Practice Areas


  • Solicitors regard the set highly for its "superb depth and breadth" and say "everyone there is very bright - you know you'll be getting an exceptionally good lawyer whoever you instruct."

    - Chambers & Partners 2015

  • The set is well stocked with leading silks and highly regarded juniors, and its members are consistently praised for their robust and intelligent advocacy.

    - Chambers & Partners 2015

  • “Brick Court Chambers is a leading destination for instructing solicitors seeking barristers who marry deep analytical ability with tremendous courtroom prowess.”

    - Chambers & Partners 2014

  • “‘you get the impression that you are dealing with a market leader for whom first-class legal advice and representation is a given. The great thing is that they combine this with excellent service as well.’ ”

    - Chambers & Partners 2013

» See all quotes

Brick Court Chambers has long been recognised as one of the top-tier commercial chambers, and that pre-eminence continues today. At the Chambers Bar Awards, Brick Court Chambers has been nominated as Commercial Litigation Set of the Year every year (winning the award five times) and has had at least one member of chambers individually nominated every year as well (winning five awards) – a record that is unmatched.

Underneath the general umbrella of “commercial practice”, Brick Court Chambers offers, through its members, an unparalleled breadth of expertise and experience. Members of Chambers are above all advocates and litigators, whose advocacy and litigation expertise is sought by clients from around the world, in relation to disputes arising in or out of all industry sectors and professions.  Specific “practice areas” (reflecting those adopted by the legal directories) are identified below, but the reality is the cases in which members of Chambers are instructed cover all areas of commercial, business and professional endeavour, and are frequently difficult to categorise as falling within just one “practice area”.

Members of Chambers frequently appear in the most high-value, high-profile, high-pressure commercial disputes. For example, Members of Chambers were instructed on both sides of Berezovsky v Abramovich, and Cherney v Deripaska.  However, members of Chambers are equally at home as a member of a team in a big case or as sole advocate on a smaller case.

Similarly, members of Chambers have experience and expertise both in first-instance trials, and the heavy factual and/or expert disputes, as well as interlocutory disputes, that come with such trials, and in the more refined, legal disputes of appellate litigation at all levels.

A substantial proportion of Chambers’ commercial work takes place in arbitration, and members of Chambers have experience of international arbitrations under all major arbitral rules. In addition, members of Chambers often appear in commercial disputes in the courts of foreign jurisdictions.

Expertise within Commercial Law includes:

  • Aviation
  • Banking and Finance
  • Civil Fraud
  • Commercial Arbitration
  • Conflict of Laws / Private International Law
  • Energy & Natural Resources
  • General Commercial
  • Insurance and Reinsurance
  • Media & Entertainment
  • Product Liability / Consumer Law
  • Professional Negligence
  • Shipping Law
  • Sports Law
  • Technology
  • Telecommunications

Notable Cases


Barristers from Brick Court Chambers represented Gulf Keystone Petroleum Limited, the principal defendants, in a major US$1.7 billion dispute over oil exploration rights in Iraqi Kurdistan.  The Brick Court team successfully obtained a rare injunction to prevent the case from being referred to arbitration in New York and the dispute culminated in a 5-month trial in the Commercial Court in 2012-2013.  It raised a plethora of causes of action under two systems of law and numerous factual and legal issues.  In a 323-page Judgment, the Defendants were successful on every point and they were awarded indemnity costs against the Claimant and its litigation funders.  The litigation was described by the trial judge as “gargantuan in scope” and its outcome as “a resounding, indeed catastrophic defeat” for the Claimant.

Berezovsky v Abramovich

Barristers from Brick Court Chambers appeared on both sides of the Commercial Court trial in this litigation between two “oligarchs” which attracted great media interest and almost daily press coverage. Boris Berezovsky claimed to have entered into agreements with Roman Abramovich to share profits generated by the Russian oil companies Sibneft and Rusal. He alleged that he was forced to sell his stake in the company due to threats. Following a lengthy trial, Mrs Justice Gloster held that there had been no agreement and no threats.


Barristers from Brick Court Chambers represented BSkyB in its action against EDS, in which BSkyB alleged that EDS had made fraudulent misrepresentations during a tender process, as a result of which it had won a contract to replace BSkyB’s CRM system. Negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract claims were also made, which it was agreed were contractually capped at £30 million. Following 109 hearing days over 10 months, Mr Justice Ramsey delivered a 468-page judgment, which held that the fraudulent misrepresentation was made out, and decided various principle issues of quantum. Prior to a further hearing finally to determine quantum, the claim settled for £318 million.


Barristers from Brick Court Chambers were instructed on behalf of Total and Chevron in relation to the consequences of the fire at the Buncefield oil depot in Hertfordshire in 2005, which was reputedly the largest peacetime explosion in Europe and resulted in substantial damage and injuries to persons and property in the vicinity.  The case raised issues of factual as well as legal complexity, resulting in a judgment of the Court of Appeal on the scope of liability for causing economic loss by negligence.

Cherney v Deripaska

Barristers from Brick Court Chambers appeared on both sides in the multi-billion dollar Commercial Court battle between Rusal’s chief executive Oleg Deripaska and Michael Cherney. Mr Cherney alleged that Mr Deripaska agreed to sell his (Mr Cherney’s) stake in Rusal and account to him for the proceeds. Mr Deripaska denied that Mr Cherney had a stake in Rusal, and asserted instead that their relationship was one of krysha. The trial commenced in the Commercial Court July 2012 and was set down for 16 weeks. The litigation terminated in September 2012, prior to oral evidence.

Deutsche Bank v Sebastian Holdings

A team of barristers from Brick Court Chambers were among those instructed in the 2013 Commercial Court trial between Deutsche Bank and Sebastian Holdings.  It involved foreign exchange losses of in excess of $500m, suffered in 2008 under circumstances in which Deutsche Bank’s systems had been wholly unable to value and margin a range of complex exotic derivatives.  Deutsche Bank’s claims succeeded and the counterclaims failed, in particular because of findings that an implied obligation in the FX prime brokerage agreement to report on values and collateral requirements had been waived by the trader.

Fiona Trust v Privalov

Barristers from Brick Court Chambers represented the claimants in this huge Commercial Court dispute (and related arbitration proceedings) concerning alleged bribery of the heads of Russian State-owned shipping companies and the illegitimate diversion of commissions (principally on the sale and purchase of vessels), as well as claims of conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance.  Some of the defendants were held liable for the commission claims, but the claims based upon bribery, determined under Russian law, failed (though it had been held in the main action that benefits that would, in English law, have amounted to bribes had been conferred).

Masri v Consolidated Contractors

Notable for establishing a myriad of legal precedents on jurisdiction and post-judgment remedies, a total of at least 15 barristers from Brick Court Chambers were involved at the various stages of the Masri litigation. There were hearings before the Privy Council, House of Lords, Court of Appeal and Commercial Court. In his judgment on jurisdiction, Burton J observed: “What might be called the Masri Jurisprudence could, by reference to hearings in courts in this jurisdiction alone, almost fill an entire textbook, and indeed has given rise to a number of significant legal decisions of interest to the legal profession.”

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek

Three Counsel from Brick Court appeared in this landmark appeal before the Supreme Court.  The case is now the leading authority on jurisdiction in respect of tort claims and the application of forum conveniens principles. The judgment also contains some very important observations on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.

About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)