“Absolutely outstanding”, “prodigiously intelligent”, “lauded for his quickness and resilience in court”
“Terrifyingly intelligent”, “exceptionally gifted”, “a brilliant lawyer”, “a compelling advocate”, "an outstanding jurist", “fantastic both on his feet and on paper”, "provides a brilliant delivery in court", “his submissions are rapier sharp”, “particularly good at dealing with difficult points”, “calm under fire”, “a very creative advocate”, “inspires confidence in the client and the court”, “an advocate who tribunals like”, “has a very good feel for what the court is interested in”, “comes up with creative solutions to the hardest problems”, "provides sure-footed direction on difficult judgement calls", “his advice is always clear and pragmatic”, “totally down to earth”, ““exceptionally easy to work with”, “good fun”, "genuinely intellectually brilliant”, “often the barrister I choose to instruct in my most sensitive cases" (current or past editions of Chambers & Partners or Legal 500).
James has a wide-ranging practice specialising in commercial, public and regulatory law. He has been instructed in a number of the most interesting, heavily reported, and high-value matters in each of these areas, including:
Commercial litigation / arbitration, such as the £4bn RBS Rights Issue litigation, the >£1bn Kuwaiti sovereign wealth fund dispute, the leading Supreme Court authority on piercing the corporate veil and forum conveniens, a >£200m claim for the breach of a purchase option agreement over commercial property, a >£140m claim for the negligent drafting and execution of a payment waterfall, and international arbitrations tackling subject matter as varied as energy infrastructure contracts, commercial trusts and bank guarantees; James is also a co-author of the leading work on the Law of Bank Payments (Brindle & Cox);
Regulatory law, including:
Disciplinary proceedings, including the successful defence of a Magic Circle partner following a 21-day trial in the SDT (resulting in a full acquittal); and the FRC’s successful prosecution of a “Big Four” firm arising out of a heavily publicised accounting scandal. James has acted in heavy cases in the SDT for almost 14 years, most involving allegations of serious misconduct, including dishonesty, lack of integrity, conflicts of interest, the misappropriation of client assets, giving false evidence under oath, misleading the regulator, and sexual harassment).
James’s cases frequently straddle more than one of these practice areas and he has been recognised as “particularly strong at the intersection of commercial law and public law” (Legal 500) and "one of the few people that has cross-over between banking, regulatory and public law" (Chamber and Partners). He is often sought out for cases raising complex points of law (in particular statutory construction) including in fields previously outside his core areas of practice (such as insolvency, pensions, tax and agriculture).
James is equally comfortable leading teams of junior counsel or acting as a sole advocate and has substantial experience of both. He also has a heavy advisory practice and frequently advises on the application of complex statutory regimes to novel forms of commercial activity. James has particular expertise in the regulation of financial and legal services and has been described as having “an encyclopedic knowledge of financial regulatory work" and "great technical expertise" (Chambers).
In appropriate cases, James takes on pro bono instructions and approximately 20% of his time in 2020 was spent on unpaid work for deserving clients. James is also an executive committee member of the Alliance for Lawyers at Risk (supporting human rights defenders worldwide) and sits on the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal, hearing disciplinary cases relating to members of the Bar.
Prior to taking silk James was profiled by Legal Week as one of its Stars at the Bar and nominated for both commercial litigation and banking and finance junior of the year at the Chambers UK Bar Awards. He was named as “one of the leading senior juniors in commercial litigation” (Legal 500) and “a rising star of the Commercial Bar” (Chambers).
James’ public law practice is of equal depth. Before taking Silk, he was one of the Attorney General’s A Panel Counsel, appointed to conduct the most complex first instance and appellate advocacy for central government in all aspects of public law. Earlier in his practice, he was a tutor and then college lecturer in public law at Oxford University and in 2019 James was named by Finance Monthly as its UK public law lawyer of the year.
James’ public law and regulatory practice is wide ranging. Having been a tutor and later lecturer in public law at Oxford University (St Hugh’s and Keble Colleges), James has acted in a great variety of judicial reviews and statutory appeals and has advised, or appeared for, national regulators (including the PRA, FOS, FSCS, FRC, and the SRA), central government (including the Home Office, Foreign Office, MoJ, HMRC, and DCMS), and a wide variety of claimants and interested parties, ranging from corporations and trade bodies to universities and private individuals.
