Wrigley Claydon Solicitors

Category: Litigation & Disputes

  • Ex-wife and children of late tech tycoon win £2m share of his fortune

    The first wife and two young sons of a late IT tycoon have won a £2million share of his fortune to help them buy a ‘massive, amazing house’ he promised them.

    Louisa Simonetta, was given the sum after a lengthy legal battle in the High Court with her ex-husband’s second wife Ruby Geetha Lovell-Tomon, over his £5.2million estate. Matt Tomon died suddenly at the age of 38 three years ago, but had failed to make a will for how to share his wealth.

    She argued she wanted the cash to pay for a house in her native Australia for the family, and also fund the private education of their young sons Alexander and Julian, in accordance with Mr Tomon’s wishes.

    Shortly before his death, Mr Tomon sold his IT firm for £5.2million and deposited the funds into his new wife’s account.

    Mrs Lovell-Tomon claimed the money was an ‘outright gift’ left to her and that her husband’s US nationality and plans to move back home or to the Bahamas meant he did not have to make ‘reasonable provision’ for his ex-wife.

    Mr Justice Williams found in favour of Ms Simonetta and said Mr Tomon had clearly promised a home for her and his sons and said the parties had negotiated and agreed to a settlement of the claim, which will see the boys receive £950,000 between them from their father’s estate, with their mother awarded cash and property worth almost £1 million.

    The sums to be received were a ‘reasonable and sensible compromise’ of the case, Mr Justice Williams said.

    He added: ‘Were this action to continue, it has sadly all the hallmarks of a case that would be contested up hill and down dale; something which no doubt would have caused Matt considerable sadness.

    ‘Such is one of the consequences of failing to make provision in the form of a will or otherwise for your family.’But of course, for Louisa and the boys, the reality would be months extending into years no doubt, of litigation.

    If you are seeking provision from an estate or are looking to defend a claim our Probate Partner Rachel Damianou and Litigation Solicitor Shalish Mehta provide professional and sympathetic assistance. Call Rachel or Shalish on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email rld@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Cadbury’s loses legal fight over use of the colour purple

    In December 2018 the Court of Appeal dismissed an Appeal filed by Cadbury’s relating to one of their colour purple trade mark registrations.

    Cadbury and Nestlé were previously involved in a trade mark dispute after the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) rejected Nestlé’s opposition to Cadbury’s trade mark application to register the colour purple for chocolate. This decision was upheld by the High Court but ultimately overturned by the Court of Appeal.

    The case was triggered by Nestle, which claimed the trademark could threaten its hazelnut and caramel chocolate called the Purple One and the Quality Street box decoration.

    Cadbury owner Mondelez International said: ‘We have not appealed the decision but will continue to protect what we believe is a distinctive trademark.’

    The company claimed a legal victory over Nestle two years ago by stopping Nestle from getting a trademark for the four-finger shape of the KitKat.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • The Law Society has recently provided some further guidance in cases where a Will is disputed.

    The Law Society has recently provided some further guidance in cases where a Will is disputed.

    If you’re leaving a will or a relative of yours has left a will, it could be open to being contested or challenged. The situations in which someone can challenge a will aren’t always straightforward.

    In England there are only limited circumstances when you can challenge a will. These are:

    – Because the will is invalid. For example, a person whose will it is was unduly influenced or coerced or because they did not have the mental ability to know what they were doing or because the will wasn’t signed or witnessed correctly.

    – Because a family member wasn’t provided for. Spouses, civil partners, children and dependants can make a claim if they haven’t been left anything/enough in the will.

    Have you been affected by any of the above? Our Probate Partner Rachel Damianou and Litigation Solicitor Shalish Mehta provide professional and sympathetic assistance. Call Rachel or Shalish on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email rld@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Louboutin wins trademark battle against VanHaren

    Dutch shoe retailer Van Haren has lost its lengthy legal dispute against luxury shoe group Louboutin over the trademark of its red-soled shoes.

