Charles Fussell & Co instructed to bring claim against insurers for consequential loss

Charles Fussell & Co has been instructed to act on behalf of an individual in his dispute with his insurers. The claim was initially rejected. However, after protracted debate, the insurers agreed to meet the claim. However, they refuse to indemnify the prospective claimant for the consequential losses flowing from the initial breach of the insurance agreement. Charles Fussell & Co is now instructed to pursue the insurers for damages for the consequential losses suffered.

Charles Fussell and Oliver Cox will be involved in this matter.

Charles Fussell & Co instructed to bring £45 million professional negligence claim against former solicitors

Charles Fussell & Co has been instructed to act on behalf of an individual in his dispute with his former solicitors. The dispute arises out of the allegedly negligent drafting of a trust deed intended to protect the individual's interest in a company whose entire issued share capital was legally owned by a nominee. As a result of the drafting of the trust deed, the nominee was able to obtain control of the company and seize its very valuable assets.

Charles Fussell, Simon Winter and Elizabeth Stoppelmoor will be involved in this matter.

Charles Fussell & Co LLP is instructed in respect of a $15 million dispute in the Commercial Court

Charles Fussell & Co LLP has been instructed by QOGT Inc ("QOGT") in relation to an $18 million claim against a Guernsey-based oil and gas technology fund. 

QOGT, a Canadian corporation, entered into an investment management and advisory agreement (the "IMAA") with Quorum European Partners LLP (now Linton Capital LLP) ("QEP") and Quorum Oil and Gas Technology Fund Limited (the "Fund") in December 2007.  Under the terms of the IMAA, QOGT and QEP were appointed as joint investment managers of the Fund. 

In July 2010, the Fund terminated the IMAA on the basis that QOGT and QEP had allegedly not managed the Fund jointly.  QOGT maintains that the Fund had no basis to terminate the IMAA and claims damages for the loss it has suffered as a result of what it regards as a wrongful termination of the agreement, and instructed Charles Fussell & Co to bring proceedings in the Commercial Court.  Harbour Litigation Investment Fund LP is funding the costs of the claim, and ATE insurance, through Brit Insurance, has also been obtained.    

Charles Fussell & Co LLP was instructed in July 2011 and issued a claim on behalf of QOGT in the Commercial Court in January 2012.  Alain Choo Choy QC of One Essex Court and Simon Atrill of Fountain Court have been instructed on behalf of QOGT. 

The Fund has retained Norton Rose LLP as solicitors and has instructed Jonathan Hirst QC and Richard Blakeley of Brick Court Chambers as counsel. 

The matter is currently progressing in the Commercial Court.  

Charles Fussell & Co LLP instructed in relation to enforcing a judgment against a multi-national telecommunications group

Charles Fussell & Co LLP has been instructed to advise a private individual in the enforcement of a judgment obtained in the Democratic Republic of Congo against the local indirect subsidiary of a major London-based international telecommunications group. The telecommunications group and/or the indirect subsidiary briefly obtained a stay on a share auction scheduled as part of the enforcement of the judgment, due to alleged irregularities in the original judgment. The judgment creditor alleges that irregularities may have tainted the obtaining of that stay. The judgment creditor wishes for enforcement to proceed, and for the question of irregularities in the obtaining of the stay to be investigated.

The case will potentially raise numerous interesting points of law, including the extent of an English parent company’s liability for any irregular acts of a subsidiary abroad, the degree of proximity required for an indirect subsidiary to be considered a subsidiary, and the defences to any liability established.  The determination of such questions will be of practical importance to UK companies with offshore subsidiaries engaged in local legal proceedings in developing jurisdictions.

Charles Fussell & Co LLP is instructed in relation to a partnership dispute arbitration

Charles Fussell & Co LLP has been instructed, alongside SJ Berwin LLP, to advise an LLP member caught in the middle of the deadlocked executive committee of a London-based investment fund. The dispute centres on the level of support required for a particular measure that one party believes contrary to its interests, and also involves questions regarding the permissibility of outside activities by an LLP member. The dispute is expected to be subject to arbitration.

