for dispute resolution. But how long will that continue and what developments in litigation are likely as we head towards the Brexit door?

Since Harry Woolf started his work on reforming the civil process, dispute resolution has been in constant flux. If anything, change is gathering pace as we seek an accessible, modern civil justice system for individuals, SMEs and international litigants…

To read the article in full, please click here.

David Greene, Edwin Coe’s Senior Partner and Head of Litigation, said: “These investors were misled on a wholesale basis. They thought, and were advised, that they were investing into film-backed investments that had potential tax advantages. Now the whole façade presented appears to have been fictional.”

The investors are also represented by tax specialists Newport Tax Management LLP.

Further information on the action may be found here.

Partner David Greene said “The Tory/DUP Agreement of money for votes raises important constitutional issues in relation to political corruption. The Government have conceded that the Agreement is subject to the determination of Parliament but Mr McClean proffers that unless that approval is very specific it is still a corrupt bargain”

The respective cases of the parties as well as the skeleton arguments to be presented to the Court, may be found here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that David Greene, Senior Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution won the Law Society Gazette Legal Personality of the Year 2017 at the Law Society’s 11th Excellence Awards last night.

The Awards are designed to celebrate the very best work across the legal profession and the winners were announced at a ceremony at the Hilton Park Lane, London.

David Greene reflects on the challenges and opportunities ahead of the start of the new legal year with New Law Journal. 

Party conference time. A united public display of open democratic party politics. At least for the Liberals united around the Brexit message…

To read the article in full, please click here.

David Greene comments on Lord Justice Jackson’s recent report on fixed recoverable costs in The Law Society Gazette today:

The Law Society and Lord Justice Jackson have form. The Society has often voiced concern that his reforms have made the justice process more expensive and reduced access. So, when Jackson LJ came to Chancery Lane to launch his report on fixed recoverable costs, one would not have expected a love-in. Yet the tone was conciliatory; two former foes, one in the home of the other, showing mutual respect.

To read the article in full, please click here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that its Senior Partner and Head of both the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Group as well as the Group Action Litigation department, David Greene, has been shortlisted by the Law Society Gazette for Legal Personality of the Year.

The names of the brightest and best from the solicitor profession were unveiled last week by the Law Society in its 11th annual Excellence Awards. The awards recognise the commitment, enthusiasm and passion that solicitors dedicate to serving their clients, and – in the process – underpin our world-renowned legal system.

“To be shortlisted for the Excellence Awards is an achievement to be proud of,” said Society president Joe Egan. “The awards showcase the first rate work and dedication of the profession to their clients and the wider community, and the event is one of the most rewarding and memorable days in the legal calendar.”

Finalists are selected by a panel of experts from within and beyond the profession, and demonstrate the expertise and values shared by solicitors working across England and Wales, from small local practices and in-house teams, to international City firms.

Please click here to view the shortlist.

Winners will be announced at a prestigious black-tie awards dinner on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at the Hilton Park Lane Hotel, London.

A law firm that became embroiled in a property scheme that was abandoned amid allegations of ‘Mafia’ connections has been told it must compensate nearly 200 investors for loss of deposits.

In a judgment handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that Giambrone, an Italian-based international firm, acted negligently over advice it gave to 180 British homebuyers who tried to purchase off-plan luxury apartments in Italy. The clients’ deposits ranged from £30,000 to £105,000.

London firm Edwin Coe acted on behalf the claimants.

To read the article in full, please click here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that it has won the Rule of Law Award for its Article 50 litigation at the Solicitors Journal Awards 2017 last night. David Greene, Senior Partner and Head of Litigation and Group Action, was delighted to accept the award.

David Greene commented: “It’s fulfilling when the work we do is recognised by our peers. The award by the judges for the Solicitors Journal of the Rule of Law Award is particularly pleasing. The Article 50 litigation was of national and international importance and the firm was honoured to be involved.  Peer recognition of that in this award is all the more fulfilling.”

The Solicitors Journal Awards recognise excellence in legal practice and celebrate legal professionals who are making significant contributions to the legal services industry. The awards ceremony took place at the Grand Connaught Rooms, London on Wednesday, 17 May 2017.

Civil justice reforms are likely to be knocked back in the wake of the June general election says Senior Partner David Greene in his latest article for New Law Journal.

To read the article in full, please click here.

Supreme Court holds publishers must pay their opponents’ success fees & ATE insurance.

The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected an attempt by newspaper publishers to contest adverse costs orders on the basis they breached their Art 10 freedom of expression.