James’ public law cases frequently concern commercial subject-matter, but also address territory as diverse as parliamentary law, press regulation, international sanctions, civil justice reform, the recognition of foreign governments, higher education funding, healthcare, agricultural subsidies, import regulation, licensing, extradition, infringements of EU rights by public bodies, and claims for interferences with human rights.
Examples of recent or ongoing matters:
(See also financial and legal services below for regulatory JR.)
R (NoteMachine) v Payment Services Regulator & LINK [judgment pending]: acted for LINK (leading Tim Johnston) in a challenge brought by a leading ATM operator to the PSR’s decision not to amend LINK’s nationwide fees for ATM providers (concerns legitimate expectations, alleged breaches of policy / guidance, statutory discrimination, and the jurisdictional “footprint” of the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013).
R (A) v BEIS & Ofgem [ongoing] [details withheld]: acting (leading Max Evans) in a heavy, expedited JR of government intervention in the energy supply sector following the spike in wholesale gas prices (concerns: substantive and procedural legitimate expectations; departure from policy guidance; breach of A1P1 / Human Rights Act 1998, and errors of law).
A1P1 Claim / Interim injunction [details withheld]: acting (leading Philip Ahlquist) for a public authority resisting an expedited judicial review challenge and injunctive application brought by a Russian-orientated entity alleging breach of statutory duty and interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of the First Protocol / Human Rights Act 1998). (Claim withdrawn following service of Grounds of Defence.)
R (B) v Ofgem [pre-issue] [details withheld]: acted (leading Sarah Love) for the claimant in pre-action intimated challenges to Ofgem’s decision-making on aspect of price control; all allegations were denied but alleged errors were then corrected by subsequent decisions (concerned: rationality, error of fact, proportionality, departure from policy, price control).
R (Hughes) v Pension Protection Fund & DWP [2021] EWCA Civ 1093: acting for the PPF successfully overturning the decision at first instance in this >£1 billion JR of the PPF’s method of calculating pensioner compensation (concerned: the interpretation and effect of retained EU law; age discrimination).
RIIO-2 Licence Modification Appeals [CMA, 28 October 2021]: acted for SP transmission plc (owner of the electricity transmission network in Central and Southern Scotland) in a successful challenge to Ofgem price control / licence modification decisions. The CMA accepted SP’s submissions that key modifications were ultra vires since they purported to reserve to Ofgem a right to make future discretionary modifications without specifying their manner or circumstances.
R (Donegan & Ors) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme [2021] EWHC 760 (Admin): acted for the claimants (leading Tim Johnston and Charlotte Thomas) challenging the FSCS’s decision to decline compensation to thousands of investors who lost >£200m in the London City & Finance “mini-bonds” scandal. Mr Justice Bourne commended the “force, lucidity and skill” of James’s argument and found that the mini-bond terms were unfair, having been imposed contrary to good faith. Three weeks after that judgment, and having previously stated that it would “assess whether there [was] justification for further one-off compensation payment in certain circumstances for some LCF bondholders”, HM Treasury announced that it would pay out to all uncompensated investors, paying 80% of their original investments up to the level of the FSCS’s statutory cap. (Concerned transferable securities, MiFID 2, the Consumer Rights Act 2015).
Uber v Transport for London [Westminster Magistrates Court] [September 2020]: acted for Uber London Ltd in its successful challenge to TfL’s refusal to renew its operating licence within London. The case preserved Uber’s business and, with it, a significant part of London’s transport infrastructure.
R (United Trade Action Group) v Transport for London & Uber [April 2020]: successfully resisted (as interested party) UTAG’s challenge to TfL’s decision not to suspend Uber’s licence pending appeal (concerned rationality, public safety and error of law).
R (Major UK Importer) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [September 2020]: acted for the claimant in a successful JR challenge to DEFRA’s refusal to recognise a force majeure event resulting in the forfeiture of a multi-million pound import security. The claim was conceded following service of the Claimant’s Grounds. (Concerned irrationality/unreasonableness (error of reasoning) and error of law.)
R (B) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [ongoing]: James acted (leading Tim Johnston) for the Secretary of State resisting a challenge to the UK’s implementation of aspects of the EU agricultural subsidy regime. (Concerned legitimate expectations, breach of policy guidance and error of law.)
R (Taveta Investments Ltd) v Financial Reporting Counsel & Ors [2018] EWHC 1662 (Admin): acting for the FRC resisting an injunction to restrain publication of the detailed reasons for its settlement agreement with PWC relating to the audit of BHS. (Concerned issues under ECHR Art. 10 (freedom of expression), and 8 (private life).)
