New silk: Thomas Robinson KC
Wilberforce Chambers is delighted to announce that Thomas Robinson has been appointed King’s Counsel at today’s ceremony at Westminster Hall.
Thomas Robinson KC, has a strong commercial / chancery practice with particular emphasis on pensions, insolvency and corporate matters, including directors’ duties and shareholder disputes. He also has a particular interest in regulatory proceedings and has been instructed regularly by the Pensions Regulator, the FRC and the Dubai Financial Services Authority. He has appeared before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, as well as the Dubai Court of First Instance and numerous tribunals.
He has been recommended as a leading junior by The Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for several years. Recent directory entries describe him as “incredibly tenacious”, “an excellent strategist and an extremely effective advocate” and note that he “has never appeared without having complete mastery of his papers and his arguments and is always quick on his feet.”
Joanne Wicks KC wins Real Estate Barrister of the Year at Lexology European Awards 2025
Wilberforce Chambers is delighted to announce that Joanne Wicks KC was awarded Real Estate Barrister of the Year at the 2025 Lexology European Awards.
A huge thank you to all our clients for your ongoing support of Wilberforce Chambers.
Congratulations to the rest of the winners.
‘Rising Star’ Roxane Reiser joins the specialist Trusts Group at Wilberforce
Wilberforce Chambers is delighted to announce that Roxane Reiser has joined Chambers from 10th March 2025.
Roxane joins the trusts group to add to the growing number of specialists at Wilberforce that deal with trust issues in the divorce context. Roxane is dual qualified in the UK and Switzerland. She was called to the Geneva Bar in 2018 and is an Advocate at the Geneva Bar. Roxane specialises in trust and divorce issues, with specific expertise in matrimonial finance disputes. Her cases often have a strong international Anglo-Swiss focus on jurisdiction, forum issues, and cross border enforcement.
Brian Green KC (Head of Chambers) said, “We welcome Roxane to Chambers. Our private wealth work involves a range of trusts, family and cross-jurisdictional issues, so Roxane will be a wonderful addition to the team.”
Nicholas Luckman (Practice Director) said, “Roxane’s recruitment adds to the outstanding pool of talent in our trust group. Her expertise in divorce and financial remedy claims supports the growing work that we are seeing in this area”.
For further information in relation to Roxane’s experience and expertise, please see the link to Roxane Reiser on the Wilberforce Chambers website, or contact Nicholas Luckman (nluckman@wilberforce.co.uk) or Danny Smillie (dsmillie@wilberforce.co.uk).
Click the following link to see an overview of Wilberforce Chambers’ expertise in this area:
Leading Property Barrister Joins Wilberforce
Wilberforce Chambers is delighted to announce that Mark Galtrey has joined Chambers from 4th March 2025.
Mark is a specialist property barrister with an outstanding reputation in real estate litigation, agriculture, and partnership disputes.
Brian Green KC (Head of Chambers) said, “We are delighted to welcome Mark as a member of Wilberforce Chambers. Mark adds yet further strength and depth to the excellent real estate litigation team practising at all levels of seniority at Wilberforce. We wish Mark every continuing success in his practice with us.”
Nicholas Luckman (Practice Director) said, “Mark’s recruitment adds to the outstanding pool of talent in our property group, and is a further strong restatement of Chambers’ commitment to this practice area as part of providing the highest quality service to our clients.”
For further information in relation to Mark’s experience and expertise, please see the link to Mark Galtrey on the Wilberforce Chambers website, or contact Nicholas Luckman (nluckman@wilberforce.co.uk) or Danny Smillie (dsmillie@wilberforce.co.uk).
