Jonathan undertakes a full spread of general commercial work. Much of his practice has a focus on litigation arising from breaches of fiduciary duty, fraud and the theft of confidential information.
Recent cases of interest in this area include:
- Cohen & Ors v RiverRock Capital Partners LLP [2025] EWHC 845 (Comm). Successful claim in the Commercial Court, establishing that a Memorandum of Understanding had enforceable contractual effect.
- Frontiers Capital I Partnership v Flohr [2025] EWHC 678 (Ch) and in the Court of Appeal at [2025] 2 WLR 967. Successfully obtaining the strike out of a complex claim for alleged historic breaches of fiduciary duty in a partnership venture.
- Commercial Bank of Dubai & Ors v Al-Sari & Ors [2024] EWHC 3304 (Comm). Appeared for certain of the Defendants in this long running, multi-jurisdictional fraud and asset recovery action.
- Ahmed v Akbar [2024] EWHC 2433. Action to prevent a former business partner from using confidential information to blackmail members of a prominent Bangladesh family.
- Mozambique v Credit Suisse International [2024] EWHC 1957 (Comm). Appeared for a former executive of Credit Suisse in the widely reported “Tuna Bonds” litigation, brought by the Republic of Mozambique.
- Lowry Trading v Musicalize [2024] EWHC 142 (Comm). Appeared for a prominent Manchester investment House against a concert promoter and social media influencer for fraudulently obtaining investment in non-existent concerts by leading artists.
- Klaturov v Revetas Capital Advisors LLP [2024] EWHC 495 (Comm). Successfully defeated a claim by a former partner for alleged unpaid profit share.
- Coltech Recruitment Ltd v Cera Care Ltd [2024] EWHC 466. Successfully obtained summary judgment on the issue of the identity of a party to an ambiguous contract.
- Old Park Capital Maestro Fund Ltd v Old Park Capital Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] EWHC 1886 (Ch). Acted on behalf of a Cayman Islands fund, obtaining judgment in fraud against its former investment manager.
- Sportfive UK Ltd v Nottingham Forest Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 3522 (Comm). Successfully obtained an injunction on behalf of a leading international sports agency to prevent the football club from terminating a contract for the display of stadium advertising.
- W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik [2022] EWHC 1714 (Comm). Claim in the tort of abuse of process for bringing vexatious foreign proceedings.
- Farrar v Miller [2022] EWCA Civ 295. Successfully established that a solicitor is not entitled to obtain an assignment of a cause of action from its own client.
- Solland v Watkins [2021] EWHC 3447 (Ch). Successfully struck out a claim for fraud on limitation grounds.
- Flowgroup Plc (In Liquidation) v Co-operative Energy Ltd [2021] Bus. L.R. 755. Consideration of when an expert determination under a sale and purchase agreement may be set aside for patent error.
- Gray v Hurley [2019] 1 WLR 5333. Claim by exceptionally wealthy divorcee (who obtained one of the largest divorce judgments ever given by the English courts) to recover circa $50 million of property registered in the name of her lover. The claim is multi-jurisdictional (England, Switzerland, New Zealand). It has already resulted in a substantial and important jurisdiction judgment in favour of the English Courts ([2019] EWHC 1636) and another important judgment refusing an anti-suit injunction ([2019] 1 WLR 5333). An appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on 4 December 2019, reported at [2019] EWCA Civ 2222, resulting in a reference to the European Court of Justice on the question of whether a right to be sued in England under the Brussels Recast Regulation must be protected by anti-suit injunction.
- Harris v Underbelly Ltd & Ors. A claim by a wealthy arts investor against the well-known theatre producers, Underbelly, for fraudulent misrepresentation in an investment prospectus.
- W Nagel v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV [2019] Costs L.R. 2117. Important appeal from the Chief Master, considering the question of whether a judgment debt includes unassessed costs, so that CPR Part 71 cross examination is available of judgment debtors.
- ACLBDD Holdings Ltd (2) De Pury v (1) Staechelin (2) Paisner (3) McCaffrey [2019] 3 All ER 429. Appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Chancery Division claim for $10 million by a well know family engaged in the business of art brokerage for commission said to be owed on the sale of an old master (almost certainly the most expensive painting ever sold on the private market). This was one of the most widely reported cases heard in the Business & Property Courts in 2017. It was an international headline in newspapers throughout Europe and the Americas. It involved extensive and challenging cross-examination of witnesses including Martin Paisner of Berwin Leighton Paisner. The claim was successful both below and in the Court of Appeal ([2019] 3 All ER 429); the case is a rare example of a high value oral contract claim succeeding and is probably the most prominent art case ever to come before the English courts.
