Mishcon de Reya is defending itself in London’s High Court against a £65 million professional negligence claim brought by Aurium Real Estate London Ultra Prime.
The claim of close to £50 million plus interest relates to what Aurium believes are damages it incurred as a result of negligent legal advice from Mishcon.
The case began on 21 March, and is expected to last around three weeks.
Mishcon advised Aurium between early 2014 and October 2018 on a development project—worth around £160 million—involving the assembly of a number of properties on and around the Bayswater Road, London.
Aurium claims that between January 2016 and September 2017, Mishcon gave the company negligent advice as to its legal rights in respect of one of the assets forming part of the development site.
Aurium intended to sell the development on, but argue that Mishcon’s advice on the asset in question led to a delay in the sale, causing the potential buyer to ultimately withdraw from the transaction.
In its opening submissions, Mishcon described Aurium’s claim as a “product of hindsight”. The firm also argued that Aurium’s claim “seeks to step around the factual narrative in an unrealistic and unfair way and to impose extraordinarily heavy burdens upon MdR”.
Mishcon is also counterclaiming for just over £300,000 in unpaid legal fees with interest from Aurium should the court find against their claim.
A Fieldfisher team is representing Aurium Real Estate, led by partner Aymen Khoury, along with dispute resolution associates Nathan Capone, Vanessa Wilkinson, as well as real estate associates Hannah Ingham and Jessica Hyde. The team is working alongside Rupert Reed QC of Serle Court, and Michael Walsh of Tanfield Chambers.
DWF is representing Mishcon de Reya, with a team consisting of partner Michael Robin, associate Sarah McKay and solicitor Kayleigh Martin. Also acting as counsel are Ian Croxford QC of Wilberforce Chambers, as well as Jamie Smith QC and Michael Bowmer – both of 4 New Square.
A spokesperson for Mishcon said: “We believe that this claim is meritless as set out in our defence.”
Aurium did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.