Neil Calver QC's Full CV

Neil Calver QC's Directory Quotes

2012

  • "The "brilliantly succinct, incredibly bright and highly personable" Neil Calver QC is considered "beautiful to listen to." He successfully acted for the appellants in a critical dispute, which was among the final cases to be sent to the House of Lords. This case, AGF & Wasa v Lexington, concerned back-to-back reinsurance." (Chambers & Partners)
  • "Neil Calver QC has developed an excellent practice in insurance law, being recently engaged in a major case concerning the theft of aircraft flown into Iran. He advised Global Aerospace and other insurers." (Chambers & Partners)
  • "Neil Calver QC is developing an excellent reputation for banking work alongside his formidable commercial practice. "Popular with both clients and instructing solicitors," he is frequently called upon for his "commercial, easily comprehensible" advice." (Chambers & Partners)
  • " 'Clients just love' Neil Calver QC because he is "a team player who combines strong advocacy with robust, commercially astute and user-friendly advice." He has remained particularly busy of late advising on commercial banking litigation." (Chambers & Partners)

2011

  • "Sources are full of praise for his 'intellectually sound analysis and extremely impressive advocacy.'" (Chambers & Partners)
  • "The 'charming and effective' Neil Calver QC is known for his 'elegant, succinct opinions, commerciality and dedication to his work.'" (Chambers & Partners)
  • "Tough and thorough yet accessible to clients" (Chambers & Partners)
  • "intellectually sound analysis and extremely impressive advocacy." (Chambers & Partners)
  • "Neil Calver QC is ‘very good with clients and also a strong advocate and tactician'." (Legal 500)
  • "Clients of the ‘clear, thorough and practical' Neil Calver QC ‘know they are getting exceptional-quality advice'" (Legal 500)
  • "The ‘top-notch' Neil Calver QC is ‘hardworking and very approachable." (Legal 500)
  • "Neil Calver QC: 'He delivers the goods' " (Legal 500)

2010 

  • "Neil Calver QC is considered 'one of the best junior silks at the Bar.'" (Chambers & Partners)
  • "A favourite of clients and highly regarded thanks to his ‘manifest capabilities' " (Chambers & Partners)
  • "Interviewees are particularly impressed by "his ability to get a complex argument over clearly, accurately and elegantly."" (Chambers & Partners)
  • ""Very approachable and a man who provides intellectually sound analysis," Neil Calver QC is another of the set's big players." (Chambers & Partners)
  • "Neil Calver QC is ‘just fantastic'" (Legal 500)
  • ‘brilliant advocate and nice guy' (Legal 500)
  • "Neil Calver QC is noted for his work on reinsurance claims." (Legal 500)

2009

  • "Clients have great confidence in his ability' and view him as 'certainly a star silk of the future." (Chambers & Partners)
  • "One of the go-to silks of his generation" (Legal 500)
  • "Sought after" (Legal 500)
  • ""Neil Calver QC continues to be the set's go-to silk for reinsurance claims." (Legal 500)

2008

  • "highly recommended for his accessibility... thoroughness, and logical approach" (Chambers & Partners)
  • ‘no-nonsense approach and civil demeanour.' "One opponent stated: ‘He killed off one of my points in such a pleasant way that I didn't even question it,'" (Chambers & Partners)
  • ‘cool, calm approach' and ‘detailed understanding of the issues.' Clients lauded him for possessing a ‘great skill at communicating with solicitors,' which ensures those instructing him have ‘no surprises and lose nothing in translation.' (Chambers & Partners)
  • ‘very approachable with an intellectually sound analysis' (Chambers & Partners)
  • ‘his accessibility... thoroughness, and logical approach' (Legal 500)
  • ‘direct and concise style' (Legal 500)

2007

  • "always prepared', "highly tactical approach", "thoughtful and determined" (Chambers & Partners)
  • ‘incredibly sharp', ‘ability to run rings around the other side', ‘fantastic legal brain', ‘sleeves rolled up', ‘can work comfortably with him' (Chambers & Partners)
  • ‘lack of bull', ‘straight-talking, transparent approach' (Chambers & Partners)
  • ‘top notch' (Legal 500)