    Judges in the District Court of the Hague ruled on Wednesday that Van Haren had infringed Louboutin’s trade mark in its red soles.

    The European Court has decided the Dutch shoe chain Van Haren is no longer allowed to manufacture or sell shoes with red soles as Louboutin holds exclusive rights.

    The legal battle started in 2012, when Christian Louboutin began proceedings against Van Haren, after it included high-heeled shoes with red soles.

    Christian Louboutin had registered trademarks in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for the colour red being applied to the sole of a shoe, covering “footwear” in 2010 and “high-heeled shoes” in 2013.

    The case was first settled by the court of The Hague in April 2013, where it agreed with Louboutin and ordered Van Haren to stop selling the shoes.

    Van Haren appealed against that judgement and the matter was presented to the European Court, which also decided that the red sole is covered by Louboutin’s exclusive right.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Supermac’s wins landmark battle against McDonald’s

    Supermac’s wins landmark battle against McDonald’s

    On Tuesday, Supermac’s, a fast-food chain in Ireland won a landmark legal battle against McDonald’s over the use of trademarks. Supermac’s Managing Director, Pat McDonagh earned his nickname Supermac in the 1960s due to his performances in Gaelic football.

    Supermac’s persuaded the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to cancel McDonald’s use of the “Big Mac” trademark.

    The EUIPO, which is based in Alicante, Spain, ruled that McDonald’s had not proven genuine use of Big Mac, which it trademarked in 1996, as a burger or restaurant name.

    The trademark had prevented Supermac’s ambition of expanding outside of Ireland because McDonald’s had argued that similarity between Big Mac and Supermac would confuse customers.

    The ruling prevents bigger companies from hoarding trademarks with no intention of using them.

    McDonald’s have yet to state whether they intend to appeal.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or

  • Intellectual Property Dispute: Shanks vs Unilever

    In the case of Shanks-v-Unilever Plc the Supreme Court had to consider what amounts to an “outstanding benefit” for the purposes of determining whether an employee who has made an invention belonging to an employer for which a patent has been granted is entitled to compensation pursuant to s.40(1) of the Patents Act 1977?

    During the course of his employment with Unilever, Professor Shanks invented a device designed to measure glucose concentrations in blood, serum or urine.

    The rights to the invention belonged to Unilever, which subsequently obtained patents in respect of the invention. Years later, these patents were licensed to companies operating in the blood glucose testing field. Professor Shanks brought a claim for employee compensation against Unilever pursuant to s.40 (1) of the Patents Act 1977. The Intellectual Property Office concluded that the financial benefit to Unilever from licensing the patent rights was £24.5m, but that this was not an “outstanding” benefit as required by the terms of s.40(1). This conclusion was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf.

     

    Call Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Probert v Moore

    Bethany Probert, a 13 year old girl, was severely injured walking along the carriageway on a 60mph unlit road at 5:00pm in December 2009. A hedgerow required her to walk in the road.

    The defendant driver, Mr Moore said that Bethany was also partly to blame in that it was dark and she was walking on the left hand side of the road and had not been wearing a high visibility jacket. However, the Court held that Bethany could not be negligent. The Judge found that:

    ‘An ordinary 13 year old should not be expected to consider taking the same level of precautions as an adult. It would be asking too much of her to say that she should not have started to walk home at all, waited for her mother or accepted lift, or should not have started to walk home without borrowing a high visibility jacket, reflective markings or torch from the stables”.

    Mr Moore’s insurers, Churchill, have been given leave to appeal the decision.

    Suffering an injury that was not your fault can have a major impact on your life. Our injury solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Shalish Mehta in our litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can help our clients receive the compensation they deserve following accidents where they have suffered personal injury or financial loss.

  • British microchip-maker Imagination Technologies calls off legal action against Apple

    British microchip-maker Imagination Technologies have called off a threatened ­legal action against Apple over a dispute regarding its graphics technology.