In each of three conjoined cases, Times Newspapers & Ors v Flood & Ors[2017] UKSC 33, the publisher had lost either a libel trial—Times Newspapers and Associated Newspapers—or a phone hacking case—MGN—and been ordered to pay the claimant’s costs. The publishers argued that they should not have to pay their opponent’s success fees and after-the-event (ATE) insurance as to do so would breach their Art 10 rights.

Nick Neocleous, who acted for police officer Gary Flood in the case, comments in this New law Journal article. Please click here to read the full article.

Edwin Coe notches up its second significant win in the Supreme Court this year. The law firm that acted for the Claimant in the Article 50 litigation records a second significant win in the Flood litigation with Times Newspapers on which the Supreme Court ruled today.

Nick Neocleous, Edwin Coe partner, has been acting for Gary Flood throughout this case. He comments: “It has been a long and bumpy road, with two trips to the Court of Appeal, two to the Supreme Court and numerous other hearings. It is not a case for the faint-hearted.”

Acting for police officer, Gary Flood, Edwin Coe brought a case for defamation against The Times newspaper after an article was published in The Times and on The Times website suggesting that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Flood had been guilty of corruption for taking bribes from Russian exiles. The matter was complicated by the fact that the printed article in question was kept on the paper’s website in an electronic form after DS Flood had been exonerated by a police investigation. Gary Flood was awarded substantial damages for the website publications as well as all his costs in December 2013. The Times appealed the cost order and their appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in December 2014.

The Times then appealed to the Supreme Court in connection with the cost order and against the order requiring it to pay success fees and the insurance premium. It argued that payment of the success fees and insurance premium violated its rights under the Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. However, today the Court found in favour of Gary Flood. This matter started in 2006 with the initial publication by The Times, and Edwin Coe is delighted with the ruling for its client.

David Greene, Head of Litigation and Senior Partner, and who acted in the Article 50 litigation said: “It has been good to be involved in two of the most significant cases before the Supreme Court this year. As I was coming out of the Article 50 judgment, my partner Nick was going in to the same court for the Flood appeals. These cases do not come along each day but the Edwin Coe team continue to be at the forefront of litigation in London.”

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce its successful Supreme Court ruling with the announcement today of its client’s win against The Times newspaper.

Acting for police officer, Gary Flood, Edwin Coe brought a case for defamation against The Times newspaper after an article was published in The Times and on The Times website suggesting that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Flood had been guilty of corruption for taking bribes from Russian exiles. The matter was complicated by the fact that the printed article in question was kept on the paper’s website in an electronic form after DS Flood had been exonerated by a police investigation. Gary Flood was awarded substantial damages for the website publications as well as all his costs in December 2013. The Times appealed the cost order and their appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in December 2014.

The Times then appealed to the Supreme Court in connection with the cost order and against the order requiring it to pay success fees and the insurance premium.  It argued that payment of the success fees and insurance premium violated its rights under the Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. However, today the Court found in favour of Gary Flood. This matter started in 2006 with the initial publication by The Times, and Edwin Coe is delighted with the ruling for its client.

Nick Neocleous, Edwin Coe partner, has been acting for Gary Flood throughout this case. He comments: “This was not a case for the faint-hearted. It has been a long and bumpy road, with two trips to the Court of Appeal, two to the Supreme Court and numerous other hearings. Much law has been made along the way that has developed the manner in which competing human rights should be treated. This final decision develops in particular the Art 10 rights to freedom of expression and the competing rights of Mr Flood to rely on the law as it stood when he commenced the litigation.”  

Senior Partner, David Greene, has written an article for The Huffington Post entitled “A Victory For The Rule Of Law And Parliamentary Democracy” with regards to our Article 50 Supreme Court challenge and successful ruling, announced earlier this week.

To read the full article please click here.

The lawyer for an #Article50 Supreme Court claimant says the ruling is a “victory for democracy and rule of law” https://t.co/zQwBXzVWlw

— Sky News (@SkyNews) 24 January 2017

Senior Partner David Greene speaks to Sky News following the Article 50 ruling on 24 January 2017.

David Greene, Senior Partner at Edwin Coe and solicitor for hairdresser Deir Tozetti Dos Santos, makes the following statement today following the Supreme Court ruling that MPs must vote on triggering Brexit.

“My client is delighted by today’s judgment. As a Brexiteer, he always said his motivation in bringing this claim was to ensure the correct and lawful process applied to triggering Article 50 and today’s decision vindicates his role in shining a spotlight on the rightful process as well as the role that the law plays in ensuring a lawful political process.