Summary of Neil Calver QC's legal career

Neil took a double first class honours degree in Law from Christ's College, Cambridge University in 1986, and was then called to the Bar in 1987. He began his practice at the well-known public and EU chambers at 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London. In his first seven years at the Bar he became one of the leading juniors in European and Public Law and appeared on several occasions during that period before the House of Lords. In particular, Neil played a prominent role in the well-known "Sunday trading" EU litigation, successfully acting as the lead advocate for local authorities before the Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European Court of Justice in just his first three years of practice at the Bar.

Neil joined Brick Court Chambers from 4-5 Gray's Inn Square in 1994 and swiftly developed an outstanding all-round commercial law practice, such that in the year that he took Silk (2006) he was nominated as Chambers and Partners' Insurance and Reinsurance Barrister of the Year, being described by Chambers and Partners as a barrister with a "fantastic legal brain" and "the ability to run rings round the other side".

Since taking Silk in 2006, Neil Calver's practice has continued to flourish. By way of example, he acted as Leading Counsel for the the successful reinsurer-appellants (AGF) in the landmark case of WASA and AGF v. Lexington [2009] UKHL 40, being the last case determined by the House of Lords (before the establishment of the new Supreme Court). He is currently acting for a number of different Russian Oligarchs in high profile commercial/banking disputes and he is greatly in demand as both an advocate and an arbitrator in a wide variety of international arbitrations.

The Wasa and AGF v Lexington case was the 6th time that Neil has appeared as an advocate in the House of Lords, the other occasions being: Heaton v Axa Equity and Law [2002] 2 AC 329 (the leading authority on concurrent contractual causes of action); Council of City of Stoke-on-Trent v B&Q Plc [1993] AC 900 (the leading case on the free movement of goods provisions of the EU Treaty); Kirklees MBC v Wickes [1993] AC 227 (a Public Law case on when a public authority will be required to give a cross-undertaking in damages as the price of enforcing the Criminal Law); Norwich CC v B&Q [1993] AC 900 (2nd hearing); Hughes v Doncaster MBC [1991] 1 AC 382.

Neil's legal background means that when a public or EU law point arises in the context of a commercial dispute, he is very comfortable in dealing with all aspects of such a dispute. Aside from general commercial disputes (including sports and media law disputes), Neil has particular expertise in banking and financial services disputes, commercial international arbitration disputes; aviation disputes and insurance and reinsurance disputes.

Neil's versatility and sound judgment is demonstrated by the fact that in September 2009 Neil was appointed as one of 70 Crown Court part time Judges (Recorder, Crime, SE Circuit) out of 1,000 applicants for the post. He spends 3 weeks each year in this role. 

Commercial Litigation

Neil Calver QC has a wide ranging commercial litigation practice. An illustration of the breadth and depth of his practice is provided by the fact that he has in recent years acted as counsel in the following range of cases:

Banking and Finance

Neil has acted as Counsel of choice for a number of different Russian oligarchs in their high profile banking/financial services disputes brought in this country both by way of arbitration and by way of High Court action (for example, Spinnaker Global v Starling Holding). These cases typically concern difficult questions of construction under a complex network of Commercial Loan Notes and Trust Deeds, as well as requiring a range of important tactical and strategic decisions.

Neil frequently acts as Leading Counsel in high profile banking litigation. For example, he recently acted for various hedge funds in connection with the "haircut" imposed upon them by the Irish Government during the Irish Banking crisis (Satinland v Irish Nationwide BS).