- Flowgroup Plc v Co-Operative Energy Ltd [2019] EWHC 2344 (Comm). A successful claim by business vendors for breach of a complex sale and purchase agreement.
- Athena Brands Ltd v Superdrug Stores Plc [2019] EWHC 3503 (Comm). A successful claim by a supplier to Superdrug, establishing that one of Superdrug’s buyers had ostensible authority to contract.
- The Klesch Collection Ltd v The Richard Green Gallery.Claim by wealthy art collectors against the gallery for fraudulent misrepresentation in respect of the sale of two old masters. The case addresses the critical issue of the implications conveyed by the provision of provenance. Having been issued in the High Court and attracting headlines in the press, it was determined in a confidential arbitration in January 2020.
- Domestic & General Insurance Plc v (1) Service Box Plc (2) Surge Group Plc (3) Paul Careless & Ors. Substantial fraud and conspiracy claim by D&G, the biggest insurer of domestic appliances in the world, against two alleged rogue trader businesses who are said to have been targeting its customers and making fraudulent misrepresentations to them so as to obtain their custom. Widely reported in the national press and London Evening Standard.
- Akhmedov v Akhmedova. Claim by former wife of Russian oligarch and beneficiary of a circa $300 million divorce judgment to recover the yacht formerly owned by Roman Abramovich and now her former husband, in satisfaction of the divorce judgment. Jonathan Cohen KC was instructed on behalf of the wife to provide evidence to the High Court of the Marshall Islands (where the yacht is flagged) in aid of enforcement, on the questions of (i) the regularity of the English divorce judgment, and (2) the legality of service.
- DAS UK Holdings Limited & Ors v (1) Asplin (2) Kearns (3) Medreport Limited (4) Medcare Treatment Services Limited. Multi-million pound High Court claim by one of the world’s leading insurance companies against former directors and medical report providers for conspiracy, fraud and breach of trust over a number of years.
- Global Energy Horizons Corporation v Gray. Huge fraud claim by Global Energy Horizons Corporation against former director and shareholder Mr Gray. The nature of the allegations is that Mr Gray stole away from Global technology which was enormously valuable to the oil and gas industry and has dishonestly concealed his benefit from that through a web of international companies.
- Moore v Squibb [2018] EWHC 2731. Claim by Tottenham jeweller against the demolition contractors used by the Greater London Authority to deal with the burnt out buildings following the London riots in 2011. The allegation made by the jeweller was that the demolition contractors had stolen safes with millions of pounds worth of jewellery in them. The claim settled at a mediation shortly before trial. Jonathan Cohen was instructed for the demolition contractors.
- Farrar v Miller [2018] EWCA 172. Substantial Chancery Division and Court of Appeal dispute between property developers, as to the validity of an oral joint venture agreement and the effect of Section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1989.
- Dauriac-Stobe v Signia Wealth Ltd [2017] EWHC 363. Claim by a well-known city figure in respect of her ousting from a wealth management business backed by John Caudwell. The claim has been widely featured in the press, including in a Sunday Times feature.
- O’Brien v Josh Wood Hair & Ors. Shareholder dispute in respect of the ownership of a famous hair care brand sold in major High Street stores.
- Optaglio Ltd v Tethal & Hudson [2015] EWCA Civ 1002, [2015] All ER 51. Claim by leading technology company, specialising in the laser holographic etching of microchips, against two former directors for fraud and misappropriation of intellectual property. The decision of the Court of Appeal is now one of the leading authorities on disposing of factual disputes on summary judgment applications.
- SBI Markets DMCC v Mobile Money Network Limited [2014] EWHC 949 (Comm). Successful defence of summary judgment application for consultancy payments.
- Gateway Plaza v White [2014] EWCA Civ 555, [2014] EGLR 191. First Court of Appeal decision on the meaning of the words “exchange contracts”.
- Valilas v Januzaj [2014] EWCA Civ 436, [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 1047. Important Court of Appeal judgment on whether a deliberate decision not to make payment pursuant to a contract is necessarily repudiatory.
- Golden Eye International Ltd & Ors v Telefonica UK Limited (Consumer Focus Intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 1740, [2013] EMLR 26. Leading Court of Appeal decision on Norwich Pharmacal applications to obtain the identities of internet pirates.
- Besharova v Ede & Ravenscroft. Companies Court claim by the former wife of Boris Berezovsky that the directors of Ede & Ravenscroft, co-owners with her of a prestige commercial building in the heart of St Petersburg, which she received from Berezovsky as part of her divorce settlement, were cheating her out of many millions of pounds of rental income.
- JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov, Drey Associates & ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1124, [2010] 1 WLR 976. Joined appeals in the Court of Appeal in a significant international fraud claim. The appeals address the important issue of whether the privilege against self-incrimination applies to a risk of a money laundering charge.