LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
We successfully represented a client in a significant cryptocurrency loan dispute. On 2 July 2024, the High Court handed down a judgment varying the valuation date for assessing damages in lieu of specific performance. Initially, the County Court had set the valuation date at the breach in 2019, which did not account for the significant increase in Ethereum’s value.
HMRC consented to the dismissal of a £0.5m winding-up petition against our client company, conceding their petition and agreeing to pay substantial costs. Our solicitor and counsel team successfully argued HMRC’s actions, including account freezing and misrepresentation, were an abuse of the proper process of the Companies Court. This case highlights the repercussions for all, including UK Government agencies, that engage in unjustified petitions.
HMRC have been using Horizon Data to raise tax assessments and tax penalties against innocent sub-postmasters. In one such case only after a six year battle when HMRC faced paying costs did they decide to withdraw their tax demands. Even now they refuse to recognise their misconduct should be punished by them paying indemnity costs and have threatened the sub-postmaster victim with a costs order simply for daring to ask for his full costs.
In this case our lawyers defeated “London Credit”; a bridging lender that demanded circa £160,000.00 GBP. We applied to the High Court and successfully set aside a default judgment then forced the withdrawal of a statutory demand, and 3 interim charging orders. We then forced the other side to settle – for a fraction of the sum demanded.
The ruling in Glaser KC & Miller v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB) affects individuals who have instructed direct access barristers and had to pay fixed fees even if a trial did not go ahead. The judge’s verdict rendered this inherently unfair term effectively null and void with no quantum meruit fallback.
Making a strategic Part 36 offer is a powerful tool in UK litigation. It provides a pressure for the other side to settle the dispute early, potentially saving both sides significant time and costs. By carefully calculating the offer and timing it correctly, you can increase the likelihood of a favourable settlement. If the offer is rejected and you ultimately win a better judgment, Part 36 offers significant financial advantages, including increased costs recovery, interest, and potentially a percentage of damages. Ultimately, a well-crafted Part 36 offer can strengthen your negotiating position and improve your overall chances of success in UK litigation.
Summary of one of our successes in defeating aggressive bridging lender misconduct over default penalty charges and threats to appoint LPA Receivers and commence Possession proceedings.
The Respondent to an application to set aside a statutory demand must bear the costs of the application, even if they withdrew the demand shortly after the application was filed.
RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG) has faced allegations of destroying small businesses. LexLaw has sued RBS on behalf of many businesses including Bowlplex, a family-owned bowling business, claiming excessive fees, increased interest rates, and forced equity transfer. Despite a viable business, Bowlplex was transferred to GRG and ultimately sold on by RBS for a £9m profit and a £50m loss for the owners.
RBS has agreed to a £1 million settlement with a businesswoman who accused the bank of mis-selling complex derivatives. The case highlights banks selling unsuitable financial products to businesses. RBS initially denied wrongdoing but eventually agreed to the settlement, which includes repayment of derivative payments, break costs, and suspended payments. The businesswoman’s business was negatively impacted by the mis-sold derivatives, and the case exposes flaws in the Financial Conduct Authority’s IRHP review scheme.