As well as acting as Leading Counsel in litigation in this field, Neil frequently advises major financial institutions on complicated merger and transfer deals, as well as startegy generally in relation to investigation by regulatory authorities. Some recent examples of such cases include:

(i)    acting for a well-known Bank in connection with a major cross-border bank merger, which required the approval of the both the UK and Polish Financial Services Authorities;

(ii)   acting for a well-known UK company in connection with the transfer of its insurance and pensions business to an overseas subsidiary which required the approval of the UK Financial Service Authority, raising complex issues of EU and English financial services law;

(iii)   acting in a number of cases for Brewin Dolphin, the long established broking house, arising out of the split capital investment trust enquiry by the Parliamentary Select Committee and related litigation;

(iv)   advising Barclay's Bank as Senior Noteholders on a series of difficult issues of construction of a Commercial Collateral Management Agreement and Trust Deed;

(v)   advising an International Bank in respect of the Defendant's refusal to allow the substitution of federal government bonds under a Master Repo Agreement;

(vi)   acting for a major bank in relation to a dispute concerning difficult questions of contractual construction of a Gas Sales Agreement. 

Neil also frequently acts in high profile international financial fraud trials, perhaps the most publicised in recent years being the case in which he acted for HSBC in its successful defence to claims of breach of contract and fiduciary duty from various investors, as a result of a fraud perpetrated on the investors by Michael Brown, a Liberal Party donor, using HSBC accounts. This long running litigation required a good deal of strategic thought, and this saw Neil acting on behalf of HSBC in successfully obtaining freezing orders, third party disclosure orders and Norwich Pharmacal relief. The claim against HSBC failed at trial.

General Commercial Law

Neil is very comfortable acting in a wide range of commercial disputes, both as a matter of general contract and in a range of specialist areas. An illustration of the range of such cases in which Neil has acted is as folows:

(i)    acting for Joltid in its commercial licensing agreement dispute with Skype [2009] All ER 251.

(ii)   acting in Aspen v Pectel [2008] EWHC 2804 (comm) for the successful insurers, Aspen, who avoided liability under  a property policy by reason of the late notification of a claim (the most recent and leading case on the breach of a condition precedent to liability).

(iii)   acting shortly thereafter for the successful insurers, Brit, in a further case [Loyaltrend v Brit [2010] EWHC 425 (Comm)] concerning when a policy will fail to respond by reason of failure to give timely notice of a claim. The Court followed Pectel and added further reasoning for rejecting the claim.

(iv)   Acting in the leading authority on a broker's duty to account to his principal: Equitas v Horace Holman [2007] EWHC 903 (Comm);

(v)   Acting in Heaton v AXA Equity and Law [2002] 2 AC 329, the leading House of Lords decision on the liability of concurrent contract-breakers;

(vi)   Acting For Sir Elton John in his widely publicised professional negligence litigation against his former auditors, PriceWaterhouse Coopers: John v PWC [2002] EWCA Civ 899 (CA) and [2002] 1 WLR 953.

(vii)  Acting in a number of cases for Dieter Bock, the German industrialist arising out of a number of commercial disputes with Tiny Rowland, for example: Rowland v Bock [2002] 4 All ER 370.

Commercial Arbitration

As an Advocate

Neil has a flourishing International and Commercial Arbitration Practice. He is equally at home with an LCIA arbitration, a Bermuda Form arbitration or an ICC arbitration, having acted as an advocate and an arbitrator in all such types of arbitration.

An illustration of the type of high quality arbitral work which Neil has undertaken in the last 18 months is as follows:

(i)    Acting as Leading Counsel in an LCIA arbitration which gave rise to difficult and novel disclosure disputes under the new LCIA Rules in respect of a complex dispute between Russian oligarchs concerning shares held under an Investment Services Deed.

(ii)   Acting as Leading Counsel in an international arbitration for a Russian Oligarch concerning a multi-million pound gas and oil dispute.

(iii)   Acting as Leading Counsel for in relation to a Bermuda Form arbitration concerning the interaction between a consent to pay clause and a consent to settlement clause in a Bermuda Form Policy and associated jurisdictional issues

(iv)   Acting as Leading Counsel for reinsurers in major Bermuda form market arbitrations arising out of Hurricane Katrina losses (which concerned amongst other issues whether there was one or two losses under the contract)

(v)   Acting as Leading Counsel (together with Michael Crane QC) in an International arbitration for a Lloyds' syndicate in first case to determine the meaning of the Original Insured Marine Market Loss Warranty ("OIMMLW") wording in Lloyd's policy; the dispute arose out of 9/11 World Trade Centre terrorist attack.

