020 7246 6560 / info@hughmans.co.uk

Hughmans Success Stories

20th June 2017

Our civil partner Simon Silver has been achieving brilliant results for his clients having had three cases go to trial in 6 weeks with all three finding in our clients favour.

In the first of the three recent victories, the landlord of a pub brought a claim against the tenant and the guarantors after falling into rent arrears and breaching several terms of the lease. Hughmans acted for the tenant and one of the guarantors.

The landlord had issued a Section 146 notice under the Law of Property Act 1925. This specified the breaches committed and the defendants were given a short period to remedy the breaches before proceedings commenced.

Despite the Landlords assertion that our clients should not be entitled to relief from forfeiture to enable them to assign the lease, the judge ordered in our clients favour. Additionally, he granted a further 6 months to remedy the breaches.

The second case involved a co-habitation dispute in the Land Registration First-Tier Tribunal. On 17 May 2017, the Tribunal ruled in favour of Hughmans’ client in finding she had a beneficial interest in a property on the basis of a common intention constructive trust.

The basis of the application was that our client and the Respondent had purchased a property, with the intention of residing in it together with their son. Due to personal circumstances the Respondent was solely put on the title, and asserted in response to the application that there was never any intention that the Applicant should have an interest in the property.

When considering the application, the court was provided with a comprehensive evidence from the Applicant relating to the property and to the parties relationship.

The Tribunal concluded that there had always been an intention that our client would be entitled to own the property in equal shares and accordingly ordered this should be done retrospectively.

In the third case, the UK Trademark Tribunal ruled in favour of Hughmans’ client on an Application for Invalidation. The dispute concerned the registration of a trade mark registered in respect of a number of class 25 goods.

The Applicant has operated a renowned music venue/nightclub. Under this name, it has traded in various goods, such as CDs and clothing and had also provided charitable services. In making the application, our client claimed that a misrepresentation would occur which would damage its goodwill, and therefore the use of the mark should be considered liable to be prevented under the law of passing off.

The submissions of the applicant in relation to goodwill were two-pronged. They relied upon goodwill in relation to the field of clothing and further in relation to the provision of music services at the venue. Evidence was provided as to the venue’s long standing reputation as a live music venue with very well known bands playing there.

The tribunal was satisfied that all three elements of passing off were present, and that the application for invalidity would succeed in relation to all the goods for which the mark is registered.

 

More articles


Crown Prosecution Service caught out by leaked email

The Shadow Attorney General has called for an inquiry into practices at the Crown Prosecution Service, following revelations in a leaked email that Crown lawyers had been instructed to adopt a system whereby all troublesome, low paid cases were to be sent to barristers at the independent bar whilst high earning cases were to be […]

Read more

Hughmans win multi million pound breach of contract claim

Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz [2015] EWHC 3155 (Ch) Hughmans have won a substantial claim against a senior member of the Saudi Royal Family on behalf of their client Janan Harb, widow of the late King Fahd. The litigation focused on an oral agreement between Mrs Harb and the […]

Read more

When is a divorce ‘obtained in’ the British Islands?

Peter Black acted for a respondent in a case which considered whether a divorce certificate granted at the consulate of the Russian Federation in London amounted to a divorce ‘obtained in’ the British Islands for the purposes of section 44 (1) of the Family Law Act 1986. The Court ruled that the divorce had been […]

Read more