James Gleeson (assisted by Thomas Giles) is instructed by the Plaintiff, Rassmal Investments LLC in a claim against former investments partners, Mubarak and Abdullah Al Suwaiket (and the corporate partnership through which they invested) (“ASG”) in relation to their investment in a significant property development at Vauxhall Cross in London.  The claim arises from the enforcement of security by the client’s joint venture partner which resulted in the client being removed entirely from the joint venture. The issues raised in the proceedings are complex and novel to Jersey.  It is likely that any judgment will make new law in respect of the extent of duties under Article 46 of the Security Interests (Jersey) law 2012, and in nearly all aspects of the remaining claims. The matter went to trial in January and February 2025 and lasted for 4 weeks. Judgment has been reserved.

James is currently acting in another joint-venture dispute, again relating to a London property development, this time for Omani / BVI clients.

[2019-2020] James Dickinson acted for Oak Corporate Finance Limited (“Oak”) in the defence of (a) unfair prejudice claims and (b) a free-standing representation seeking (only) to rectify Oak’s shareholders’ register. The claimants alleged that their shares in Oak had been diluted to their prejudice, after they had refused to participate in EUR 14 million plus capital raising. Oak resisted the unfair prejudice claims and inter alia took the position that the representation to rectify Oak’s share register was procedurally misconceived, as the underlying issues were complex and should all be litigated as part of any unfair prejudice proceedings. The claimants ultimately withdrew their representation and were ordered to pay Oak’s costs on the indemnity basis and to make an interim payment to Oak on account of its costs (see [2020] JRC166).   

The firm’s clients were shareholders in a Jersey company. The lender seized the company’s (MENA based) assets and greatly undervalued them, by potentially US$35m, putting the company into liquidation and having the liquidators sue our clients for US$3m re: allegedly invalid dividends taken. The clients came to Robert Christie in December 2018 to defend dividend proceedings against liquidators. The DG team argued the company had a claim against the lender for the undervaluation of the assets, and argued that the liquidators were conflicted re bringing that claim against the lender. In May 2018, we brought a cross-application to have additional conflict liquidators appointed over the company, to bring a claim against the lender – this is a rare concept and never seen before in Jersey. Additional conflict liquidators were appointed at a hearing on 4 October for that purpose. As this was the first time this has happened in Jersey.