(vi)   Acting as Leading Counsel for War Risks Reinsurers in large-scale, complex market arbitration concerning theft of fleet aircraft in a foreign jurisdiction (Mexico).  Neil also acted for the same solicitors in separate successful London market arbitrations for War Risks Reinsurers concerning theft of helicopters in Colombia.

As an Arbitrator

Neil regularly sits as an arbitrator in domestic and international arbitrations.

Neil is currently sitting as the QC Chairman on an arbitration panel with Sir Simon Tuckey and Sir Gordon Langley in relation to an international satellite dispute.

Neil is also sitting as arbitrator on a number of other commercial contract disputes, both as sole QC arbitrator and as QC chairman together with two experts in the relevant commercial industry.

Neil recently published awards in two commercial disputes where he sat as sole QC arbitrator, one concerning the proper construction of an aviation lease, the other concerning issues of waiver and estoppel arising out of an insurance coverage dispute.

Two further recent arbitrations which concluded with awards saw Neil acting as the QC Chairman arbitrator on a commercial arbitral Panel with 2 market men (John Emney and Trevor Clegg) in respect of a London market reinsurance dispute and Neil acting as co-arbitrator together with Andrew Lydiard QC in relation to an international aviation arbitration.

Aviation law

Neil has a specialist practice in Aviation law, and acts in many of the major aviation market disputes. He also frequently sits as an aviation arbitrator (see above).

By way of illustration of the depth of Neil's aviation practice, Neil has recently acted:

(i)    as Leading Counsel in a major market arbitration concerning the theft of aircraft by flying them to Iran; he advised Lloyds insurers on the merits and the appropriate strategy concerning the hull policy to which they subscribed.

(ii)   in large scale market aviation arbitrations, including the alleged theft of a fleet of aircraft in Mexico and two separate arbitrations concerning the theft of helicopters in Columbia allegedly by FARC guerrillas. Neil's successful arguments in the latter case led to a change in the way that the London Hull and War Risks Reinsurers approach the issue of apportionment of liability between them in the case of helicopters which are frequently stolen in Colombia.

(iii)   in the successful resolution of a protracted dispute between insurers and the executors of the estate of a deceased pilot and his passengers, arising out of the crash of a bell helicopter in Somerset.

(iv)   for a well known helicopter manufacturer concerning questions of construction arising out of contract for sale and operation of helicopters by a Police Force.

Insurance and reinsurance law

Neil has extensive experience as a trial/arbitral advocate and as an appellate advocate in all areas of insurance litigation, including complex liability, property, contingency, professional indemnity, fidelity, contractors' all risk, and financial guarantee insurance disputes.

Neil also frequently sits as an arbitrator in relation to insurance and reinsurance disputes (see above).

Neil is currently acting for:

(i)    Swiss reinsurers in relation to a commercial court dispute concerning coverage under construction all risks insurance and reinsurance policies arising out of the construction of a defective gas pipeline project off Taiwan; and

(ii)   for a number of different Reinsurers in relation to follow the settlements issues arising under all risks property damage and business interruption insurance and reinsurance policies.

(iii)   For Reinsurers in relation to a commercial court dispute under a construction all risks and third party liability risks reinsurance contract, which raises claims notification issues.

Neil has just finished acting for:

(i)    a major insurance company at a hearing in Bermuda in respect of a Bermuda Form arbitration dispute;

(ii)   an international insurance company's avoidance of a global products/work hazard liability insurance (NY jurisdiction) for material non-disclosure/misrepresentation in relation to a very substantial class action in the US.

(iii)   for the insurance brokers, APG, in relation to a negligence action by the reassured arising out of the placement of excess of loss reinsurance cover.