Cian Ciaran v NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd [2018] (High Court, QBD) E90CF102: acting for a subsidiary of EDF resisting a challenge to the lawfulness of statutory authorisations granted by the Welsh Government for work on Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.
R (Med Chambers Ltd) v Medco Registration Solutions Ltd [2017] EWHC 3258 (Admin): successfully resisting three linked judicial review challenges (accompanied by urgent injunction applications) to suspension decisions taken by MedCo under the MoJ’s accreditation scheme for medical reporting in injury claims (concerned ECHR Article 6 (fair hearing); Article 1 of the First Protocol (right to possessions); rationality; delay and alternative remedies).
R (Rosneft Oil Co) v HMT, FCA & Aor [2018] Q.B. 1 (CJEU, Grand Chamber): acting for the FCA in the JR challenge brought by Rosneft against the FCA and HMT concerning the validity and interpretation of EU sanctions against Russia following its actions in Ukraine;
Disputed recognition of Libyan Government (Bouhadi v Breish) [2016] EWHC 602: acting for the claimant seeking declarations identifying the legitimate government of Libya for the purposes of establishing control over Libyan sovereign wealth held within the UK.
Leveson press reforms: advising the Department of Culture Media and Sport in relation to the controversial implementation of the statutory reforms to press regulation arising out of the Leveson report (section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013).
R (Sison) v SSHD [2016] UKUT 33 (IAC): acting for the SSHD in a JR concerning the ability of claimants to “piggy back” on alleged infringements of the human rights of third parties, ECHR Article 8 (right to private life).
Ocean Reef Ltd v Nevis Island Administration & Governor-General of St Kitts and Nevis (NEVHCV2017/0114): acting (with Jonathan Crow QC) for the claimant in relation to a judicial review / constitutional challenge to the alleged expropriation of property in St Kitts and Nevis.
>50 linked intimated JR challenges: acting (as sole Counsel) for a commercial regulator resisting more than 50 linked pre-action JR challenges to >£100m decisions affecting an entire industry sector.
Statutory remediation of land contamination: advising the Environment Agency in relation to the lawful exercise of statutory powers to compel the remediation of contaminated land.
In re. Law Society [2015] 1 W.L.R. 4064: seeking novel declaratory relief for the SRA over its powers to destroy property seized on statutory interventions; raising issues under ECHR Article 1 of the First Protocol (right to possessions), and Article 6 (fair hearing).
R (Bluefin Insurance Services Ltd) v FOS [2014] EWHC 3413 (Admin): acting for an insurance broker in a test case JR concerning the jurisdiction of the FOS to make awards in respect of D&O policies.
R (Whitston) v SSte for Justice [2014] EWHC 3044 (Admin): acting for the ABI in a JR challenge concerning changes to the funding regime for mesothelioma claims. (Concerned a challenge to the validity of a statutory consultation process.)
R (APIL) v SSte for Justice [2013] EWHC 1358 (Admin): acting for the ABI in a JR challenge to the Government’s decision to cut recoverable costs in RTA claims (the judgment paved the way for reforms to remove £1 million per day out of the motor insurance system).
USA v Wood [2013] EWHC 1971 (Admin): acting for the UK (Home Secretary) in a procedural/jurisdictional challenge to the USA’s request for the extradition of a UK national to face allegations of wire fraud; raising issues under ECHR Article 8 (private life).
NA v Law Society & Ors [2012] EWHC 980 (QB) acting for the SRA resisting a claim for, amongst other things, a declaration of incompatibility under the HRA 1998 relating to the SRA’s statutory powers to intervene into solicitors’ practices.
R (BBA) v FSA [2011] EWHC 999 (Admin) acting for the FSA in the PPI JR, successfully resisting a challenge by the BBA to the regulator’s multi-billion pound PPI redress scheme.
Cooper v Attorney General [2008] 3 C.M.L.R. 45: acting for the claimant against the Attorney.
General in the first damages claim ever brought against the UK for alleged infringements of EU law by a domestic Court (reported as “ground-breaking” in Chambers & Partners).
R (Queen Mary’s University of London) v HEFCE [2008] E.L.R. 540 acting for a university in a JR challenge to funding decisions by the Higher Education Funding Council (resulting in the quashing of those decisions).
James acts both for and against regulators in contested proceedings and advises regularly on financial regulatory issues, including FSMA and its subordinate legislation; the powers and competencies of the FCA, the FOS, the PRA and the FSCS; the Financial Services Handbook (in particular COBS, ICOBs, DISP, PRIN); the Regulated Activities Order, the Payment Services Regulations, collective investment schemes, and the territorial application of the FSMA regime.
