James Dickinson Archives - Dickinson Gleeson

GTC v Tchenguiz (2025 – and ongoing)

Johnny Le Chevalier — Wed, 02 Jul 2025 14:11:52 +0000

James Gleeson, James Dickinson and Craig Swart act for GTC (previously Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA) in proceedings relating to the Tchenguiz Discretionary Trust (TDT). GTC has also been the trustee of other trusts associated with Robert Tchenguiz (“RT”). Various proceedings have arisen out of RT’s application to confirm his replacement of GTC with new Trustees (there have been eight sets of proceedings) which are related to the well-known £160m Investec v Glenalla proceedings in Guernsey. DG has been advising GTC in relation to ongoing proceedings concerning the TDT and related trusts and representing it in proceedings in Jersey as to the validity of appointment of additional trustees and subsequent transfer of trusteeships. One issue which has arisen regarding GTC ceasing to be trustees is that GTC had been provided with a personal indemnity from RT in relation to legal costs, by RT’s secretary, cc’d to RT and bearing his signature. RT now claims his secretary signed his signature without his authority, or knowledge, and he did not read the email. The validity of the indemnity was considered at a 5-day trial in March 2025 The unusual facts means the judgment will be ground-breaking on the issues of ostensible. Judgment is reserved.

The post GTC v Tchenguiz (2025 – and ongoing) appeared first on Dickinson Gleeson.

Kidd and Ors v All Services Group Holdings Limited and Ors [2019] JRC 221

Johnny Le Chevalier — Wed, 02 Jul 2025 12:36:59 +0000

[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 post Kidd and Ors v All Services Group Holdings Limited and Ors [2019] JRC 221 appeared first on Dickinson Gleeson.

C Weise and Others v Oak Corporate Finance Limited and others

Johnny Le Chevalier — Wed, 02 Jul 2025 12:36:31 +0000

The post C Weise and Others v Oak Corporate Finance Limited and others appeared first on Dickinson Gleeson.