Neil has acted in many of the leading insurance cases of the past decade. The following cases illustrate the diversity of his insurance practice: acting in Aspen v Pectel [2008] EWHC 2804 (comm) for the successful insurers, Aspen, who avoided liability under  a property policy by reason of the late notification of a claim (the most recent and leading case on the breach of a condition precedent to liability): acting shortly thereafter for the successful insurers, Brit, in a further case [Loyaltrend v Brit [2010] EWHC 425 (Comm)] concerning when a policy will fail to respond by reason of failure to give timely notice of a claim; acting for the successful Defendant in BP v GE Frankona [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 537 (concerning the time when declarations had to be made under an offshore fac/oblig construction all risks open cover; Sphere Drake v Orion [2001] 1 LLR 1, in which acting together with Jonathan Sumption QC, they persuaded the Court of Appeal to make new law concerning when the perjury of a witness may be imputed to a party who called the witness to give evidence, arising in the context of the run-off of an insurance pool; Eastern European Shipbuilding, a market-wide insurance arbitration between numerous underwriters at Lloyds following the collapse of communism and the break up of former Yugoslavia; AIG v QBE [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 268, a leading case on whether a jurisdiction clause in an underlying insurance policy is incorporated into a reinsurance contract by reason of "as original" wording; Euler Hermes v Apple Corps [2004] EWHC 1584 (Comm), in which Neil acted for Apple Corps in relation to a dispute under a trade indemnity insurance policy; Syndicate 1242 v Morgan Read & Sharman Ltd [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 412, a case concerning whether the claimant, Syndicate 1242 at Lloyd's, had granted a binding authority to the defendants, Lloyd's brokers, to write travel insurance business for the general public in the UK; NLA v Bowers [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 109, which remains one of the leading authorities concerning the application of the House of Lords' decision in West Bromwich and the permissible use of factual matrix material in construing a Lloyd's slip policy; Murphy v Young [1997] 1 Lloyds Rep 236, still one of the leading cases on when insurers, funding litigation, can be made liable for the costs of the action.

Neil also frequently acts for and against insurance brokers in negligence actions, having acted most recently for APG in case referred to above; but also for Syndicate 957 in its negligence action against Aon arising out of the placement of quota share protection, as well as for Equitas in its successful action against its brokers, Horace Holman: Equitas v Horace Holman [2007] EWHC 903 (Comm). Indeed, Neil has been the counsel of choice for Equitas in a wide variety of insurance disputes and reinsurance disputes in recent years, in particular in actions against brokers for the recovery of sums owed pursuant to the Reconstruction and Renewal Assignment at Lloyds.

Neil has acted extensively in numerous high profile reinsurance disputes in recent years, both in London market arbitrations and in court proceedings, including some of the leading reinsurance cases of the past decade. He frequently acts for and against Lloyds' insurers and reinsurers as well as the corporate reinsurance market in disputes concerning, by way of example, quota share reinsurances, surplus treaty reinsurances, hull all risks reinsurances and war risks reinsurances (having recently acted for War Risks Reinsurers in a large-scale, complex market arbitration concerning theft of aircraft in a foreign jurisdiction, as well as having recently acted for War Risks Reinsurers in two separate arbitral disputes concerning the theft of helicopters in Colombia). He also regularly acts in reinsurance broking disputes.

The strength of his reinsurance practice is demonstrated by the fact that he successfully represented AGF (against Jonathan Sumption QC) in the landmark reinsurance case of Wasa and AGF v Lexington, which was the last case heard by the House of Lords before it became the UK's Supreme Court. This was probably the most important Reinsurance case for a decade, concerning as it did back to back reinsurance and the effect of Vesta v Butcher.

Neil successfully acted as Leading Counsel in an international reinsurance arbitration (together with Michael Crane QC) for a Lloyds' syndicate in first case to determine the meaning of the Original Insured Marine Market Loss Warranty ("OIMMLW") wording in a Lloyd's policy; case arose out of 9/11 World Trade Centre terrorist attack. 

