Julian Prentice
Legal Director
-
Location
London
Profile
Services
Julian has a range of corporate and commercial dispute resolution and High Court Litigation experience, primarily within the engineering, TMT, sport, pensions, financial and professional services sectors.
In particular, he conducts litigation relating to breaches of directors’ duties and contracts, insolvency, pensions, fraud and business crime. This includes fraudulent accounting, tax evasion and fraudulent investment schemes. Within these areas Julian has been involved in a number of professional negligence cases against auditors, solicitors and other professional advisors to businesses and pension schemes.
Julian also regularly advises businesses on contract terminations and on the rights, obligations and risks within contracts. He gained in-house experience in this respect whilst on secondment at one of the UK’s largest TMT companies.
Career Highlights
- Madoff Securities International Ltd v Raven & Ors [2013] EWHC 3147 (Comm) (18 October 2013): This case concerned claims for fraudulent and negligent breach of directors’ duties and was described by The Lawyer magazine as one of the top 10 cases of 2013
- Dany Lions v Bristol Cars [2014] All ER (Comm) 403: Enforcement of best endeavours obligations and ’agreements to agree’
- Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch) (16 February 2016): The High Court approved the use of Predictive Coding for the first time
- MacInnes v Gross [2017] EWHC 46 (QB): Intention to establish legal relations and certainty of terms
- G4S Plc v G4S Trustees Limited, Sok Wah Lee [2018] EWHC 1749 (ch): Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005, frozen schemes and pensionable service.
- Siddiqi v Taparis Ltd [2019] EWHC 417 (Ch): The High Court considered the procedure for transferring the hearing of an opposed bankruptcy petition under the Practice Direction on Insolvency Proceedings
- Coward v Ambrosiadou [2019] EWHC 2105 (Comm) (31 July 2019): A complex, high value contractual claim addressing the issues of standard of proof, issue estoppel and privity in the context of governing law and jurisdiction. The Court also heard privacy applications in relation to certain issues.
- Chas A Blatchford and Sons Limited v Brian Stephen Blatchford (the Trustees) and seven others [2019] EWHC 2743 (Ch): Acted for the trustees in an application to the High Court to change the wording of pension scheme rules. The High Court agreed to rectify a drafting error that would have cost the company around £10 million if it had been left uncorrected. This is the first published judgement on rectification in a pension context since the test for rectification was clarified in the Court of Appeal decision in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corporation Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1361. The High Court applied the principle that it is the subjective intention that is relevant and an outward expression of agreement is not required.
Memberships and Professional Bodies
related items
-
insights
06 March 2024CPR 7.7: A hidden gem for defendants
-
insights
16 November 2023Civil or Criminal Fraud?
-
blog
-
blog
20 7634 4614&t_mobile=+44(0)7748 701332&photo=https://www.bdbpitmans.com/wp-content/uploads/PRENTICE-Julian-PR-scaled-440x437.jpg){kind=link}