- Summary Judgment: On behalf of Nikolay
Glushkov successfully striking out a claim of approximately £15m
brought by the Russian airline Aeroflot against him and Boris
Berezovsky. Aeroflot were seeking to enforce a Russian Judgment in
England and the entire action was dismissed at an interim hearing
as the court held that to enforce the Russian Judgment in England
would be a plain breach of the principle of finality.
- Injunctions: Obtaining a freezing injunction
over the assets of a Georgian judgment debtor (including
properties, shares and funds held in his solicitors' client
account) in respect of a debt for £6.8 million, in order to prevent
the dissipation of the assets and obtaining full repayment of £2.5
million from the same debtor in separate proceedings.
- Breach of Warranty: Acting for a property
company on a case widely reported in the property press in a breach
of warranty claim against the seller of a shopping centre. Replies
to enquiries were wrongly warranted as being correct, resulting in
a significant loss for the client; negotiating a favourable
settlement prior to disclosure.
- Misrepresentation: Acting for a firm of
surveyors in High Court proceedings for misrepresentation against a
procurement business with which they had entered into a contract.
Resolving the matter on favourable terms following extensive
correspondence concerning the failure of the procurement business
to provide complete disclosure.
- Professional Negligence: As part of a claim
for professional negligence and in order to attempt to mitigate the
company's loss, acting for an oil broking company in the Court of
Appeal case of Littman -v- Aspen Oil (Broking) Limited which was
widely reported in the legal press. The case is an interesting
example of a situation in which it may be possible to "rectify" a
mistake in a document by construction. The Court of Appeal judgment
contains noteworthy comment on the basis upon which an order for
rectification can be made.
- Agrochemicals: Acting for an agrochemical
company in relation to business-critical legal matters arising out
of the EU review of pesticides and seeking, in particular, an
extension to the deadline to submit Annex II data to the Pesticides
Safety Directorate. Proceedings for judicial review were prepared
but an extension of time was granted very shortly before they were
to be issued. The same arguments were thereafter pursued with the
Spanish, Portuguese and Italian regulatory authorities who also
accepted the arguments and extended the deadline.
"The whole team is very professional. My impression of the
firm is very good and I rate very highly Simon's professional
qualities in evaluating risks and consequences. His legal
opinion is valuable to me" - Client 2012
"They really do hold their own when they come up against
much bigger firms. It's quite a young team, very dynamic, very
smart, very experienced. A firm like Boodle Hatfield gets a
lot of hands-on experience because a lot of their stuff goes to
court" - 2012