Click the following link to see an overview of Wilberforce Chambers’ expertise in this area:
Upper Tribunal decision on home loan inheritance tax double trust scheme
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) has given judgment in the appeal of Elborne v HMRC [2025] UKUT 59 (TCC), in which the Elborne estate and trustees of the Elborne settlements were appealing against the earlier decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [2023] UKFTT 626 (TC). The case concerns whether or not a home loan inheritance tax double trust scheme designed to remove the value of a freehold interest in real property from an individual’s inheritance tax estate whilst at the same time enabling the individual in question to continue to live in the property rent-free achieves its intended effect. At first instance, the First-tier Tribunal had held that on the proper construction of the applicable legislation, including section 103 of the Finance Act 1986, which deals with the treatment of certain debts, the scheme failed to achieve its intended effect, in line with the First-tier Tribunal’s earlier decision in Pride v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00316 (TC). The Upper Tribunal has overturned the First-tier Tribunal’s decision holding the scheme to be effective. The case is of wide importance given the use of home loan inheritance tax schemes in relation to real property over several years up and down the country.
Jonathan Davey KC acts for the respondents along with Barbara Belgrano of Pump Court Tax Chambers. Charles Bradley of Pump Court Tax Chambers acts for the appellants.
Supreme Court of Gibraltar hands down judgment in Kijani Ratio (in liquidation) v Fagan and ors
Daniel Lewis acted for the Liquidators (Edgar Lavarello and Simon Conway of PwC), together with Nick Cruz and Kayleigh-Anne Revagliatte of Ellul & Cruz, securing judgment at trial for £62 million (judgment or settlement having already been obtained against the other Respondents). The claim was brought against the former directors of a Gibraltar collective investment scheme, for misapplying funds under their control to their own benefit, including the purchase of two yachts. The Respondent’s attempts to adjourn the trial were unsuccessful following which he did not participate further. This is the first judgment at trial in Gibraltar on claims under section 259 of the Insolvency Act 2011 (fraudulent trading) and section 260 (insolvent trading, equivalent to wrongful trading).
Court of Appeal hands down judgment in Wang v Darby
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in a decision which likely brings an end to this long running and significant litigation, in which Daniel Scott has acted for Mr Wang from the outset.
Background
In August 2021, Mr Wang obtained a without notice freezing order against Mr Darby which contained standard provisions relating to asset disclosure. Shortly thereafter, proceedings were commenced alleging that Mr Darby had breached the terms of cryptocurrency swap agreements made between the parties concerning Bitcoin and Tezos.
Mr Darby failed to disclose his ownership of 100 Bitcoin, which had a value of approximately $US 4m at the time the freezing order was made and is now valued at almost $US 10m. Mr Wang’s solicitors put Mr Darby on notice that they intended to commence proceedings for contempt of court if he did not purge his contempt and disclose his ownership of the 100 Bitcoin.
In the meantime, Mr Darby failed to pay an interim costs order and his Defence to the claim was struck out. Mr Darby’s solicitors came off the record. In January 2023, judgment was entered for Mr Wang and damages and interest of approximately $US 2m were assessed in his favour.
Following judgment, Mr Wang commenced contempt proceedings in respect of the failure to disclose the existence of the 100 Bitcoin. Mr Darby failed to engage with the contempt proceedings. The Court decided to proceed in his absence and found him in contempt of court in his absence on 10 June 2024 ([2024] EWHC 1394 (Comm)).
The Court adjourned the sanction hearing until 24 July 2024, in order to give Mr Darby time to reflect on the judgment, consider taking legal advice and seeking representation, and prepare evidence in mitigation.
Mr Darby attended the sanction hearing and indicated that he had been unable to secure legal representation. The Court proceeded to commit Mr Darby to 18 months immediate imprisonment. The Judge said that 6 months was the punitive aspect of the sentence and 12 months represented the part that might be set aside if the contempt was purged.
The Appeal
Whilst in prison, Mr Darby secured publicly funded legal representation. He appealed against his sentence and successfully applied for bail pending the appeal. He had served 146 days in prison (in excess of 4 months), a sentence equivalent to 292 days.
Very shortly before the appeal was due to be heard, Mr Darby admitted his contempt and apologised to Mr Wang and the Court. In light of this, the only real question that was live by the time of the hearing was whether the Court could (and should) reduce his sentence to take account of the purging of his contempt. In a judgment handed down on 4 February 2025, the Court of Appeal reduced Mr Darby’s sentence to time served, namely 292 days.
