The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Fountain Court Chambers

FOUNTAIN COURT, TEMPLE, LONDON, EC4Y 9DH, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7583 3335
Fax:
Fax 020 7353 0329
DX:
5 LONDON CHANCERY LANE
Email:
Web:
www.fountaincourt.co.uk
London, Singapore

The strength and depth of Fountain Court members is evidenced by the volume of high-value and complex cases they are involved with, across diverse practice areas. A flavour of the notable cases of the set are given below:


Administrative and Public Law

  • Lumsdon and others v Legal Services Board - ‘QASA’ judicial review, Supreme Court, upheld the validity of a regulatory scheme to measure the competency of criminal advocates.
  • Bluefin Insurance Services Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2014] EWHC 3413 (Admin). The first ever successful judicial review brought against the FOS since its creation in 2001. 
  • R (OJSC Rosneft Oil Company) v  (1) Her Mastey’s Treasury (2) SSBIS (3) the Financial Conduct Authority High profile challenge for the FCA brought by one of Russia’s largest oil companies to the implementation of EU sanctions.

Aviation

  • Alpstream AG and others v PK Airfinance and GE Capital - all parties represented by a silk and junior team from Fountain Court.
  • ACG Acquisition XX v Olympic Airlines - Court of Appeal victory on a novel issue estoppel point.
  • Huzar v Jet 2.com and Dawson v Thomson – appeals before the Court of Appeal re EU Regulation 261 which succeeded in establishing that a technical fault did not qualify as extraordinary circumstances (Huzar) and that the limitation period for a claim for compensation is 6 years (Dawson).
  • Rodgers v Hoyle - Landmark Appeal determined the admissibility as evidence into aviation accidents. Involved the Department of Transport, and IATA as interveners.

Banking & Finance

  • RBS Rights Issue Litigation Greenwood & Ors v RBS & Ors
  • Marme Inversiones v Royal Bank of Scotland, HSH Nordbank AG, Bayerische Landesbank, ING Bank and Caixa D’Estalvis - Euro 1bn dispute concerning the legal consequences of alleged EURIBOR manipulation by RBS.
  • Deutsche Bank v Unitech - high profile LIBOR test case.
  • Nomura International plc v Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena - high value dispute arising out of asset swap and repurchase transactions.
  • Crestsign v Royal Bank of Scotland - leading interest rate mis-selling case, Appeal hearing 2016.
  • Bank Mellat -v- HM Treasury - seeking damages in excess of US $2 billion from HM Treasury, for the alleged restrictions imposed by HM Treasury on Bank Mellat in 2009 and found to have been unlawful by the Supreme Court (2013).
  • Property Alliance Group v. Royal Bank of Scotland - alleged manipulation of Libor, and wrongful transfer of accounts to the bank’s restructuring group.

Commercial Litigation

  • Deutsche Bank v. Sebastian Holdings - 16 week trial.
  • Excalibur Ventures - defence of claims for $1.7 billion, in a dispute over the ownership of oil and gas concessions in Iraqi Kurdistan.
  • BTA Bank v Ablyazov - $5 billion fraud claim in Commercial Court.

Energy & Natural Resources

  • Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone & Gulf Keystone
  • Advising and acting in ICC arbitration proceedings for one of the partners to an international oil production sharing and uptake agreement, in relation to a multi-million dollar dispute arising from a joint venture in respect of Nigerian oil resources.

Fraud: Civil

  • Republic of Djibouti v Boreh - involving allegations that the defendant and his companies defrauded the Republic of very many millions of USD
  • The film finance litigation - brought by 220 claimants who were investors in a series of investment schemes in TV and film productions.
  • JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov – one of the largest fraud cases to come before the English courts.
  • U&M v KCM - A US$400 million claim and counterclaim between Zambian mine owner and a Zambian mine operator.
  • Tchenguiz and others v Serious Fraud Office - issues of misfeasance, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, trespass, breaches of the Human Rights Act, and malicious prosecution.

Insurance

  • Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company Limited v. Heraldglen Ltd – insurance claims arising from the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre.
  • Sulamerica v Enesa Engenharia - tested the enforceability of an agreement for London arbitration contained in a contract governed by foreign law.
  • Mitsui Sumitomo v Mayor’s Office of Police & Crime - addressing the meaning of “riot” under the Act and the scope of the compensation recoverable for damage.

Product Liability

  • PIP breast implants group litigation - alleged defective breast implants, claims brought against clinics/hospitals that provided them.
  • Virgin Atlantic v Koito & Mitsubishi - claim by the airline against its Japanese equipment suppliers.
  • Air Transworld v Bombardier Inc - interpretation of unfair contract terms in international supply contracts involving sales aircraft.

Professional Discipline

  • Lumsdon and others v Legal Services Board
  • R (Prudential) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax - whether legal professional privilege should extend to accountants giving legal advice on tax.
  • FRC v Deloitte and Einollahi - The FRC alleged that Deloitte and Einollahi acted without regard to their duties of objectivity and without managing conflicts when they advised MG Rover and the ‘Phoenix Four’ in the years prior to the collapse of MG Rover.
  • Solicitors Regulation Authority v. Barnett - disciplinary case addressing the professional issues arising out of Axiom Legal Financing Fund scandal in the Caribbean.

Professional Negligence

  • Gemini v CBRE - “valuation trial of the century”, a very substantial claim arising out of alleged negligent valuation of 26 properties in a securitised portfolio. 
  • Bank Sarasin - alleged mis-selling of financial products. This is one of the highest profile professional negligence cases ever heard before the DIFC.
  •  Al-Suleiman litigation - large mis-selling claim brought by an ultra-high-net-worth Saudi investor.

Travel

  • TUI v CAA – landmark ECJ case which confirmed that compensation was payable for delay under EC regulation 261.
  • Rogers v Hoyle – investigation and reporting of aviation accidents, the Department of Transport and IATA were represented on the appeal as interveners.
  • Maldives International Airport dispute- the new international airport in the Maldives and the right to charge passengers a departure fee to fund the project.
  • easyJet v Virgin Airways and British Airways: London-Moscow route scarce capacity allocation.

Legal Developments by:
Fountain Court Chambers (Fountain Court Chambers)

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to