Links faces damages payout after new ruling in $55m negligence case
Linklaters has received a setback in its $55m (£37m) court battle with Levicom after the telecoms company successfully appealed an earlier ruling which saw the magic circle firm escape a multimillion-dollar payout for alleged negligence. The judgment, which was handed down in the Court of Appeal this morning (11 May) by Lord Justice Jacob, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, will see the level of damages due to Levicom reassessed, with Linklaters now potentially liable for a multimillion-dollar settlement.
May 11, 2010 at 07:51 AM
2 minute read
Linklaters has received a setback in its $55m (£37m) court battle with Levicom after the telecoms company today successfully appealed an earlier ruling which saw the magic circle firm escape a multimillion-dollar payout for alleged negligence.
The judgment, which was handed down in the Court of Appeal this morning (11 May) by Lord Justice Jacob, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, will see the level of damages due to Levicom reassessed, with Linklaters now potentially liable for a multimillion-dollar settlement.
The ruling, which reverses an earlier decision to award Levicom nominal damages of just £5, states: "The judge should have approached the case on the basis that the evidential burden had shifted to Linklaters to prove that its advice was not causative. Such an approach would surely have led him to a different result."
The case stems from advice Linklaters gave Levicom in 2000 relating to a dispute with telecoms company Tele2 AB. Levicom claimed that Linklaters' advice led to arbitration in 2004, rather than a settlement on favourable terms.
According to the claim form, which was filed in October 2006 and amended in April 2008, Levicom claimed damages for "the lost opportunity to negotiate a more advantageous settlement".
In the original judgment handed down in April 2009, Mr Justice Andrew Smith ruled that, despite finding that Linklaters' advice was negligent in some respects, it did not cause Levicom any loss.
Stewarts Law litigation partner Andrew Shaw is advising Levicom with 4 New Square's Justin Fenwick QC instructed as counsel. Linklaters was advised by Clyde & Co litigation partner Conrad Walker, with Fountain Court's Stephen Moriarty QC brought in as counsel.
In a statement, Linklaters said: "We do not feel it is appropriate to comment at this time, as there remain substantial issues still to be determined. We can confirm that we are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Jones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
Trending Stories
- 1The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 2Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
- 3What We Heard From Litigation Leaders This Year
- 4What's Next For Johnson & Johnson's Talcum Powder Litigation?
- 5The Legal's Top 5 Pennsylvania Verdicts of 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250