High Court hands down judgment in dispute concerning contractual rights to intellectual property
On 27 January 2025 the High Court dismissed the claim made in Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 107 (Pat), a case concerning contractual rights to intellectual property.
Emily McKechnie (instructed by Bristows and acting with Adrian Speck KC and Henry Ward of 8 New Square) represented the successful defendants, the Touchlight group. The claim had been brought by Touchlight’s former chief scientific officer, Dr Hill, who argued that her innovative ideas had been developed prior to her employment with Touchlight and had not been contractually assigned to the company following the commencement of her employment.
The High Court held that the ideas were conceived by Dr Hill during her employment and were thereby contractually owned by Touchlight, and that in any event the disputed rights were assigned to Touchlight on the true construction of Dr Hill’s employment contract. The court also found that Dr Hill shared a common assumption with Touchlight (or made representations) to the effect that Touchlight was the owner of the disputed rights, that Touchlight was entitled to assume that Dr Hill supported its applications for patent protection based upon those rights, and that Touchlight relied upon Dr Hill to its detriment.
Thomas Robinson to be appointed King’s Counsel
Wilberforce Chambers is delighted to announce that Thomas Robinson is to be appointed King’s Counsel.
Tom, called to the bar in 2003, has a stellar commercial chancery practice with particular emphasis on pensions, insolvency and corporate matters including directors’ duties and shareholder disputes. Tom is consistently recommended by Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 and in this year’s editions he is described as, “a true class act”, “incredibly bright, well-prepared, eloquent, calm, but tenacious and fearless when the need arises”, and “a great man to have in your corner in a crisis”. Tom has appeared before the Court of Appeal as sole counsel and in the Supreme Court as well as the Dubai Court of First Instance and numerous tribunals.
The entirety of Wilberforce Chambers would like to congratulate Tom on this fantastic achievement!
The formal ceremony will take place at Westminster Hall on Monday 24th March 2025.
Citywealth Magic Circle Awards 2025: Wilberforce Shortlisted
Citywealth Magic Circle Awards have revealed their 2025 shortlist and we are delighted to announce that Wilberforce has been shortlisted for Chambers of the Year and Jonathan Davey KC shortlisted as Barrister of the Year.
In order to vote and/or to view the full shortlist, please click here.
Voting closes on 21st March 2025 and winners will be announced at the awards ceremony on 14th May 2025.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all our clients for your ongoing support and to wish all those shortlisted the best of luck.
Mitchell v Al Jaber features in The Lawyer’s Top 10 Appeals of 2025
We are delighted to announce that Clare Stanley KC and Jia Wei Lee‘s case of Mitchell v Al Jaber appears in The Lawyer’s Top 10 appeals of 2025 which identifies this year’s most-talked-about disputes in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Mitchell and another (Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (In Liquidation)) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber and others
Clare Stanley KC and Jia Wei Lee are acting for the appellant, in this case “set to make a landmark decision concerning the fiduciary duties of a person affiliated with a business without legal duties”, as described by The Lawyer. This case looks at Sheikh Al Jaber’s actions before his company was put into insolvent liquidation. This case presents the opportunity for the Supreme Court to offer clarification into the interpretation of laws surrounding the nature of equitable duties, and appropriate remedies upon their disregard.
Subscribers to The Lawyer can read the full article here.
Nine Wilberforce barristers feature in three of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2025
We are delighted to announce that Wilberforce barristers appear in three of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2025, identifying the upcoming year’s most-talked-about disputes. Nine of our members are involved across the highlighted matters.
The Public Institution For Social Security v Al Rajaan and others
Tim Penny KC, Emily McKechnie and John Grocott-Barrett are acting for the 39th and 40th defendants, Aerium Finance Limited and Ely Michel Ruimy, in this “mammoth multi-party £1.2bn fraud claim“, as described by The Lawyer.
Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SIF and another v SoftBank, Joint Liquidators of Greensill Ltd, and others
Daniel Lewis is acting for the seventh defendant, the Greensill Liquidators, in this $440m claim, a figure which Credit Suisse claims is owed to its customers by Katerra, a company funded by Greensill.
38 Curzon Lease (Fantasio) v Curzon Cinemas and Curzon Restaurant & Bar
Curzon Cinema and its landlord, Fantasio, are engaged in a significant real estate dispute concerning a proposed multimillion-pound refurbishment which will unite the cinema and adjoining restaurant. Meanwhile, Curzon wishes to extend its 90-year tenure at the premises.
Jonathan Seitler KC, Benjamin Faulkner and Francesca Mitchell are acting for the claimant, and Joanne Wicks KC and Emer Murphy are acting for the defendant.
Subscribers to The Lawyer can read the full article here.
Wilberforce features in two of Estates Gazette’s Top 10 Cases of 2024
EG (Estates Gazette) has released its annual podcast, discussing the most significant property law cases of the past year, and we are pleased to announce that Wilberforce members appear in case number 9 and case number 2 on the 2024 list.
Case #9:
Awarded the number 9 spot is The Tropical Zoo Ltd v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow [2024] EWHC 1240 (Ch), involving Martin Hutchings KC, Julian Greenhill KC, Daniel Petrides and Ernest Leung. The judgment will be of particular interest to practitioners for its discussion of the test to be applied in cases of waiver of the right to forfeit by delayed return of rent, the interaction between the law of agency and the law of waiver, the question of whether waiver can occur during the lifetime of a s.146 notice, and as an example of a case in which the court declined relief from forfeiture.
Case #2:
Taking the number 2 position is the Supreme Court decision in Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd (No. 2) [2024] UKSC 22, involving James McCreath. The judgment contains an important review of the law of nuisance and the case law dealing with the discharge of foul water into watercourses.
You can listen to the Top 10 Cases of 2024 podcast, where EG’s legal and professional editor Jess Harrold and court reporter James Lumley countdown from #10 to #1, on Spotify here. Alternatively, you can listen on podbean here.
To find out more about our property team, please click here.
MOD and Annington Homes reach settlement following a major piece of long-running litigation
A major piece of long-running litigation came to an end on 17 December 2024, with the announcement that Annington Homes will sell approximately 36,000 properties housing armed forces personnel and their families back to the Ministry of Defence for £6bn.
This comes 30 years after a privatisation deal, involving a sale of the married quarters estate to Annington and leaseback to the MOD. The deal has been widely criticised, with the National Audit Office estimating in 2018 that the taxpayer was £2.2bn – £4.2bn worse off over the first 21 years of the arrangements than if it had retained the estate. In 2019 the Public Accounts Committee called it “disastrous”.
Under the terms of the leases held by MOD, rent reviews were due on dates between 2021 and 2024. In 2019, Annington and MOD agreed to streamline the rent review process and submit it to arbitration. Joanne Wicks KC and Daniel Petrides were part of the Counsel team, instructed by Gowling WLG (UK) LLP, acting on the arbitration for MOD. This was concluded by a settlement in January 2022.
Immediately after the settlement of the rent review arbitrations, MOD sought to explore its ability to acquire the freehold of houses on the estate under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 by serving a series of test case notices. Annington challenged MOD’s ability to enfranchise as a matter of private law and sought judicial review of its decision to serve the notices. Joanne and Daniel, instructed by Forsters LLP, again acted as part of the Counsel team for MOD. On 15 May 2023, Holgate J handed down judgment in favour of MOD, holding that it was entitled to seek to enfranchise the houses on the estate and dismissing the judicial review. A hearing of Annington’s appeal, listed for July 2024, was adjourned to allow the parties to explore settlement discussions.