In addition to numerous advisory matters, examples of previous instructions include:
R (NoteMachine) v Payment Services Regulator & LINK [judgment pending]: acted for LINK (leading Tim Johnston) in a challenge brought by a leading ATM operator to the PSR’s decision not to open investigations into alleged unlawfulness in LINK’s setting of ATM Interchange Fees (concerns legitimate expectations, alleged breaches of policy guidance, statutory discrimination, and the jurisdictional “footprint” of the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013).
R (Donegan & Ors) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme [2021] EWHC 760 (Admin): acted for the claimants (leading Tim Johnston and Charlotte Thomas) challenging the FSCS’s decision to decline compensation to thousands of investors who lost >£200m in the London City & Finance “mini-bonds” scandal. Mr Justice Bourne commended the “force, lucidity and skill” of James’s argument and found that the mini-bond terms were unfair, having been imposed contrary to good faith. Three weeks after that judgment, and having previously stated that it would “assess whether there [was] justification for further one-off compensation payment in certain circumstances for some LCF bondholders”, HM Treasury announced that it would pay out to all uncompensated investors, paying 80% of their original investments up to the level of the FSCS’s statutory cap. (Concerned the meaning of “transferable securities” under MiFID 2; the status of “non-transferable bonds”; the assessment of investment products under the Consumer Rights Act 2015).
Acting for a group of investors in proposed JR proceedings against a regulatory body (2020-2021). (Claim settled following letter before claim.)
FRC investigation into financial reporting scandal: advising (leading Max Evans) the FRC in relation to proposed disciplinary action against accountants arising out of a heavily publicised financial scandal (2017-2020).
Strategic Advice on regulation of Fossil Fuel / Climate Change exposures: James advised a key stakeholder as to regulatory issues surrounding the financing of fossil fuel investments both within the UK and globally. This was very extensive, strategic, framework advice commissioned to support long-term decision making which was provided over an extended period and addressed the whole framework for regulating lending to the energy sector and the prudential and systemic risks associated with fossil-fuel exposures.
R (Rosneft Oil Co) v HMT, FCA & Aor [2018] Q.B. 1 (CJEU, Grand Chamber): acting for the FCA in the JR challenge brought by Rosneft against the FCA and HMT concerning the validity and interpretation of EU sanctions against Russia following its actions in Ukraine.
Disputed recognition of Libyan Government (Bouhadi v Breish) [2016] EWHC 602: acting for the claimant seeking declarations identifying the legitimate government of Libya for the purposes of establishing control over Libyan sovereign wealth held within the UK.
R (Taveta Investments Ltd) v Financial Reporting Counsel & Ors [2018] EWHC 1662 (Admin): acting for the FRC resisting an injunction to restrain publication of the detailed reasons for its settlement agreement with PWC relating to the audit of BHS.
FSCS COMP jurisdiction: advising the FSCS as to the scope and discretionary exercise of powers to award compensation arising out of firm default (2017).
FCA strategic advice: advising the FCA’s General Counsel’s Division (“GCD”) on the proper interpretation and application of Handbook rules of industry-wide significance (multiple instances).
R (Bluefin Insurance Services Ltd) v FOS [2015] Bus. L.R. 656: acting for an insurance broker in a test case concerning the jurisdiction of the FOS to make awards in respect of D&O policies (the case has removed an entire line of insurance business from FOS jurisdiction).
Bank of England: advising the Bank of England (with Jonathan Crow QC) on the interpretation of its systemic, market stabilisation powers under the Banking Act 2009.
Formation of the PRA: advising the Bank of England (with Jonathan Crow QC) on aspects of the creation and operation of the PRA.
PPI Judicial Review: acting for the FCA (then FSA) against the British Bankers Association in the test case concerning banks’ regulatory obligation to pay compensation for PPI mis-selling. Compensation payments of >£30 billion have now been made.
Bank Overdraft Charges test case: acted for HBOS against the OFT in the test case as to banks’ obligations under the UTCCRs. The banks’ success in those proceedings averted potentially multi- billion pound pay-outs.
Advising the FSCS concerning its £326m exceptional fund management levy under FEES following the failure of Keydata and other entities.
