Collyer Bristow's future looks secure as it defeats Innovator One claim

  • Print
  • Comments (13)

Readers' comments (13)

  • Looks like a comprehensive defeat, which must cast doubt on Green and Enyo's judgement. Collyer Bristow's costs must also be significant. Who will have to fork out for those?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @1.09…that’s somewhat harsh and a little naive. Litigation is won and lost on regular basis and all top litigation departments experience defeat. There might be an appeal?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes it's only one defeat but it's a bad one for Enyo. They managed to persuade a third party funder to pump £5m into this case, presumably on the basis of what they considered to be good prospects of success.
    It will be more difficult for Enyo to persuade that third party funder (or indeed another third party funder) to back future cases. For a boutique litigation practice that is a real problem - if your USP is that, unlike full service firms, you will take work on a contingency/full CFA/partial CFA basis but you can't secure third party funding to provide cashflow, it presents a problem.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wouldn’t third party funders have done a lot of dd themselves, especially with £5m on the line? Would seem to indicate they thought it a good case also

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Would that be five years work for not very much for Enyo then. Bad judgement or not it makes for lean times
    Lets hope there's a compensating Big One in the pipeline
    Of course they'll appeal ; no choice surely

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There might indeed be an appeal, if a funder has a lot of money to waste.
    The judgment speaks for itself:
    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/1321.html&query=innovatorone&method=boolean
    Wonder if the Claimants have read it. Bet the funders have.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 1.09 - Enyo instigated the claim - so this doesn't apply. If it was a difficult claim they should never have let it get to a trial.
    The comparison with a top litigation department is, well, naive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Enyo also lost the Ackerman case against BLP. They were on a CFA on that case too. Their cashflow must have taken a real pummeling

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @9:20 - I suspect one of the reasons why the case got to trial (and then to judgment) was the insurance dispute referred to in the article. I understand the various layers of CB's PI cover may not have been written "back to back" (ie with the same policy wording, especially as regards aggregation of claims). Accordingly, the primary layer was saying it was a single claim (ie only one lot of £2m) and excess layer was saying it was multiple claims. Based on the wording for their particular layer, both could have been correct. Which means there was probably not enough cash to be put on the table on behalf of CB to make the case go away. Had there not been a cover dispute, methinks enough would have been offered to see the case settle. Agree with those comments above about this result having a very negative impact on Enyo's bottom line.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The adverse findings are largely factual, so an appeal looks pointless. One of my friends took part in this scheme and was consistently told the case was a winner - not only before but during and after trial. I don't know what trial the lawyers were watching but evidently not the same one as the judge. This case really does raise questions. This isn't a case of the investors "wanting their day in court". They didn't. What they wanted, well certainly what my friend wanted, was some of his money back. One has to question why the lawyers took what was clearly always a bad case to the nth degree.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (13)