The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Chambers of Nicholas Caddick QC

5 NEW SQUARE, LINCOLN'S INN, LONDON, WC2A 3RJ, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7404 0404
Fax:
Fax 020 7404 0505
DX:
16 LONDON CHANCERY LANE WC2
Email:
Web:
www.hogarthchambers.com

Nicholas Caddick QC

Tel:
Work 020 7404 0404
Email:
Hogarth Chambers (Chambers of Nicholas Caddick QC)

Position

Barrister specialising in (1) intellectual property – copyright, designs, trade marks, breach of confidence; (2) contractual disputes – particularly with regard to IT and media disputes; (3) conflict of laws and jurisdiction; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) insolvency – including director’s disqualification; (5) property law – particularly mortgages, easements and construction disputes; (6) probate and succession. IP cases include: Stretchline v H&M [2015] EWCA Civ (settlement agreements, striking out defence and counterclaim asserting invalidity of patent); A v B (2015) (parties’ identities confidential) (Luxury Goods and perfumes – dispute as to the scope of trade mark rights under a licence agreement); Victoria Plumb v Victorian Plumbing (2015) (trade mark dispute; adwords); Joules v Brand Auth (2014) (enforcing IPR in the designs of clothes); Getronics v P&O Ferries (2014) (contractual dispute over a substantial IT contract); Hewlett Packard v K2 (2014) (interim relief in trade mark parallel importation case); America’s Collectibles v Genuine Gemstone (2014) (dispute as to title to patent); Odeon Cinemas v Odeon Entertainment (2014) (trade mark dispute over trading names); C Plc v P [2006] Ch 549 (privilege against self-incrimination in relation to search orders); O Ltd v Z [2005] EWHC 238 (privilege against self-incrimination in relation to search orders); Badfinger Music v Evans [2002] EMLR 2 (fiduciaries; equitable remuneration); Attorney General v Times Newspapers [2001] 1 WLR 885 (CA) (confidential information and newspapers). Chancery cases include: Elmbid v Burgess [2013] EWHC 1489 (contractual dispute; notice to complete); Fortune v Wiltshire Council [2013] 1 WLR 808 (CA) (highways); Re Minrealm [2012] EWHC 343 (companies; valuation of shares; consent orders); Official Receiver v Huck [2011] BPIR 702 (insolvency; cross border jurisdiction); Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Beasley [2011] 1 WLR 1704 (CA) (nature of debt in an IVA); Alkin v Raymond [2010] WTLR 1117 (replacement of executor/trustees); Official Receiver v Mitterfellner [2009] BPIR 1075 (insolvency; cross border jurisdiction); Secretary of State v Hollier [2006] BCC 11 (disqualification of directors; de facto directors); Secretary of State v Feakins [2007] BCC 54 (CA) (transactions defrauding creditors);Re Huddersfield Fine Worsted [2005] BCC 915 (CA) (insolvency; priorities of debts in administration); Re Timothy [2006] BPIR 329 (insolvency; IVAs); Colin Dawson Windows v King’s Lynn and West Norfolk BC [2005] 2 P&CR 19 (CA) (adverse possession); Scottish Widows v Tripipatkul [2004] BCC 200 (liability of surety under lease); P&S Platt v Crouch [2004] 1 P&CR 18 (CA) (easement of mooring); Green v Lord Somerleyton [2004] 1 P&CR 33 (easement of drainage; nuisance; flooding); Re Marann Brookes [2003] BCC 239 (insolvency; cross border jurisdiction); Malory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes [2002] Ch 216 (CA) (overriding interests in land, rectification of the register); Tracs v Sampson [2001] EWCA Civ 1388 (appointment of receivers); Hale v Norfolk County Council [2001] Ch 717 (CA) (highways).

Career

Called 1986, Middle Temple. Publications: (1) co-editor Copinger & Skone James on Copyright (formerly Specialist Editor on designs); (2) co-author Caddick & Longstaff ‘A User’s Guide to Trade Marks and Passing Off’ 4th ed. (2015). (3) Former editor of Williams Mortimer & Sunnuck’s Executors, Administrators and Probate 18th – 20th eds.

Member

Intellectual Property Bar Association; Chancery Bar Association; Non-Contentious Probate Rules Working Group.

Education

Alton College, Hampshire; St. Edmund Hall, Oxford (1984 BA Jurisprudence, 1985 BCL; MA).

Leisure

Horse riding and rugby.


London Bar

Intellectual property

Within: Leading Silks

Nicholas Caddick QC - Hogarth ChambersHe has impressive intellect and reassuring calmness.

[back to top]


Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Communiqué on Equity Crowdfunding Is Officially Published

    By way of background, in January 2019, the Capital Markets Board (“ CMB ”) had issued an announcement on its website on the Draft Communiqué on Equity Crowdfunding [1] . The CMB has now officially published the Communiqué on Crowdfunding No. III-35/A (“ Communiqué ”), on October 3, 2019. The Communiqué entered into force as of October 3, 2019.
  • Beneficial Ownership Concept new interpretation from the Russian federal tax service

    The recent interpretative letter issued by the Russian Federal Tax Services (“FTS”) on 08th August 2019, has provided further guidance as to the application of the Beneficial Ownership Concept, further to the letter initially provided on the 12th of April 2018 which adopted a strict approach of the concept. 
  • Cyprus and Netherlands Double Tax Treaty Update

    Cyprus has concluded the negotiations for the avoidance of double taxation with the Netherlands. The double tax treaty was agreed at technocratic level in Hague. It is expected to be signed by the end of 2019 or early in 2020.
  • Vacancy - Senior Corporate Lawyer

    The Senior Corporate Lawyer, who will be reporting to Partners, will be working with both the firm’s legal team as well as the financial services team. The successful candidate will be requested to show initiative, take on certain responsibilities within the firm, work in a multinational environment and will immediately be given the opportunity to further advance their career within the law firm.
  • CJEU RULED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP CONCEPT

    The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on February 26, 2019, in the “Danish Beneficial Ownership Cases”, can be perceived as a landmark on the interpretation of the Beneficial Ownership concept under the Interest and Royalties Directive (IRD) and the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (PSD).
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‘centre of life test’ in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of  ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan   [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the “Regulations”). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess  Surinder Singh  cases that appear before them.
  • ITALIAN RULES ON JOINT VENTURES IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND CONCESSIONS

    Italian rules on jointventures concerning public procurement and concession contracts are set out inlight of the European legal framework provided for in Directive 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. The European rules aim to ensurethe best use of public money so that EU citizens benefit from strategicinvestments and services at fair prices. In this context, public procurementand concessions represent key instruments that need to be regulated and standardisedin order to ensure free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and freedomto provide services.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a  sole representative visa  is not “a  majority shareholder in the overseas business”.