James regularly advises both regulators and private persons concerning the obligations of legal service providers and the powers and public law duties of the SRA. He has acted in numerous judicial review or appellate proceedings concerning the SRA and the scope and effect of the regulatory framework. James also appears regularly (as sole counsel) in disciplinary prosecutions, including those concerned with dishonesty, the misappropriation of client funds and other serious misconduct. Examples include:
SRA v Magic Circle solicitor (2020-2021): acted for a solicitor at a Magic Circle firm in relation to an SRA investigation and proposed disciplinary referral for misconduct to the SDT. Following detailed written representations (including a 35,000 word rebuttal of all allegations) the investigation and proposed referral were discontinued.
SRA v Narayanasamy [2021] EWHC 2918 (Admin) [Divisional Court]; and Case No. 11893-2018 [SDT]: James acted for the SRA in this prosecution concerning allegedly false and evasive evidence given under oath in a partnership dispute in the Chancery Division. Following a 2-day interim hearing and 7-day trial, the SDT made findings of dishonesty and ordered that the respondent be struck from the Roll. Currently under appeal, including an interlocutory appeal from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal over the admission of fresh evidence on appeal.
SRA v Elizabeth Ellen / MdR (formerly Mischon de Reya) [2021]: providing specialist public law advice to the respondent solicitor who was subsequently exonerated by the SDT in a trial relating to the conduct of payments for player transfers in the Premier League.
SRA v Gary Senior, Baker McKenzie LLP & Ors (2019-2020); Case No. 11976-2019: acted for Tom Cassels (partner at Linklaters LLP) in this very heavily publicised 21-day SDT trial concerning Baker McKenzie’s internal disciplinary response to sexual misconduct by its Managing Partner. Mr Cassels was acquitted of all wrongdoing.
Dean v SRA (2017) (SDT; 11582-2016): successfully resisted appeal against order indefinitely prohibiting a non-solicitor from being employed in connection with solicitor’s practice.
SRA v Nickson (2016) (SDT; 11436-2016) (as sole counsel) strike-off; integrity; public trust; best interests of client.
Lawson v SRA [2015] EWHC 1237 (Admin) (as sole counsel): re. suspension.
R (IA) v SRA [2014] EWHC 197 (Admin) (as sole counsel): re. suspension, fresh evidence, conditions on certificate.
SRA v V (2013) (11090/12) (as sole counsel): re. improper contingency fees; dishonesty; compromising integrity; conduct unbefitting; diminishing trust in profession; striking off.
Westlaw Services Ltd v Boddy [2010] EWCA Civ 929 (as sole counsel): Court of Appeal hearing re. whether commercial contracts formed in breach of regulatory obligations could be enforced by non-regulated counter-parties.
Coal Miners Compensation Scheme prosecutions: James acted for the SRA in the widely publicised SDT prosecutions for alleged solicitor misconduct in connection with the >£4.4 billion miners’ compensation scheme – the largest industrial injuries compensation scheme in the world. This was collectively the most substantial enquiry ever undertaken into misconduct within the legal profession in England & Wales. James appeared in four separate prosecutions, including both of the headline cases of Raleys and Beresfords, the latter of which resulted in findings of dishonesty following what was described as a “landmark hearing” (The Times).
James is a member of the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers; has contributed to their quarterly bulletin, and has appeared in a panel debate on proposed regulatory reforms.
James’s energy practice spans both (a) commercial disputes within the energy-sector (in particular disputes as to the interpretation of complex contracts and share-sale agreements); and (b) public law challenges for/against regulators.
R (A) v BEIS & GEMA [ongoing] [details withheld]: acting (leading Max Evans) in a heavy ongoing JR of government intervention in the energy supply sector following the spike in wholesale gas prices (concerns: substantive and procedural legitimate expectations; departure from policy guidance; breach of A1P1 / Human Rights Act 1998, and errors of law).
R (B) v GEMA [pre-issue] [details withheld]: acted (leading Sarah Love) for an energy market participant in pre-action intimated challenges to GEMA’s decision-making on business-critical issues; alleged errors were denied but then corrected in further decisions (concerned: rationality, error of fact, proportionality, departure from policy, price control).
Advising on regulatory aspects of nationwide smart-meter rollout.
RIIO-2 Licence Modification Appeals [CMA, 28 October 2021]: acted for SP transmission plc (owner of the electricity transmission network in Central and Southern Scotland) in a successful challenge to Ofgem price control / licence modification decisions. The CMA accepted SP’s submissions that key modifications were ultra vires since they purported to reserve to Ofgem a right to make future discretionary modifications without specifying their manner or circumstances.
