Acting for dental practice Barkhill Dental Practice Limited in its challenge under the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 against NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board of the outcome of the procurement. The procurement concerned the provision of intermediate minor oral services across Yorkshire and the Humber. Barkhill challenged it on the basis of a number of errors in the scoring of its bid for two of the Lots.
Similarly, acting for dental practice JDSP Dental Limited in its challenge under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 against NHS Nottingham & Nottinghamshire ICB (in its capacity as lead commissioner on behalf of NHS Derby & Derbyshire ICB, NHS Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland ICB, NHS Lincolnshire ICB, and NHS Northamptonshire ICB).for its decision to abandon the procurement. The procurement concerned the provision of intermediate minor oral services across the East Midlands and is challenged on the basis of the obligations of equal treatment and transparency.
In addition, Instructed to advise a long-standing client on a circa £20 million contractual dispute.
Representing over 20 claimants on a conditional fee agreement basis in a group action against the Bank of Scotland in relation to the Shared Appreciation Mortgages (“SAMs”) sold in the late 1990s. SAMs operate on the basis that, in return for an immediate release of up to 25% of the home’s equity, mortgagors are typically required to sign over 75% of the future appreciation in the property’s value. As a result of substantial house price inflation, many customers now face repayments that far exceed the original loan amount.
Instructed to advise and assist in relation to two section 994 Companies Act 2006 unfair prejudice petitions.
Acting for an individual in relation to a claim brought against them by their previous employer, KAU Media Group Ltd, to enforce the restrictive covenants contained within the former employee’s contract of employment. Jeremy Hyam KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) rejected the claim on the basis that the Claimant was unable to establish: 1) that the restrictive covenants were engaged by the former employee’s new employment, 2) there was a legitimate interest in need of protection, or 3) the reasonableness of the covenants compared with the specifics of the industry.