Neil also recently acted for a Lloyd's syndicate in a major market dispute arising under marine excess of loss reinsurances as a result of the events of 9/11. He has also very recently acted in market reinsurance disputes arising out of losses caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Some other notably high profile reinsurance court cases in which Neil has acted in recent years (other than arbitrations) include Bonner v Cox [2004] EWHC 2963 (Comm), a multi-party reinsurance trial concerning "writing against" excess of loss reinsurers under the Aon 77 Energy cover; Cottrell v General Cologne Re [2004] EWHC 2402 (Comm), a dispute arising out of the cession under a quota share reinsurance of a large quantity of US D&O high tech and dot com risks following the decline of the US equities markets in the late 1990s; Wurttembergische v The Home Insurance Company [1999] Lloyds Rep IR 397 and [1997] LRLR 86, in which a series of complex disputes were determined by the Court arising out of a Reinsurance Pool Treaty.

Sports and Media/Entertainment law

Neil also has a specialist Sports law practice, having frequently acted in recent years in Formula One disputes and football disputes. Neil first acted for the Williams Formula 1 team in their dispute with their Chief Engineer, Adrian Newey, when he announced that he wished to leave Williams to take up a similar role at McLaren. This raised issues concerning the law of confidentiality, restraint of trade and other delicate contractual issues. Williams successfully enforced a 2 year period of "gardening leave" for Mr. Newey, thereby safeguarding the trade secrets of the Williams car and engine. Thereafter, Neil has continued to act for Williams in a wide variety of Formula 1 sporting disputes, has acted for Cosworth, the Formula 1 engine suppliers, and he has also acted for McLaren and others in relation to racing disputes. Neil also has extensive experience of legal disputes in the world of professional football and has recently acted for, amongst others, Reebok in a major sponsorship dispute with Liverpool Football Club, and for Cargiant in a sponsorship dispute with Queen's Park Rangers Football Club.

So far as Neil's media and entertainment law practice is concerned, Neil frequently acts for high profile popular musicians and some of his best known cases include acting for Sir Elton John in his professional negligence action against PricewaterhouseCoopers [2002] EWCA Civ 899; for Michael Bolton in his copyright infringement dispute with EMI and for Chris De Burgh in his copyright and contractual dispute with Tring Records.

EU and Public law

In his first 7 years at the Bar he became one of the leading juniors in European and Public law and appeared on several occasions during that period before the House of Lords. In particular, Neil played a prominent role in the well-known "Sunday trading" litigation, successfully acting as the advocate for local authorities before the Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European Court of Justice in just his first three years of practice at the Bar. The Sunday Trading litigation raised difficult question of both public and EU law, and led to Neil appearing in the landmark case concerning free movement of goods, namely Council of City of Stoke-on-Trent v B&Q Plc [1993] AC 900; Norwich CC v B&Q [1993] AC 900 (2nd hearing) in which the European Court of Justice, and then the House of Lords, upheld the ban on Sunday trading, which led to a change in the law.

Neil frequently acts in EU/Public law cases. Some of his most high profile cases over the year include:

In R (Birmingham and Solihull Taxi Association) v Birmingham International Airport Limited (judgment 28/7/09) [2009] EWHC 1913, Wyn Williams J had to consider whether Neil's client, the Airport Authority, in terminating the licence of Birmingham and Solihull Taxi Association (BASTA) (represented by James Goudie QC) to provide taxi services from the Airport taxi rank pursuant to a commercial contract negotiated between them was nonetheless subject to public law duties not to act for an improper purpose and to consult BASTA prior to termination of the licence.  The Court held that the Airport Authority was in principle amenable to judicial review but was not a body which had a duty to comply with the principles of transparency under the EU Treaty, with the majority of the Airport Authority's shares being held by private companies.  The Court also held that on the facts, there was no evidence that the Airport Authority had acted for an improper purpose, nor that it had failed adequately to consult with BASTA. The claim was accordingly successfully dismissed. This case - concerning as it does the granting of a mandatory injunction in an EU context - attracted a lot of attention in the legal press.

