[2019-2020] James Dickinson acted for Oak Corporate Finance Limited (“Oak”) in the defence of (a) unfair prejudice claims and (b) a free-standing representation seeking (only) to rectify Oak’s shareholders’ register. The claimants alleged that their shares in Oak had been diluted to their prejudice, after they had refused to participate in EUR 14 million plus capital raising. Oak resisted the unfair prejudice claims and inter alia took the position that the representation to rectify Oak’s share register was procedurally misconceived, as the underlying issues were complex and should all be litigated as part of any unfair prejudice proceedings. The claimants ultimately withdrew their representation and were ordered to pay Oak’s costs on the indemnity basis and to make an interim payment to Oak on account of its costs (see [2020] JRC166).   

[2013-2019] James Dickinson acted for Richard Campbell in long running and multi-jurisdictional proceedings with Richard’s brother, Robert Campbell. One of the many issues in dispute was the ownership of a Jersey company, Longton Holdings Limited(“Longton”), which owned a valuable commercial retail property in London worth over £29 million. Longton’s shares were held by nominees subject to a bare trust in Robert’s favour. A loan had also been made by Robert to Longton. Richard claimed to own 50% of the shares in Longton and 50% of the loan account. Robert ultimately conceded that Richard had a 50% interest in the shares in Longton and the issue of whether Richard had a 50% interest in the loans made to Longton and interest paid by Longton in relation thereto went to trial. Richard deployed the novel legal argument that 50% of the loans and interest were held by Robert subject to a common intention constructive in his (Richard’s) favour. Richard was permitted to admit further evidence post trial and pre-judgment after Robert made discovery of relevant documents in other proceedings ([2016] JRC190). The Court upheld Richard’s claims ([2017 (1) JLR 325]) and Robert was order to pay Richard’s costs and make an interim payment in respect thereof ([2018] JRC038). Robert appealed but later abandoned his appeal after Richard filed his responsive Contentions on Appeal; Richard was awarded his costs of the abandoned appeal. In a further instalment of these long running proceedings Robert brought proceedings seeking orders that provided for Longton to be wound up just and equitable grounds (including on the basis it had lost its substratum) and for the commercial retail property to be sold (2018/160).

[2009 – 2012] James Dickinson acted in relation to two sets of proceedings that went to trial before the BVI Courts in 2012. Both sets of proceedings related to Fuchs Oil Middle Estate Limited (“FOMEL”), a joint venture between Fuchs Petrolub AG and Chemtrade Limited. FOMEL, which had a value running into the tens of millions, was a BVI company. Chemtrade Limited (“Chemtrade”), another BVI company, (a) claimed that Fuchs Petrolub AG had acted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to its interests and (b) that Fuchs Petrolub AG should be required to buy out its shareholding in FOMEL. Sheikh Abdullah Ali M Alhramani (“Sheikh Abdullah”) brought related proceedings claiming that (a) he (and not his six brothers) was the true owner of Chemtrade, (b) that (even though not referred to in the settlement agreement) the ownership of Chemtrade had been transferred to him as part of an agreement resolving family disputes reached in Saudi Arabia and (c) his brothers were therefore not in a position to exercise control over Chemtrade, which belonged to him. (James Dickinson acted for the six brothers). Chemtrade claim succeeded at first instance (in what was then the BVI’s longest commercial court trial of 29 days) and the six brothers successfully defended Sheikh Abdullah’s claims to own Chemtrade. The first instance decision was overturned on appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Court OF Appeal’s decision upheld on appeal to the Privy Council ([2014] UKPC 37).

[2004-2006] James Dickinson acted for one of the two defendants (the Sellar Property Group) in a shareholder’s dispute relating to the ownership of the joint venture company that built the landmark “Shard of Glass” skyscraper in London. The claim related to the disputed ownership of 17% of the shares in the company, which had a value of tens of millions of pounds. The case settled during trial, after cross examination of the plaintiff’s key witness.

[1909-2001] James Dickinson acted for the successful plaintiffs in proceedings brought against inter alios a subsidiary of UBS in respect of crippling investment losses suffered in the administration of forex fund and  defective reporting of the fund’s performance. These long running proceedings, which resulted in multiple judgments and criminal convictions for involved parties, were settled by way of a payment of USD 38.5 million to the plaintiffs.