Commercial Litigation

James Dickinson and Guillaume Staal continue to act on behalf of an entrepreneur in relation to a dispute concerning the recovery of assets located in Jersey, London, New York, Hong Kong, Thailand and the BVI, in proceedings in Jersey relating to disputed assets with a value of over £27 million.

We have established our Plaintiff client’s 50% interest in a property owning company. We successfully resisted a second jurisdiction challenge brought by the primary defendant (following a previous challenge in 2014). We established the test in Jersey for admitting further evidence post trial but pre judgment ([2016] JRC 190). The trial of the remaining issues (relating to the ownership of loan accounts) took place in June 2016 and judgment will be handed down shortly.

James Dickinson and Guillaume Staal act for the Claimant in these proceedings, which are before the Chancery Division of the English High Court (and are related to the above mentioned Jersey proceedings). They have been brought by the same entrepreneur against his brother.

In 2016 the client started to act as a litigant in person and engaged the firm to provide litigation support. The client was represented at a 7 day trial in October and November 2016 by John Machell QC (on a direct access basis) and Adil Mohamedbhai of Serle Court. The client was wholly successful in his claims when judgment was handed down in January 2017, establishing his 50% interest in a partnership and the partnership businesses and securing an order for an account. The accounting procedure is progressing to a hearing in 2018.

James Gleeson was instructed as one of three Jersey Advocates to provide expert evidence as to the Jersey law of prescription of claims for breaches of directors’ duties. The firm was instructed by Enyo Law LLP with Terry Mowschenson QC, Nicole Langlois and Hugh Miall of counsel also acting.

James Gleeson and Craig Swart acted with Robert Christie (along with Hogan Lovells International, and Steven Smith QC and Tim Akkouh of Erskine Chambers) for ENRC, which obtained Summary Judgment in England against Zamin, a Jersey company, in the amount of $65m. We obtained a freezing injunction in Jersey on behalf of ENRC with attendant disclosure order.

Zamin’s disclosure revealed the existence of two suspiciously timed agreements which appeared to dissipate its main asset (a South American mining concession allegedly worth $250m). Zamin refused to supply any detail about the agreements.

We then successfully applied for disclosure of the agreements on behalf of ENRC ([2015] JRC 217), primarily on the ground that the lack of information about the agreements and suspicious timing gave rise to the fear that Zamin was dissipating its assets. The information was needed to police the injunction. This is the first reported case in which the Royal Court has followed the English courts in supporting freezing injunctions by making specific further disclosure orders in relation to the assets of subsidiary companies.

James Gleeson is advising the corporate directors of a Jersey Company which owns a minority interest in a BVI company. The underlying beneficial owner is in dispute with the majority shareholder in relation to the misapplication of company funds provided to the shareholder by way of loan funding which funds have been misappropriated in the acquisition of assets by two unrelated BVI companies.

James Gleeson is advising in relation to potential derivative claims on behalf of the BVI company against the majority shareholder. An application to the BVI court for permission to bring proceedings by way of derivative action in Jersey is pending. DWFM Beckman are instructing, in conjunction with Forbes Hare and Hodge Malek QC.

James Gleeson and Guillaume Staal acted on behalf of the former chairman of two Jersey collective investment funds with a value as of their IPO’s of €1.3 billion (James was instructed by a leading global insurance company and a Lloyds of London underwriter). The action was split into two trials. The Group 1 trial took place in September 2012, where Mr Vilsmeier fully succeeded in his defence of the third party action.

The Group 2 trial took place in June 2014 and spanned five weeks. Judgment was handed down in December 2014. Mr Vilsmeier substantially succeeded in his own claims, was fully successful in defence of the counterclaims and was awarded his costs of the action. The case is the first to consider the basis of relief under Article 212 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 as amended.

 James Gleeson successfully acted (in conjunction with John Machell QC of Serle Court) for a former director of two Jersey companies in relation to two sets of proceedings in the Royal Court, concerning shareholder disputes and related allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. The first case centred upon an investment in the Amman Arab University in Jordan, and was scheduled to go to trial for a period of 2 weeks in September 2014. The case raised novel issues concerning the validity of a purported trust established for alleged improper purposes, namely to circumvent a legal prohibition on foreign ownership under Jordanian law. It successfully settled on the eve of trial.

A further trial was scheduled for a week in May 2015 relating to a different Jersey holding company with a Jordanian asset (in this case, a petrol station on the main route from Jordan to Syria). The case raised similar allegations in relation to breach of fiduciary duty as against Dr Mohammed Abdel-Haq, and was to have considered the Re Duomatic principle of informed shareholder consent. It also settled prior to trial.

James Gleeson and Bobby Christie are instructed for the client on the instructions of Charles Russell Speechly. The client has a debt of £7m against an English company of one Dr Cochrane. The company has an indemnity from Dr Cochrane. We obtained for our client (within 24 hours of being asked to run a conflict check) a worldwide freezing injunction (with related worldwide disclosure orders) over the assets of Dr Cochrane. Our client had no direct claim against her so this was a “Chabra” freezing injunction, in respect of which there is no reported authority in Jersey. We have continued to act in relation to enforcement as Dr Cochrane has been put into désastre (bankruptcy) by other creditors as a result of her husband’s frauds. Charles Russell Speechlys LLP are instructing the firm, in conjunction with David Caplan of Serle Court.