Episode 8 of the Essex Court Chambers ’10 in 10′ podcast is now here.

The episode had previously been postponed after the the first instance judgment of the case was subject to an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case, which led to an expedited trial in July 2020, concerns Business Interruption insurance policies and whether they provide coverage for losses caused by reason of the Covid-19 pandemic and public health measures taken by UK authorities in response to the pandemic from March 2020.

A specially constituted Commercial Court handed down judgment in September 2020, and after giving permission to appeal to all parties, the Supreme Court handed down its Judgment in January 2021.

The substantial Judgment running to 112 pages (with a leading Judgment given by Lord Hamblen and Lord Leggatt) addresses a number of issues in relation to 14 types of policy issued by 6 insurers which were said to be representative of the wider market.

In this episode Stephen Houseman QC is joined by James Collins QC and Jeremy Brier to discuss both the first instance and the Supreme Court appeal Judgment. Jeremy Brier acted for the First Defendant in both the Supreme Court and the Divisional Court.

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the 10th and final episode of the Essex Court Chambers ‘10 in 10’ podcast, Stephen Houseman QC is joined by David Joseph QC and Toby Landau QC to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision of Enka v. Chubb.

In October 2020 the Supreme Court issued its decision in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Co Chubb following an expedited appeal heard in July from the Court of Appeal decision earlier this year. The case concerns the grant of antisuit injunctions in relation to foreign proceedings in support of English arbitration.

Members of Essex Court Chambers were instructed on both sides for the appeal to the Supreme Court, Toby Landau QC joined the counsel team for the appellant (Chubb) and David Joseph QC joined the counsel team for the respondent (Enka).

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Stephen Houseman QC and Daniel Oudkerk QC discuss the litigation of Tullett Prebon v. BGC, which involved a large scale attempted team move in the inter-dealer broker sector in 2010 and 2011.

The case is considered to be a landmark employee competition conspiracy claim, which provided the courts with the opportunity to set out the framework and principles that have underpinned disputes in this area and subsequent team move cases over the last decade.

Daniel Oudkerk QC is a leading specialist in employment law with extensive experience of large scale team move litigation. He appeared for Tullett Prebon in this case.

With thanks Katherine Ratcliffe, junior tenant at Essex Court Chambers for her research for this podcast.

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In episode seven, Stephen Houseman QC is joined by Richard Millett QC and Anna Dilnot to discuss the chancery insolvency case of BAT v. Sequana, which occupied many weeks of Chancery Division's time in 2016 and the Court of Appeal in 2018.

The high profile case concerned the payment of two dividends by AWA to its parent company Sequana. Both sets of appeals arose out of the judgment of Mrs Justice Rose following a 32 day trial in the Chancery Division in 2016, and her further judgment following a 2 day hearing on the remedy to be granted on the BAT claim in 2017.

With thanks to Akash Sonecha, Junior Tenant at Essex Court Chambers, for his research for this episode.

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In episode 6 of the Essex Court Chambers '10 in 10’ podcast, Stephen Houseman QC talks to Hugh Mercer QC and Dan Sarooshi QC about the two Gina Miller appeals to the Supreme Court in 2017 and 2019 and the effect of the decisions on the Brexit process.

The first appeal, heard in 2017, considered the decision about whether it was Parliament or the Government that under UK Constitution had the authority to give notice to the EU that the UK was leaving the EU. The second Appeal heard in 2019 was in relation to the Prime Ministers advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament after it was confirmed that the UK was to leave the EU.

Dan Sarooshi QC appeared on behalf of Miller in ‘Miller I.’

With thanks to Akash Sonecha, Junior Tenant at Essex Court Chambers, for his research for this episode.

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode Stephen Houseman QC talks to Steven Berry QC and David Walsh about the Fiona Trust litigation, which spurned seventeen reported decisions including four from the Court of Appeal and one from the House of Lords. Fiona Trust is well known for a number of important reasons in the arbitration and the commercial litigation worlds, and involved many months of commercial court time between Autumn 2009 and Summer 2010.

Members of Essex Court Chambers appeared in virtually every stage of the litigation.