Neil acted recently for the Dairy Farmers of Great Britain in resisting EU and public law challenges by members to milk purchasing tie-in agreements. 

Neil successfully acted on behalf of Kirkless MBC in another landmark public law case in the House of Lords, successfully arguing that a local authority should not have to give an undertaking in damages as the price of obtaining an interim injunction, in enforcing the Sunday trading criminal legislation: Kirklees MBC v Wickes [1993] AC 227.

Neil also successfully acted for Wrekin District Council in another high-profile case before the European Court in defeating the challenge under EU law to the local authority's concessionary bus pass scheme, which was limited to men over 65 years and women over 60 years: Atkins v Wrekin DC [1996] All ER (EC) 719 and [1997] ICR 75.

Neil's success in resisting the challenge to the ban on Sunday trading under EU law, also led to him acting for a large number of local authorities in cases concerning challenges to local authorities' charter markets rights, both under domestic and EU law. No such challenges succeeded.

During this time, Neil also acquired a great deal of experience in defending public law challenges to resolutions of local authority committees, on both procedural and substantive grounds in the High Court.

Indeed, Neil has acted in a very wide range of public law cases, especially on behalf of local authorities over the years.

In particular, he successfully representing Lincoln BC and Luton BC in the Court of Appeal (R v Lincoln City Council ex parte King and Another; R v Luton BC ex parte Mirza) in resisting the challenge to the local authority's decision only to licence as hackney carriages in its borough London style black cabs, which led to a challenge on both domestic and EU grounds.

Neil successfully argued the first case in which the courts agreed to order that individual members of an unincorporated association should be liable, jointly and severally, for the costs of a failed public law challenge: R v Darlington Borough Council ex parte The Association of Darlington Taxi Owners, The Times, 21 January 1994.

Neil successfully acted for Wellingborough Council in a case before the decision court which laid down the criteria for what constitutes a "reasonable excuse" when accused of committing an offence under the noise nuisance legislation: Wellingborough BC v Gordon [1991] JPL 874.

Neil has also frequently acted on behalf of the National Farmer's Union, and, in Hood v NFU, succeeded in defeating a high-profile negligence action brought by a number of farmers in respect of the legal advice given by the NFU concerning the time limits for challenging a government decision concerning milk quotas.

Neil also acted in a public challenge to the Law Society's disciplinary powers in R v Law Society ex parte Ingman Foods [1997] 2 All ER 666.

For a 5 year period Neil was on the Government's VAT panel of chosen counsel and acted for the Government in successfully resisting a number of challenges concerning the levying of VAT, including Manchester & Salford Hospital Saturday Fund v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1999] STC 649 (QBD); London & general Insurance Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1998] V&DR 191.

EU Competition law and EU technical subject-matter areas

Neil has recently advised on the effect of the EU Directive concerning Life Assurance in the context of pension transfers.

He has also recently acted in an number of high profile EU pharmaceutical claims, including obtaining an injunction (Mr. Justice Lewison) on behalf of Intecare Direct Limited, a pharmacy and homecare services provider, against the pharmaceutical company, Aventis Pharma Limited (trading as Sanofi-Aventis), ordering Aventis to continue supplies to Intecare pending a further hearing in the matter.  The basis of the application was that, prima facie, Aventis was in a dominant position in the relevant market for the medicine in question (Copaxone used for multiple sclerosis patients) and was abusing that position in refusing to deal with Intecare, a customer for some time already, as well as in pressurising hospitals/patients not to deal with Intecare.  After a contested hearing and argument concerning Article 82 of the Treaty and section 18 of the Competition Act, Lewison J granted a mandatory injunction compelling Aventis to contunue to supply Intecare with the drug.

