Acumen+giving+you+the+edge
Categories:Litigation / Dispute Resolution

David Wyld chases ex-client for £314K

17 May 2010 | By Katy Dowell

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Related Articles

David Wyld & Co has launched a claim against former clients Jack and Helga Dadourian over unpaid fees.

Name partner David Wyld, who quit his position as head of litigation at Macfarlanes in 2002 to set up the firm, was instructed by the Dadourians to defend a claim brought against them by Dadourian Group International (DGI) in January 2006.

The defendants, who were being pursued by DGI for damages owed from an earlier dispute, were found guilty of fraudulent representation by Mr Justice Warren in April that year.

Wyld was subsequently instructed to act for the pair at a Court of Appeal hearing, which they lost, and during a House of Lords application, which was rejected.

A bill was sent to the defendants’ Paris and US addresses in December; it was also emailed and Wyld spoke to his former clients, but the bill is yet to be paid, the writ states.

The fees total £314,000, less than the estimated costs because the instructed counsel, Stuart Cakebread of No5 Chambers and Juliette Levy of Selbourne Chambers, agreed to halve their fees if the appeal was lost.

See all Related Jobs, Briefings & CPD/Events

Readers' comments (2)

  • City Gent | 19-May-2010 4:33 pm

    Tut tut Katy, "Writ"?
    Sadly, the Writ was abolished over 10 years ago, and in a pathetic attempt at making the law more "accessible" it was replaced with the infinitely more plebeian "Claim Form". I ask you - which is more likely to impress the client (which is, after all, the ultimate object of the exercise) - issuing a Writ or issuing a Clam Form?
    I cannot bring myself to utter the contemptible phrase, and simply announce in suitably grave tones that I shall be issuing "proceeings", which I find has the desired effect.
    This pointless and patronising change of terminology was introduced by the same set of pillocks who replaced the perfectly comprehensible "Counterclaim" with the perfectly incomprehensible "Part 20 Claim".
    Hanging's too good for them!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Country Bumpkin | 20-May-2010 8:54 am

    City Gent is so right. And 'statements of case' instead of 'pleadings'; and 'order requiring the debtor to attend court to provide information' cf. 'oral examination', albeit the latter may be mis-understood! I always thought that a claim form was something you got at the DSS, not the High Court of Justice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Related Briefings

View All Related Briefings

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Most popular

Most commented

Most emailed