Davis Woolfe In The News
Keep checking back here for the latest articles featuring Davis Woolfe and some of our team.
Davis Woolfe was successful in securing the committal of Stephen David Jones to prison as a result of his breach of the terms of a freezing injunction.
The claim arises out of the disappearance of funds in excess of $16,000,000 from the client account of a London law firm, Jirehouse.
The decision in the committal proceedings spurred further progress in these proceedings, including cross-jurisdictional enforcement proceedings and tracing claims.
Davis Woolfe are also instructed to act for the liquidators of a number of the defendants to these proceedings and their connected entities where it is anticipated that there will be further litigation in various jurisdictions with a view to making recoveries for all creditors of Jirehouse.
Davis Woolfe has been instructed by Mr John Bengt Moeller in relation to a claim being brought against him by CountryWide Group Plc, a British estate agency group.
CountryWide exchanged contracts to sell Lambert Smith Hampton to Mr Moeller for £38 million last year. The sale did not complete and CountryWide are pursuing Mr Moeller for damages and costs.
Davis Woolfe are currently investigating a number of issues concerning the proposed transaction.
Davis Woolfe was instructed to act on behalf of a wealthy American individual in relation to a dispute concerning a Ferrari 250 GTO Series 1 Coupe.
Our client was the Defendant in the matter and had sold the car to an unidentified principal through Gregor Fisken Limited, a London car broker, for the sum of $44m. The Ferrari did not have the original gearbox at the time of sale as this was in the possession of a Ferrari specialist in California, Canepa. Our client knew the whereabouts of the gearbox and a condition of the sale was that our client must seek its return. It was agreed between the parties that if the gearbox was retrieved from Canepa our client would deliver it up without further charge. If, however, the gearbox had to be retrieved from a third party, our client would deliver it up and be paid the sum of $500,000.
Our client located the gearbox and made reasonable efforts for its return and, due to its whereabouts, sought the payment of $500,000.
The relationship between the parties broke down and the Claimant claimed that our client was in breach of the contract for failing to deliver up the gearbox, which our client disputed.