    In 2017 it emerged that Apple planned to design its own iPhone graphics processors instead of using ­Imagination’s designs. Imagination’s shares crashed and eventually it was sold off to Canyon Bridge for £550m.

    Imagination had started a “dispute resolution procedure”, and questioned whether Apple was capable of designing its own chips without Imagination’s intellectual property.

    Imagination’s designs featured in every iPhone and iPad from 2008 until 2017, when Apple started reducing its reliance on the company. Apple describes the graphics units in its new iPhones as being completely Apple-designed.

    Imagination does not know if it would continue to receive any royalties on the new iPhones. However, it was now concentrating on applying its expertise to new areas such as artificial intelligence, and hoped Apple would license its technology again in future.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology dispute can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will help put your case together and act on your behalf.

    Call Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • James Campbell, the only son of his late mother Sarah who was told by his late mother ‘it’s all yours’ is defeding a High Court claim for over half of his inheritance of £725,000 by his mother’s last boyfriend, Andrew Banfield.

    James Campbell, the only son of his late mother Sarah who was told by his late mother ‘it’s all yours’ is defeding a High Court claim for over half of his inheritance of £725,000 by his mother’s last boyfriend, Andrew Banfield.

    James Campbell also claims that this mother’s will, drawn up 14 years before her death in 2015, handed most of her estate – including the keys to his childhood home – to him.

    Mr Banfield says he and Mrs Campbell lived as ‘husband and wife’ for more than 20 years before her death and he needs a payout from her estate to buy his own home.

    However, Mr Campbell says Mr Banfield has plenty of money of his own and denies the relationship between his mother and Mr Banfield was as close as he says.

    The court heard that all agree that Mr Banfield’s relationship with Mrs Campbell began in the early 1990s after the death of Mr Campbell’s father.

    Mr Banfield claims to have moved into her Thames Ditton home in 1993 and that they became engaged in 1999.

    From then until her death, they lived as a couple, with her partially maintaining him in her home.

    But Mr Campbell denies there was ever an engagement and says Mr Banfield did not move in until 2002.

    Mr Campbell argued that Mr Banfield is not entitled to anything from the estate, beyond a £5,000 gift which Mrs Campbell left him in her will and that he does not need it anyway, as he has money and an income of his own with which to buy or rent a property.

    The court heard Mr Banfield claims he needs at least £420,000 to buy a suitable property in the village. The hearing continues.

    Wills and Probate disputes can be very complex and require expert legal guidance to resolve matters as fairly as possible.

     

    At Wrigley Claydon, we fight on your behalf to make this difficult time a little easier, whether you are bringing a claim or you are on the receiving end. We are experienced in this field and have won complex cases for our clients.

     

    As it is an emotional time we deal with your case sensitively.

     

    If you are looking for dispute advice please contact us. Call 0161 624 6811 (Option 6) to speak to Shalish Mehta, in our civil and commercial litigation department or email sm@wrigleyclaydon.com.

  • Judge Savages Every Party in an Appeal as Dishonest

    Mr Justice Turner threw out the challenge from a claimant in the case of Rashid v Munir & Ors who wanted a share of profits from rental properties run by his brothers after their father’s death.

    Of the claimant, he stated:  ‘I do not believe him on this or indeed any other material matter’. The first defendant’s evidence was ‘unhelpful’ and the second defendant was ‘as heroically dishonest as he is in his everyday life’. The third defendant was described as giving evidence in a ‘facetious manner’, which included winking at the claimant’s counsel and showing he regarded telling the truth as ‘simply no more than a lifestyle choice’.

    The judge added: ‘Attempting to establish the common but unstated intention of a group of individuals all giving honest but conflicting evidence is difficult enough. Where, as here, each witness is attempting to outdo the other in a rich display of competitive dishonesty, the task of the judge is unenviable.’

    The judge’s conclusion that the claimant was not entitled to claim a share of the commercial rents was ruled unassailable and the appeal dismissed.

    Suffering a financial or contractual dispute can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811 (Option 6) or email sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.