The decision is a helpful illustration of the wide-ranging powers available to the Court of Appeal under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Indeed, the appeal was essentially decided on the basis of fresh evidence. It is well known that in cases which do not concern committal of a person to imprisonment, it can be extremely difficult to obtain permission to adduce fresh evidence on appeal.
Lord Justice Dingemans’ obiter comments in the decision are also enlightening. Whilst it was unnecessary to decide whether the Court below should have granted a further adjournment to Mr Darby at the sanction hearing so that he could obtain legal representation, Dingemans LJ stated at [21] that there are many reasons to grant a person in Mr Darby’s position a short adjournment where they belatedly comply with the court process at the sanction stage of contempt proceedings. In particular:
“This ensures fairness to that person, in circumstances where many contemnors only come to their senses at the 11th hour and 59th minute, see generally Haringey London Borough Council v Brown [2015] EWCA Civ 483; [2017] 1 WLR 542 at paragraphs 41 to 44. In many cases this will also be to the advantage of the side seeking the order for committal. This is because the contemnor’s legal representatives are likely to have more success in persuading the contemnor to purge his contempt and comply with court orders. That will also assist the court in ensuring that there is compliance (albeit on a belated basis) with its orders.”
Daniel Scott was instructed by Rob Green of Curzon Green Solicitors and acted for Mr Wang as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal.
High Court hands down judgment in Iya Patarkatsishvili & Yevhen Hunyak -v- William Woodward-Fisher
On Monday 10th February 2025, the High Court handed down judgment in the case of Iya Patarkatsishvili & Vevhen Hunyak -v- William Woodward-Fisher, a claim to rescind the purchase of a £32million townhouse in Notting Hill on the basis of allegedly fraudulent answers to pre-contract enquiries.
The alleged fraud, which has been widely covered in the national press, concerned the failure to disclose an alleged moth infestation at the property in circumstances where one enquiry had asked if there had ever been a “vermin infestation”.
The trial was listed for 8 days in November 2024 before Mr Justice Fancourt.
John McGhee KC and James McCreath (instructed by Squire Patton Boggs) acted for the Claimants and Jonathan Seitler KC and Francesca Mitchell (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) acted for the Defendant.
Court of Appeal judgment on damages law handed down in Barrowfen Properties Limited v Patel
On 23 January 2025, judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on issues of damages law in Barrowfen Properties Limited v Patel and others [2025] EWCA Civ 39.
At trial, the Court made various findings of dishonest breaches of directors’ duties against the First Defendant and of negligence against the Second Defendant firm of solicitors.
The trial judge awarded damages based on the lost rental income suffered because of the delay in the development of Barrowfen’s commercial property in Tooting. The principal award of £4 million was reduced down to £1.7 million because Barrowfen was required to give credit for the increased capital value of the revised development scheme implemented compared to the original development scheme that would have been implemented at an earlier date.
Both Barrowfen and the Second Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on issues of damages law about the application of the credit, but the decision of the trial judge was upheld (other than on a point about the amount of interest as damages):
- Barrowfen appealed on the basis that it intended to hold the property as an income-producing asset and that once the increased finance costs of the more expensive revised development scheme were taken into account there was no credit to be given. The Court of Appeal analysed the leading cases on mitigation, causation and betterment and dismissed Barrowfen’s appeal on the basis that the decision to retain the Tooting property (and incur future financing costs) rather than sell it was an independent decision that broke the chain of causation.
- The Second Defendant cross-appealed, contending that the credit should be deducted (in full) after the application of the loss of a chance percentages, rather than before the application of the loss of a chance percentages. The Court of Appeal explained the decision in Hartle v Laceys and dismissed this main cross-appeal.
Tim Matthewson was instructed with Adam Kramer KC of 3VB by Withers to act for Barrowfen.
Paul Newman KC appointed to the Main Committee of the Association of Pension Lawyers
Paul Newman KC has been invited to become a member of the Main Committee of the Association of Pension Lawyers. Paul looks forward to working with the rest of the Committee and serving the Association.