Following a three-week trial in the Chancery Division (Business List), Mr Justice Richards has today handed down judgment in Siem & Ors v Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP [2026] EWHC 1168 (Ch), dismissing all claims against the Defendant, Womble Bond Dickinson (“WBD”).

The Claimants were a Norwegian billionaire and property developer who alleged that WBD had, in the course of advising in relation to a share purchase agreement in 2017, caused the Claimants to lose an opportunity to earn substantial profits from a proposed “super-prime” redevelopment of luxury flats in Kensington, London (“the Redevelopment”).

The claim gave rise to a host of issues, with live issues at the trial including: (i) whether a duty of care was owed to Mr Siem at all (and, if so, what); (ii) whether any duty was breached; (iii) whether any breach (if made out) was causative; (iv) whether the proposed Redevelopment had any chance of being granted planning permission; and (v) quantum and whether the proposed Redevelopment would have been profitable as alleged by the Claimants.

Mr Justice Richards found that “the claims have all failed for a number of reasons”. Having found that WBD’s witnesses were honest and seeking to assist the court (as was Mr Siem), whereas Mr Wake (one of the Claimants) was an unreliable witness in certain respects, the Judge held:

  1. WBD did not act in breach of any duty at any point and was not negligent;
  2. WBD did not owe the duties alleged to Mr Siem save in one limited respect;
  3. the Claimants had in any event failed to establish factual causation (on either their primary or alternative case);  
  4. none of the proposed Redevelopment schemes had a real or substantial chance of securing planning permission in any event; and
  5. whilst it was not necessary to determine quantum in a judgment that was already long enough, WBD’s expert was the more compelling.

Mark Simpson KC, Daniel Edmonds and Wee-An Tan were instructed on behalf of WBD and instructed by Nick Bird, George Barratt and Georgia Durham of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP. The judgment is available here .