This has been a unique and difficult fight where the legal issues were often clouded by a polarised and politically charged backdrop. Yet as has been made clear by the Supreme Court and the Divisional Court this is a case, not about whether we should withdraw from the European Union, but about the domestic constitution of the UK and the relationship between Parliament and our Government.

The result is a reassertion by the Court that we live in a Parliamentary democracy, in which, having been elected, our MPs in Parliament have the sovereign power to grant rights and remove them; a power only constricted by consideration of human rights and rule of law. These rights affect people’s lives, family life, where people live, where they work, their very right to work in this country. They are vital rights in day to day life. The Court has decided that the rights attaching to our membership of the European Union were given by Parliament and can only be removed by Parliament. This is a victory for democracy and the rule of law. We should all welcome it.

Some have asked what is the point of this judgment now that the Prime Minister has said she will give Parliament a vote on the Brexit deal after negotiations. We can speculate that she may not have done so had the cases of my client and Gina Miller not brought pressure to bear. Is Mrs May’s recent concession sufficient? The answer is No. Having served the Article 50 notice we will withdraw from the Union on the second anniversary whether a deal is done or not and whether Parliament approves a deal or not. Parliament may be left then with a choice, vote yes to the deal or we leave with no deal at all. The time for the vote then is now on the principle of withdrawal and the inevitable removal of citizens’ rights that will follow both for citizens here and UK citizens in the EU. In considering an Article 50 statute I am sure MPs will have those rights in mind.

Finally this is also a victory for our judicial process. Both my client and his co-claimant Gina Miller have received hate mail of the most vile and threatening nature yet have had their case heard and treated by the Courts with the greatest of respect. The Court itself has been vilified and Judges subject to intense media criticism and intimidation. Yet a determination has been made based purely on the legal issues which is as it should be. The Government and the Lord Chancellor should today confirm its unquestioning support for the rights of the Claimants in this case and their respect for the Court’s decision. This is a victory for our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law and whatever changes we are about to face as a result of Brexit it is reassuring that these two sacred principles have today been reaffirmed and will hopefully endure.”

For further information regarding Edwin Coe’s Brexit challenge please click here.

David Greene, Edwin Coe’s Senior Partner and solicitor for hairdresser Deir Tozetti Dos Santos, said the Supreme Court had decided that the rights attached to the UK’s membership of the EU were given by Parliament and can only be taken away by it.

He hailed today’s ruling as “a victory for democracy and the rule of law and we should all welcome it”.

He said Theresa May’s decision to allow Parliament a vote was “insufficient” but was only brought about by the Supreme Court case.

For further information regarding Edwin Coe’s Brexit challenge please click here.

On behalf of the Government (the Appellant):

• Jeremy Wright QC (HM Attorney General)
• James Eadie QC
• Lord Keen QC (Advocate General for Scotland)
• John F Larkin QC (Attorney General for Northern Ireland).

On behalf of the Respondents and Interveners:

• Lord Pannick QC (on behalf of Gina Miller)
• Dominic Chambers QC (instructed by Edwin Coe LLP on behalf of Dier Dos Santos)
• David A Scoffield QC and Ronan Lavery QC (on behalf of Applicants Agnew and McCord – in relation to Northern Ireland)
• W James Wolffe QC (The Lord Advocate of Scotland)
• Richard Gordon QC (on behalf of the Welsh Government)
• Helen Mountfield QC (on behalf of Interested Parties – Graham Pigney and others)
• Manjit Gill QC (on behalf of Interested Parties AB, KK, PR and children)
• Patrick Green QC (on behalf of the Interveners George Birnie and others).

It is important to remember that this has not been a case about the merits or shortcomings of the Brexit decision. It is instead about constitutional form, process, and the correct manner in which Article 50 should be invoked to leave the EU. This sentiment was made very clear by Lord Neuberger in his closing of the Supreme Court Hearing.

The question now remains as to what will happen next. Betfair will take bets. It is, however, very difficult to call. We try to decipher from the questions (mainly coming from four judges) what the judge is thinking but this can often be misleading. The questions do suggest however a split decision.

It has now been accepted by both sides that if the Government loses their Supreme Court appeal, a bill will need to be passed in Parliament to allow Theresa May to invoke Article 50. If the appeal is successful Mrs May will be able to start the process of withdrawal without Parliamentary sanction. In the meantime, the eleven Supreme Court Justices have retired to consider all the arguments both oral and written. Their judgment is expected to come early in the New Year.

You will find links to the written cases for all those involved in the Supreme Court Hearing last week as well as transcripts below:

Article 50 Challenge – Summary of the Cases

Who are the claimants in Article 50 Court Case?

