The 36 Group

James has a mixed private law civil practice, with increasing focus on chancery work, and a particular specialism in civil cases involving fraud and dishonesty of all kinds. Notable recent cases include Khan v. Nationwide Solicitors [2014] E. W. H. C. 841 (Q. B.) (a partnership claim against a firm of solicitors), Maqsood v. Mahmood [2012] E. W. C. A. Civ. 251 (White Book 3.4.4) (a claim arising out of alleged fraud in a business context, where he was instructed for the appeal) and Graham v. Sand Martin Heights Residents’ Company Limited (2011, unreported) Southend County Court (H. J. J. Maloney, QC) (an appeal in which it was held, controversially, that the small claims track rules on costs over-ride contractual provisions as to costs). James has also been instructed recently in very high value credit hire cases involving elements of alleged fraud, contentious probate cases involving alleged forgery, a claim in deceit arising out of an international property investment, applications for freezing injunctions, a partnership case involving alleged exclusion and diversion of profits, various insolvency proceedings, advising on setting aside settlement agreements allegedly procured by fraud, possession claims in the context of probate proceedings, claims arising out of alleged avoidance of care home fees, and an international dispute concerning the administration of a deceased person’s estate in India where jurisdiction was in issue. In his earlier years of practice, James acquired a wealth of experience in criminal law, and still occasionally appears in criminal courts, including recently the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in an appeal against conviction in a case of fraud. James also has experience of employment and personal injury work. James prides himself on giving robust, practical and intellectually sound advice at all stages of litigation and has a particular interest in litigation strategy.

Called 2002, Middle Temple. Publications of note: Westlaw Insight articles on: (1) deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation; (2) dishonest assistance in breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) knowing receipt; also ‘Prognosis for disability discrimination following McDougall’ (2008) 37 I. L. J. 268.

London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association; Fraud Lawyers’ Association; Bar Pro Bono Unit.

Lord Williams’ School; University of Reading (2001 LLB); St Hugh’s College, Oxford (2004 BCL).

Baking, photography, computer programming.