Recent projects
1. Kuwait Airways Corporation (KAC) -v- Iraqi Airways Company
(IAC) – instructed by Howard Kennedy: We were instructed to act
on behalf of KAC in what was the longest running commercial case in the
history of the English courts, mainly due to a series of findings of
perjury against IAC which led to an over-throwing of 12 years of
previous decisions. After eighteen years of litigation during which the
full might of the Saddam and subsequent regimes was deployed to hide the
truth, KAC holds judgments against IAC for in excess of US$1.2BN,
including in excess of US$80M in costs. We worked very closely with
KAC’s legal team over a number of years on a whole range of costs
issues, although the principal project was the preparation of KAC’s
massive costs claim, which we believe was the largest ever the largest
ever to reach the doors of the Supreme Court Costs Office. The preparation
of the costs claim was extremely challenging – the 18 year litigation occupied
about 200 days of court time and involved a famous jurisdictional battle, six
major trials including 2 perjury trials, and two of the longest ever appeal hearings
before House of Lords. Our bills of costs set out total costs of in
excess of £40M, and included, in fine detail, more than 45,000 fee
earner hours and a disbursements claim of in excess of £20M.
2. Kirin-Amgen Inc -v- Hoechst Marion Roussel – instructed by
Taylor Wessing: We were instructed on behalf of the Amgen
parties following what was one of the largest patent cases of the past
decade. It involved a pharmaceutical product of significant commercial
importance (with an annual worldwide market of £5BN) and was extremely
complex from both a legal and technical standpoint. The case occupied
six weeks in the High Court and then a further ten days on amendment
proceedings, approximately twelve days in the Court of Appeal and eight
days in the House of Lords.
3. Research in Motion UK Limited -v- Visto Corporation –
instructed by McDermott Will & Emery: We represent Visto in the
headline costs case of 2008/9. The case concerned patents on mobile
email technology (the ‘Blackberry’ patents), however it is best known
for Mr Justice Floyd's public criticism of Allen & Overy's (A&O) £5.2m
bill. Floyd J was staggered that A&O ran up nine man-years worth of
costs for a five-day trial.
4. Eli Lilly Co & Lilly Icos LLC -v- 8PM Chemist Limited –
instructed by Fasken Martineau Stringer Saul LLP: We were
instructed to act on behalf of 8PM Chemist, who successfully overturned
an injunction and resisted a claim for alleged trade-mark infringement
under section 10(4)(c) of the Trade Marks Act when it was found to have
lawfully “imported” genuine products for re-export under the Inward
Processing Relief System.
5. Dyson Plc -v- Benjamin Strutt – instructed by Wragge & Co:
We acted on behalf of Dyson, who obtained an injunction to restrain the
defendant from acting in breach of a restraint of trade covenant in
circumstances where there was a legitimate concern that he might
disclose confidential information to his new employer (Black & Decker).
6. W L Gore & Associates GMBH -v- Geox Spa: We advised
Taylor Wessing in relation to Herbert Smith’s substantial bill of costs.
An unusual feature of the claim was that some of the heads of claim were
hived off before trial, to be dealt with at a later date, and so it was
necessary to fillet out costs relating to certain heads of claim from
the tally of global costs.