The case will raise interesting points of law on the scope of LLP members’ duties and the construction of investment funds’ deeds, meaning it may prove of interest to anyone dealing with the ever-increasing number of partnership disputes in such institutions. 

Charles Fussell & Co wins in the Employment Tribunal

Charles Fussell & Co LLP was instructed in April 2012 by an English company (the "Company") in respect of a claim brought by an ex-employee for unfair dismissal. 

Charles Fussell & Co LLP had previously been instructed by the Company in order to advise on the investigatory and disciplinary process for gross misconduct.  The Company, having followed that advice, came to the conclusion in October 2011 that the employee should be dismissed on the basis of his gross misconduct, which fell under the following four heads:

• procuring and disseminating confidential information about other employees during the course of his employment;
• refusing direct orders from senior management;
• leaving his place of work without explanation, notice or authorisation; and
• failing to attend work without explanation, notice or authorisation. 

The employee's case was as follows:

• He admitted disseminating confidential information, but justified the same on the basis that he had thought that the person to whom he had given the information would already have known about it.  He claimed that he could not remember how he had obtained the information.
• He admitted refusing an order from senior management, but claimed that he had done so on the basis that the order was unreasonable and would have resulted in him missing an appointment with his daughter that evening. 
• He admitted leaving his place of work without explanation, notice or authorisation, but justified the same on the basis that he had had an altercation with senior management during the course of which he claimed that senior management had sworn at him; and
• He admitted failing to attend work without explanation, notice or authorisation, but justified the same on the basis that the altercation with senior management had given rise to serious depression, such that he had been unable to notify the Company of his absence.  He pointed out that he had later self-authorised his absence and had also provided medical evidence in support of his claim. 

The employee claimed that the Company had failed to take into account his medical evidence, had tried to make it impossible for him to return to work, and had predetermined the outcome of the disciplinary process. 

When hearing the case in May 2012, the Employment Judge dismissed the case in its entirety and noted that the Company had made all possible efforts to ensure that the investigation into the employee's conduct was fair.  Specifically, he noted that the Company had taken legal advice which had been followed, and had held two disciplinary meetings and two appeal meetings in order to reach its decision.  In conclusion, the Judge found that the Company had acted very fairly in its dealings with the employee. 

Judge Warren allowed the Company 28 days to apply for its costs in the matter. 

Charles Fussell & Co LLP is instructed to act in relation to a guarantee claim

Charles Fussell & Co LLP has been instructed to act for a private individual who is the subject of a Chancery Division claim brought by an alleged creditor of a now-Chapter 7 bankrupt company. The claim is based on a personal guarantee given by the individual. Aside from disputes as to the merits of the claimant’s claim, the case is of interest because the personal guarantee arises out of a potential misrepresentation by a former fellow director, who may have acted as the creditor’s agent in misleading the individual on the extent of his liability.

The case raises a number of legal questions, including in what situations the director of a company may be held to be acting as another’s agent, and whether the misrepresentations of such an agent can taint the subsequent claims of a principal. It will therefore be of interest to individuals and companies dealing with creditors, and practitioners dealing with agency issues in the corporate and insolvency contexts. 

Charles Fussell & Co LLP has instructed Dr Christopher Harris of 3 Verulam Buildings as Counsel.

Charles Fussell & Co LLP instructed to act in corporate property dispute

Charles Fussell & Co LLP has been instructed to advise a private property investment company (“the Landlord”) in a dispute with the corporate tenant of a hotel (“the Tenant”), which has refused to pay rent as it falls due and taken steps to put the hotel’s assets beyond the reach of creditors in an attempt to renegotiate its lease terms.  The Landlord wishes to forfeit the lease and replace the tenant with a new operating company.

The case will raise numerous difficult points of law, including whether the Landlord may forfeit the lease by physical re-entry, whether the hotel staff’s employment would be transferred to the Landlord or the new operating company after forfeiture and whether a provisional liquidator could be appointed, all of which will be of great practical relevance to landlords in a similar position in a difficult economic climate.