Neil is comfortable acting in EU law cases which require quick mastery of technical subject matter. For example, he recently acted for Intel Corporation in its major High Court litigation against VIA technologies in relation to a challenge by VIA against Intel's refusal to license VIA with its technology patents under Article 81(1) and 82 of the Treaty. This required quick mastery by him of highly sophisticated computer technology systems (in particular microprocessors and chipsets) and the application of the law to those systems (including intellectual property law, as well as EU law principles). 

Neil is also used to acting successfully for the underdog against the regulators. For example, he acted (in Woolcombers v Yorkshire Water) in a case in which the largest woolcombing business in the UK challenged under EU law (alleging an abuse of a dominant position) Yorkshire Water's charging structure for the treatment of trade effluent in the wool sector, which again required the marshalling of complex expert economic evidence. The case was settled after Woolcombers successfully resisted Yorkshire Water's application for summary judgment.

Neil Calver QC's recently reported cases

  • Satinland Finance SARL and another v BNP Paribas Trust Corporation UK Ltd and another - [2010] All ER (D) 287 (Nov)
  • Intecare Direct v Pfizer - [2010] All ER (D) 138 (Mar)
  • Loyaltrend Ltd and another v Creechurch Dedicated Ltd (Sued on behalf of itself and on behalf of all other underwriting names of syndicate 962 2002 Underwriting Year) and others - [2010] All ER (D) 89 (Mar)
  • Skype Technologies SA v Joltid Ltd and others - [2009] All ER (D) 251 (Nov)
  • Wasa International Insurance Company Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company; AGF Insurance Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company - [2008] All ER (D) 433 (Feb)
  • Wasa International Insurance Company Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company; AGF Insurance Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company - [2009] All ER (D) 328 (Jul)
  • Wasa International Insurance Company Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company AGF Insurance Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company - [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 324
  • Wasa International Insurance Company Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company; AGF Insurance Ltd v Lexington Insurance Company - [2009] 4 All ER 909 [House of Lords]
  • R (on the application of Birmingham and Solihull Taxi Association and another) v Birmingham International Airport Ltd - [2009] All ER (D) 275 (Jul)
  • Aspen Insurance UK Ltd and others v Pectel Ltd - [2008] All ER (D) 170 (Nov)
  • Equitas Ltd and another v Horace Holman & Company Ltd and another - [2008] All ER (D) 35 (Oct)
  • Euler Hermes UK plc v Apple Computers BV - [2006] All ER (D) 18 (Apr)
  • Bonner and others v Cox Dedicated Corporate Member Ltd - [2004] All ER (D) 360 (Dec)
  • Cottrell (on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 1173) v General Cologne Re UK Ltd - [2004] All ER (D) 384 (Oct)
  • North Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v Nationwide General Insurance Co Ltd and others - [2003] All ER (D) 191 (Mar)
  • BP plc and others v GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 390 (Feb)
  • John and others v Price Waterhouse and another (Frere Cholmeley (a firm) and another, Pt 20 defendants) - [2002] All ER (D) 176 (Jun)
  • Heaton and others v Axa Equity & Law Assurance Society plc and others - [2002] All ER (D) 230 (Apr)
  • Rowland and another v Bock and another - [2002] All ER (D) 389 (Mar)
  • Harrington Jones Architects Ltd v Harrington and others - [2001] All ER (D) 219 (Oct)
  • Syndicate 1242 at Lloyd's v Morgan Read & Sharman Ltd - [2001] All ER (D) 17 (Aug)
  • Petroships Pte Ltd of Singapore v Petec Trading and Investment Corp of Vietnam and others - [2001] All ER (D) 268 (May)
  • AIG Europe SA v QBE International Insurance Ltd - [2001] All ER (D) 50 (May)
  • Sphere Drake Insurance plc and another v Orion Insurance Co plc - [2000] All ER (D) 319
  • Walker and others v Rome and others - [1999] All ER (D) 1283
  • Manchester and Salford Hospital Saturday Fund v Customs and Excise Commissioners - [1999] All ER (D) 492
  • Murphy and another v Young & Co's Brewery plc and another - [1997] 1 All ER 518