Wilberforce co-edits and contributes to Kerr & Hunter on Receivership & Administration (22nd Edition)
Members of Wilberforce Chambers have co-edited, and contributed to, the latest edition of Sweet & Maxwell’s leading insolvency text, Kerr & Hunter on Receivership and Administration. Tom Robinson was one of the editors of the work, and contributors include Marcia Shekerdemian KC , Tim Penny KC, Sri Carmichael, Jessica Brooke and James Goodwin.
For more information on the title including purchase price, please click here.
For more information on our insolvency practice, please click here.
Supreme Court hands down judgment in LA Micro Group Inc v LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd and others [2024]
The Supreme Court today handed down judgment in LA Micro Group Inc v LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd and others [2024] UKSC 42. Clare Stanley KC acted for the first appellant, instructed by Tom Bolam and Cecilia Ricks of Fladgate LLP, leading William Buck and Jen Coyne of Monckton Chambers, and assisted by Prof Andreas Televantos.
It concerns s. 53(1)(c) and s. 53(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. It finally settles the academic debate as to whether s. 53(1)(c) applies to personalty (and holds that it does); it traces the historical development and legal effect of the ‘vendor purchaser constructive trust’; and holds that such a trust can operate to effect the surrender/release of a beneficiary’s interest in personalty in favour of the trustee.
Invest Bank P.S.C. v El-Husseini & Ors: Important Commercial Court case providing guidance on pleading and proving cases under s.423 Insolvency Act 1986
On 21 November 2024 the Commercial Court handed down judgment in Invest Bank P.S.C. v El-Husseini & Ors [2024] EWHC 2976 (Comm), a claim brought under s.423 Insolvency Act 1986, following a 4 week trial in July 2024.
The Court determined that the Claimant (“the Bank”) had failed to prove its inferential case in respect of the various transactions that had taken place by which the First Defendant (“Ahmad”) had transferred valuable assets and interests to the other Defendants, who were his family members, companies under their control and the trustees of a discretionary trust of which they were beneficiaries (“Virtue Trustees”).
Mr Justice Calver analysed in particular (1) the relevant legal principles concerning what needs to be pleaded and proved in order to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 423 (2) when the Court may draw an inference that a Defendant had the purpose of putting his assets beyond the reach of a creditor (3) the circumstances in which the Court may draw adverse inferences against a Defendant and his co-Defendants by reason of a failure to engage with the proceedings, to attend trial or to disclose documents and (4) the relevance of contemporaneous documents in assessing where the truth lies in such a dispute.
Mr Justice Calver held that an allegation that a Defendant acted for the s.423 purpose of putting assets beyond reach of creditors amounts to an allegation of serious wrongdoing or discreditable conduct and any inferential case that this was the Defendant’s subjective purpose requires a clear pleading of the primary facts said to give rise to the inference and a case proved by cogent evidence.
Although, as the Judge observed, Ahmad had “haunted the trial like Banquo’s ghost” the Court had not heard from Ahmad himself because he had failed to participate in the proceedings following an unsuccessful jurisdiction challenge. The Judge nevertheless determined that the Bank was not entitled to an adverse inference against Ahmad and his co-Defendants “as of right” and that on a close factual analysis of all the relevant considerations no such inference could be drawn.
Further, although Ahmad had used the phrase “asset protection purposes” in discussions with his financial advisers on various occasions in connection with management of his wealth, the Judge accepted evidence that this phrase did not have one single, well understood meaning. The Court held that Ahmad did not have the alleged purpose of avoiding claims by the Bank when making any of the transfers, and that Virtue Trustees had no reason to think that the transfer of assets by Ahmad into trust was effected for anything other than legitimate tax and estate planning reasons.
Tim Penny KC acted with Marc Delehanty (Serle Court) and Frederick Wilmot-Smith (Brick Court) for the Bank, instructed by PCB Byrne LLP.
Tiffany Scott KC acted with Emma Hargreaves (Serle Court) for Virtue Trustees, instructed by Edwin Coe LLP.