Brexit –The Other Claimants’ Case for the Supreme Court

We will of course be monitoring this case and will report on its findings in due course. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding this topic, please contact David Greene – Senior Partner, or any member of the Edwin Coe Brexit – Implications: Overview team.

Please click here to view the article.

Edwin Coe LLP has filed Mr Dos Santos’ written case in the Supreme Court.

The case will be heard on Monday, 5 December and is expected to last for four days.

Please click here to view Mr Dos Santos’ written case.

Please click here to view Ms Miller’s written case.

Below are the written cases for the other interested parties and Interveners:

Please click here to view AB, KK, PR and CHILDREN (‘the AB Parties’) written case.

Please click here to view George Birnie and others (the Expat Interveners) written case.

Please click here to view the Attorney General for Northern Ireland’s written case.

Please click here to view the Lord Advocate’s written case.

Please click here to view the Counsel General for Wales’ written case.

To view the the Government’s case please click here.

Edwin Coe LLP has now filed Mr Dos Santos’ written case in the Supreme Court.

The case will be heard on Monday, 5 December and is expected to last for four days.

Please click here to view Mr Dos Santos’ written case.

Please click here to view Ms Miller’s written case.

To view the the Government’s case please click here.

Please click here to view the document.

The Respondents are due to file their Cases on 25 November and they will appear on the Edwin Coe website.

Voting out gives lawyers short term bonanza but will push law reform to the backburner, says David Greene in a New Law Journal article regarding Brexit.

An ironic Gallic shrug to the question on all our lips: OK so what now? The referendum debate is just getting under way. It may seem a little late but the chanteuse has yet to enter the stage to sing the final aria so nothing is concluded. Real politik has yet to stamp its mark on the concept of exiting the EU. In the meantime the Gods are laughing at the mayhem caused within the establishment by the vote.

The result is clearly not what most had planned for. Even those that led the “Leave” campaign seemed to be working on hope rather than reality and those opposed simply did not think it would happen. Until the Sunderland result, the world was making its way to bed safe in the assumption that all was safe and good and the British people would revert to good sense only to be woken to the shock of the result.

To read the full article which first appeared in New Law Journal please click here.

Disgruntled timeshare owners are fighting for compensation in a landmark legal case that could open the floodgates to claims.

In the first case of its kind in Britain, 487 members of a timeshare exchange club say they’ve been cheated out of the best holidays.

Senior Partner, David Greene, discusses the case with The Daily Mail. Please click here for the article.

David Greene, Senior Partner of Edwin Coe, said:

“The Government tests indicate that all diesel cars tested in real conditions failed on emissions and some to a dangerous level.  This does not appear to be the result of test defeating software but does put a big question mark over the lab tests that are the foundation for manufacturers claims on emissions.

In the event that manufacturers were found to have misled or been negligent on the issue when marketing vehicles, buyers would have claims against them.  Bearing in mind the size of the car market in Europe, the liabilities could run into many £billions dwarfing the claims arising from Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)”.

For further information on this news release, please contact:

David Greene
Senior Partner
t: 020 7691 4000
m: 07768 301221
e: david.greene@www.edwincoe.com

Edwin Coe LLP is celebrating its success for client, Keep Sunday Special, in the defeat of proposals to change the Sunday trading laws defeated in the Commons.

The firm had started the process for judicial review of the Government’s consultation leading to the introduction of the legislation.

David Greene, senior partner of Edwin Coe, said

“We have for many years supported the convenience store sector so it was natural for it to turn to us to question the new legislation. We started the procedure for judicial review because we believed the Government had acted unlawfully in its consultation. We will not now have to pursue that process. Good sense has prevailed. The existing law may not be seen as perfect for all but it is a sensible compromise.”

END

Please click here for details.

Ernst Hrabalek was represented by Edwin Coe LLP and barrister Siward Atkins of Maitland Chambers in the appeal.

David Greene, Senior Partner said

“It is always sad to see family members fall out.  My client Ernst Hrabalek had hoped that the matter was concluded last year when the Court found in his favour. Christian Hrabalek sought however to continue the process by seeking to appeal. Today the Appeal Court has kicked out the appeal and my client Mr Hrabalek is only too pleased to bring the matter to an end. It has of course been deeply upsetting for him and he looks forward to putting it behind him. The cars were always rightfully his and he can now, at last, take control of them.”