Strategic Advice on regulation of Fossil Fuel exposures: James advised a key stakeholder as to regulatory issues surrounding the financing of fossil fuel investments both within the UK and globally. This was very extensive, strategic, framework advice commissioned to support long-term decision making which was provided over an extended period and addressed the whole framework for regulating lending to the energy sector and the prudential and systemic risks associated with fossil-fuel exposures.
Advice re. > EURO 50m payment right: advising a multi-national mining conglomerate as to the interpretation of a payment formula under a complex share-sale arrangement in a dispute as to whether, and if so when, a >EURO 50 million payment tranche had fallen due and payable.
James’ commercial litigation/arbitration practice has covered a number of the most interesting disputes arising in the last 15 years, including the >£4 billion RBS rights issue litigation (resulting from the failure of RBS); the test cases on both PPI and bank overdraft charges (each of which had multi-billion pound consequences), and the leading Supreme Court authority on piercing the corporate veil and forum conveniens. He has been instructed in connection with a number of other matters heavily reported in the national press, including the controversial sale of BHS by the Arcadia Group; Tesco’s profit misstatement, and the LIBOR “rigging” scandal.
In addition to court proceedings, James has appeared in high-value international arbitrations, ranging from contested oil and gas industry contracts to disputes involving commercial trusts and the re- structuring of foreign debt.
CIArb Arbitration concerning US$ 20m African debt guarantees: acted (leading Chintan Chandrachud) for a guarantor denying liability under a US$ 20 million guarantee over lending to a multi-national corporate group in sub-Saharan Arica. Issues included rescission for misrepresentation; termination for non-disclosure; and exclusion of “political risks” (default having allegedly occurred due to state interference in the borrower’s businesses).
>$130 million LCIA arbitrations: acting for the claimant in two linked arbitral disputes arising out of the restructuring of distressed debt in a foreign public company. The case involved complex banking assignment documentation, the disputed operation of multi-million pound commercial trusts, and allegations of political influence in procuring commercial arrangements with a public entity.
Sovereign Wealth Fund v Global Financial Services provider: James acted (with Richard Lissack QC and Leonora Sagan) for a leading Global Financial Services provider resisting circa >£200m claims in bribery, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and under foreign anti-corruption laws brought by a sovereign fund relating to alleged systematic impropriety maintained over >15 years.
X Investments Ltd v Y Ltd (2017-2019) (Comm. Ct). James acted (leading Alexandra Whelan) for a high net-worth Chinese national and his corporate vehicle in this joint venture dispute concerning contested interests in globally diversified assets running to the hundreds of millions of GBP. The case raised issues of Chinese, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, and English law concerning inter-company debt arrangements, a promissory note, and a variety of contested lending and capital contribution arrangements. Opposing Counsel were Tony Peto QC and Peter Head.
Harbour Castle Ltd v David Wilson Homes Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 505; [2018] EWHC 25 (Ch): acted for the claimant in a >£200m claim for the alleged breach of an option agreement (permission to appeal granted by Henderson LJ).
RBS Rights Issue litigation (2013-2017): acting for RBS and its former directors defending the multi- billion pound group action arising out of the bank’s part-nationalisation.
NRAM plc v McAdam [2015] EWCA Civ 741: acting against Northern Rock Plc in the >£250m test case concerning whether the CCA could apply by contractual incorporation or estoppel to lending in excess of the statutory threshold.
VTB v Nutritek [2013] UKSC 5: acted against VTB bank in the landmark Supreme Court case on piercing the corporate veil and forum conveniens (appeared at first instance, in the Court of Appeal, and in the Supreme Court).
Deutsche Banke (Suisse) SA v Khan [2013] EWHC 482 (Comm): acted for Deutsche Bank in a >£50 million claim over a secured lending facility.
>$680 million claim under a cross-undertaking: acted for the claimant in a claim under a cross-undertaking following the setting aside of a worldwide freezing order.
£20 million claim against Credit Suisse: acted for corporate investors in a claim for the alleged mis- selling of structured notes geared to the U.S. life insurance markets;
London Underground v Freshfields & Herbert Smith Freehills (Commercial Court): acted for HSF in a >£140 million claim relating to the drafting and execution of complex PPP financing for the regeneration of the London tube network.
Marex Financial Ltd v Creative Finance Ltd [2013] EWHC 2155 (Comm): acted for investors claiming against a FOREX broker concerning the forced liquidation of US$800 million cross- currency positions.
