Archive for the ‘Dispute Resolution’ Category

Rosenblatt act for CE and FD of Forterra Building Products Limited

29/07/2016
Earlier this year Rosenblatt acted for Stephen Harrison and Shatish Dasani, the Chief Executive and Finance Director, of the UK's second largest brickmaker, Forterra Building Products Limited.   The

Earlier this year Rosenblatt acted for Stephen Harrison and Shatish Dasani, the Chief Executive and Finance Director, of the UK’s second largest brickmaker, Forterra Building Products Limited.   The firm acted in connection with its acquisition by Lone Star Private Equity Fund from German company HeidelbergCement and the subsequent IPO of the company.

 

 

High Court ruled that an order for costs could be revised to include provision for a payment on account.

28/07/2016
On 21 June 2016, a Judge, in handing down judgment at the hearing, ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs.  When counsel for both parties were subsequently seeking to agree the terms of

On 21 June 2016, a Judge, in handing down judgment at the hearing, ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs.  When counsel for both parties were subsequently seeking to agree the terms of the order, counsel for the defendant sought to include provision for payment on account.  The claimant objected to  such provision being included in the order on the basis that the request for the inclusion of any such provision should have been made at the hearing when the order was made.  There were other minor issues considered and dismissed by the Judge but, as he stated in his judgment: “The substantial point, as it seems to me, is whether a request for payment on account can only be made at the hearing itself.  If so, then, once the parties come to draw up the order for the court’s approval, it is too late to argue for its inclusion.”

However, the judge went on to clarify that, while the general rule is that an order is effective from the moment it is made by the court, the court still has the power to alter its judgment or order at any time until it is entered and perfected by sealing, and that such power is not limited to exceptional circumstances.  The judge went on to order a payment to be made on account within 14 days.

This ruling demonstrates the court exercising its powers in a measured and pragmatic way in that, if it is appropriate for provision to be made in an order for a party to make a payment on account, it would conversely be inappropriate to prevent such a provision being included simply because its inclusion was not requested at the hearing.  It is often the case that subsequent to a hearing, counsel will agree between themselves certain tweaks to an order, particularly on points in relation to costs, before it is sealed or revert to the judge for clarification on certain points and taking a common sense approach to this can keep costs down.  It is also a reminder that parties should not resign themselves to being unable to have appropriate provisions included in an order even if requests are not made at a hearing.  If after the hearing but before the order is sealed, requests are made and the court considers the requested provisions can and should be included, such requests may be accommodated.

Aliston Albert Ashman v Clyde Caulson Thomas [2016] EWHC 1810 (Ch)

Deluxe Art & Theme Limited v Beck Interiors Limited [2016] EWHC 238 (TCC).

12/02/2016 | Nik Haria
Today Judgment was handed down in the case of Deluxe Art & Theme Limited v Beck Interiors Limited EWHC 238 (TCC). The case is of significance because it is the first time the Court has provid

Today Judgment was handed down in the case of Deluxe Art & Theme Limited v Beck Interiors Limited [2016] EWHC 238 (TCC).

The case is of significance because it is the first time the Court has provided guidance on a wider interpretation of Paragraph 8(1) of Part 1 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011.

It was held that Paragraph 8(1) applies to circumstances where the same adjudicator is adjudicating in respect of two separate adjudications, under the same contract, at the same time.  In such circumstances the Court has held that in order for the adjudicator to proceed in the second adjudication, the consent of the parties is required.

Accordingly, Beck were able to resist enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision in this case as the adjudicator did not have the consent of the parties in respect of a subsequent adjudication under the same contract.

 

The Claimant, Deluxe Art &The Limited, was represented by Mr Choat of Atkin Chambers and the Defendant, Beck Interiors Limited, was represented by Ms. Brenna Conroy of Hardwicke Chambers instructed by Nik Haria of Rosenblatt.

Success for Rosenblatt in the High Court on behalf of its client, AM Holdings Limited (AMH)

08/07/2015
On 7 July 2015, Rosenblatt successfully obtained an order for pre-action disclosure in the High Court on behalf of its client, AM Holdings Limited (AMH) against Henderson Global Investors Limited (He

On 7 July 2015, Rosenblatt successfully obtained an order for pre-action disclosure in the High Court on behalf of its client, AM Holdings Limited (AMH) against Henderson Global Investors Limited (Henderson) in relation to the purchase by Henderson of the Leadenhall Triangle portfolio of properties in June 2011.

In her judgment, the Honourable Mrs Justice Rose said: “that there is evidence here that justifies AMH’s belief that Henderson has been involved in arrangement that may have resulted in AMH suffering compensatable injury….in my judgment there are questions raised here about what information was made available to Henderson when formulating its bid in February [2011] and the later stages, why it appears they were the only bidder allowed to undertake full due diligence and why their bid was preferred over the higher bid from Brookfield…”.  The Judge also said that the cumulative effect of the documents on which AMH is currently basing its inferential case indicates to her that: “there is a sufficient degree of likelihood that this claim is justified for me to exercise my discretion in favour of ordering disclosure.”

The Rosenblatt team was led by Anthony Field, assisted by Lucy Hamilton-James and Tom Spiller.

  • contact

    To contact us please complete this form

e-Bulletins