For further information on this news release, please contact:-

David Greene
Senior Partner
t: 020 7691 4000
e: david.greene@www.edwincoe.com

Tanya Byrne
Head of Business Development & Marketing
t: 020 7691 4173
e: tanya.byrne@www.edwincoe.com

Edwin Coe LLP is pleased to announce that Senior Partner, David Greene, Head of Intellectual Property Simon Miles and Consultant, Christopher Berry, have been named in the following categories within the 2017 Edition of Best Lawyers:

• David Greene – Competition Law and also Litigation
• Simon Miles – Intellectual Property Law
• Christopher Berry – Litigation

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation.

“Best Lawyers is the most effective tool in identifying critical legal expertise,” said Best Lawyer CEO Steven Naifeh. “Inclusion on this list shows that a lawyer is respected by their peers for professional success.”

Lawyers on the Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom list are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers on the basis of professional expertise, and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.

To view the other awards the firm has received please visit our credentials page here.

Alexander gave a presentation, on 22 January 2016, with regards to the “Bankruptcy of Russian Individuals in England under English and Russian Law.”

Bankruptcy of individuals is currently a topical issue in Russia as a new regime has been introduced with effect from 1 October 2015. Previously only legal entities but not individuals could become bankrupt under Russian law.

Also speaking at the event were Mikhail Onatskiy, Managing Partner, PRESIDENT CONSULT, Vladimir Miroshnichenko, Judge, Chairman of the Bankruptcy Department at the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad region and Luidmila Lipskaya of Hansson Asset Management, London.

Since its foundation in 1916, the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce (RBCC) has worked to promote trade and cooperation between the UK and Russia, helping companies in both countries to find trading partners and representing the interests of its member companies of all sizes.

If you require any further information on the above or have any questions please use the contact details below.

Alexander Muksinov
Litigation Associate
t: 020 7691 4091
e: alexander.muksinov@www.edwincoe.com

Tanya Byrne
Head of Business Development & Marketing
t: 020 7691 4173
e: tanya.byrne@www.edwincoe.com

David Greene, Senior Partner of Edwin Coe LLP said:

“Hundreds of investors were attracted to buying a holiday home in Calabria unaware of the darker side of the organisation lying behind the development. In the event this only became clear on the arrests by the anti-mafia squad in Italy of those involved in the development against allegations that the sale and purchase process was part of a money laundering exercise between former IRA personnel and the Calabrian mafia, the infamous ‘Ndrangheta. The trial of the men arrested is ongoing.

The proceedings in London are the result of multi million pound claims by investors against the Italian lawyer who acted for them in the transactions. It is not suggested that he, Gabriele Giambrone, was part or knew of the criminal activities lying behind the development.”

The British-Russian Law Association and the British Consulate in Ekaterinburg, Russia are continuing their programme of Annual English/Russian Legal Seminars in Ekaterinburg.

The subject of this year’s Seminar is the ‘hot topic’ of ‘Sanctions’ and will take place on Monday 6 July 2015 at 14:00 at Business Centre Paladium, 2nd Floor, 10 Khokhryakova Street, Ekaterinburg, Russia.

The sanctions imposed over the past year by Russia and Western countries have wide-ranging commercial and legal implications. Russian and Western companies need to be aware of the scope of these sanctions

Alexander will be speaking on the impact of sanctions on transactions (including M&A and finance agreements).

For more information about the conference please contact Karina.Sokolova@fconet.gov.uk

END

The Trade Mark Handbook is a loose-leaf comprehensive guide to trade marks law and practice which is published by Sweet & Maxwell under the editorship of CIPA and ITMA. It is available for purchase here: https://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?recordid=248

END

Edwin Coe is representing Claimants who are flower growers from Colombia and Ecuador. Mr Greene said,

“We have been working on the follow-on Air Cargo claims for some years in other jurisdictions including in the Dutch proceedings. We are pleased now to join the English proceedings at this stage because the structure of the future conduct of the claims and defence will be determined by the Court this week. Notably Mr Justice Peter Smith has been confirmed as the trial judge and he is clearly keen to press the matter ahead as soon as possible”.

Edwin Coe LLP is best known for its work in representing large groups of consumers and shareholders as well as acting for small retailers on competition issues; it represented 50,000 Railtrack shareholders in their claim against the Government; 32,000 convenience store owners in their successful challenge against the OFT and the private shareholders in Northern Rock.

It has recently settled a claim for consumers against major banks, including Barclays Partner Finance, relating to time share fraud. It successfully represented UK small businesses in the judicial review challenge to a change in the VAT scheme in the Channel Islands. It also recently acted for convenience stores in proceedings relating to the distribution of newspapers and magazines in the UK.

ENDS