Steven acted for Mr Yuri Nikitin in both the litigation and the arbitration and we will touch on both.

With thanks to Akash Sonecha, Junior Tenant at Essex Court Chambers, for his research for this episode.

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In episode four of the Essex Court Chambers ’10 in 10′ Podcast, Stephen Houseman QC is joined by Alison Macdonald QC and Jackie McArthur to discuss the ongoing Public International Law case of Gambia v Myanmar.

The case is currently ongoing before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which gave rise to an important provisional measures decision in January this year. Together, Alison and Jackie discuss how more recent developments in the case showcase how international law is adapting to the modern world.

If you would like further reading on this case, please see below relevant links:

1. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/178
2. https://www.ejiltalk.org/icj-indicates-provisional-measures-in-the-myanmar-genocide-case/
3. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/25/rohingya-symposium-the-rohingya-cases-before-international-courts-and-the-crime-of-genocide/
4. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/25/rohingya-symposium-judicial-intervention-and-the-duty-to-prevent-genocide-in-the-rohingya-genocide-case-the-role-of-obligatio-erga-omnes-and-nouvelle-protection-diplomatique/
5. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/24/symposium-on-the-impact-and-implications-of-international-law-myanmar-and-the-rohingya-an-introduction/
6. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/27/rohingya-symposium-the-un-security-council-the-rohingya-genocide-and-the-future-of-international-justice/
7. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/28/rohingya-symposium-some-thoughts-about-the-role-of-the-international-community/
8. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/28/rohingya-symposium-concluding-comments-and-miles-to-go/
9. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/25/rohingya-symposium-why-so-secret-the-case-for-public-access-to-myanmars-reports-on-implementation-of-the-icjs-provisional-measures-order/
10. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/09/11/third-state-intervention-in-the-rohingya-genocide-case-how-when-and-why-part-i/
11. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/09/11/third-state-intervention-in-the-rohingya-genocide-case-how-when-and-why-part-ii/
12. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/08/the-republic-of-the-gambia-v-facebook-inc-domestic-proceedings-international-implications/
13. https://www.justsecurity.org/71157/gambia-v-facebook-what-the-discovery-request-reveals-about-facebooks-content-moderation/
14. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Stephen Houseman QC is joined by Tim Akkouh and James Sheehan for a discussion about 'the extraordinary' case of JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and associated litigation.

The Ablyazov litigation included a series of claims brought by JSC BTA, a Kazakh bank against its former Chairman, officers and associated individuals and companies alleging the misappropriation of about $5 billion between 2005 and 2009. The first claim was issued in August 2009. The case went to the commercial court on 20 occasions and twice to the supreme court. The proceedings as a whole were characterised by intense interlocutory fighting and is described by one presiding judge as 'being fought by the forensic equivalent of trench warfare.'

Tim was instructed by the bank in 2009 and James was instructed by Mr Ablyazov from 2010.

With thanks to Katherine Ratcliffe, junior tenant at Essex Court Chambers for her research for this episode.

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode Stephen Houseman QC speaks to Jeffrey Gruder QC and Philippa Hopkins QC about one of the leading shipping cases from last decade, the Supreme Court decision in Gard Marine & Energy v China National Chartering, known as the Ocean Victory.

Jeffrey Gruder QC was involved in the case in the Court of Appeal.

Together Jeffrey and Philippa discuss the significance of this charter party dispute and look at the significance of the importance of the decision in relation to general commercial law, especially in relation to insurance. Some of the the particular issues that arose in the case have special relevance in the current climate.

With thanks to Lorraine Aboagye, junior tenant at Essex Court Chambers for her research for this episode.

The music used in this podcast is “Upbeat Party” by scottholmesmusic.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the pilot episode of the Essex Court Chambers Podcast, Stephen Houseman QC is joined by Graham Dunning QC and Siddharth Dhar to talk about about the Supreme Court case of Taurus v State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) the Iraqi government entity for marketing of its oil production. 

Members of Essex Court Chambers appeared on both side at all three levels in the case, in the Commercial Court, the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court.

With thanks to Essex Court Chambers pupil Katherine Ratcliffe for her research for this podcast.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.