Thomas More Chambers

Thomas More Chambers

thomasmore.co.ukthomasmore.co.ukthomasmore.co.uk
Region Area

Barristers

Search rankings
  • search
Amiot Vollenweider
Amiot Vollenweider
Private Client/Family: Mr Vollenweider is leading junior counsel and deals with cases of substance, complexity, difficulty and sensitivity. High net worth individuals regularly instruct Mr Vollenweider in complex financial remedy cases involving international property portfolios and companies. He is used to dealing with family trusts and the tracing and recovery of assets allegedly dissipated. He has been led by the Honourable Mr Justice Nicholas Francis K.C. of 29 Bedford Row in two of his cases before Sir Nicholas’s appointment. He has appeared, instructed alone, against Alexis Campbell K.C. of 29 Bedford Row in a £25million financial remedy claim concerning a long marriage, and has had the pleasure of working alongside Elizabeth McGrath K.C. of 3 Paper Buildings concerning a very short marriage and opposite Samantha Hillas K.C. of St John’s Buildings, where he relied on an alleged completed agreement and the case of Xydhias v Xydhias [1999] 1 FLR 683. The case ultimately settled. He has been instructed as sole Counsel in a case where the wealth of the husband was allegedly £75 million. He has appeared against Farrer & Co, solicitors to Queen Elizabeth II at the time. He is often instructed by companies to intervene in financial remedy cases, where the husband is a director/shareholder of the company, and has appeared in cases involving allegations of fraud, where reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions is a real possibility. He has appeared in applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, applications under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, international children cases and child abduction cases. He is regularly instructed in Children Act 1989 cases, and has conducted final hearings of significant length and complexity, appearing for the parents in High Cost Public Law cases where there have been findings of fact sought against alleged perpetrators of serious sexual abuse and/or violence. He has appeared alone against Alex Verdan K.C. of 4 Paper Buildings (Counsel to the film producer Guy Richie), Susan Grocott K.C. of Deans Court Chambers. He has particular experience of cases where one party has narcissistic personality disorder. He has a particular interest in external and internal relocation cases, in particular to Scotland. In his last external relocation case, he successfully represented a mother seeking to relocate her child to Germany, where she wished to live with her new partner. Crime: As a leading defence and prosecution junior he has conducted trials of substance, length, complexity, difficulty, and sensitivity involving allegations of attempted murder and historical rape. Indeed, after leading one such rape case, off his own bat His Honour Judge Darling wrote a reference to the Crown Prosecution Service describing him as “an individual with Silk and Treasury Counsel written all over him”. Mr Vollenweider led his first case at the age of 31 years (7 years’ Call). He is now 48 years old and 24 years’ Call. He was a level 3 prosecutor, who has been instructed on Level 4 cases, and for over ten years was on the Attorney-General’s specialist panel of rape and child sexual abuse prosecutors. Now, he appears exclusively for the defence either as leading junior counsel or in privately paying cases. He has appeared in the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey), Courts Martial (Germany), Divisional Court and Court of Appeal. He has appeared in numerous applications under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and has a keen interest in commercial fraud, having led cases involving fraud and money laundering. He can conduct private prosecutions and, indeed, has brought one such case against the Bank of Scotland Plc (Trading as Halifax) for the harassment of a debtor. The (then) fourth largest law firm, DLA Piper, represented the bank. As the case headed towards trial the bank wrote off the debt. Commercial/Civil: All areas, although the smallest part of Mr Vollenweider’s practice. He has appeared in the County and High Court and will undertake work such as Judicial Review and cases in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He has been involved in a civil case in the High Court seeking the restoration of a £250,000.00 AC Cobra to its rightful owner, where the other side had instructed leading Counsel. He has particular experience of cases involving defamation of character, contracts, Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, harassment, nuisance, personal injury including Fatal Accident Act 1976 claims and human rights. He has been led by Silk in one such Judicial Review, involving human rights issues relating to the recovery of private costs in criminal cases, where the client had not applied for legal aid, as he had been deterred from applying for the same having been assessed as unsuitable for such by the on-line calculator. He had been acquitted and disallowed his some £70,000.00 worth of costs. Mr Vollenweider appeared without leading Counsel before Lord Justice Ryder sitting on the appeal from the Divisional Court. Mr Vollenweider abandoned the Silk’s points on appeal, preferring to rely upon his own new ground of appeal, which Lord Justice Ryder described as raising “…attractive issues that were not pursued before the Divisional court below….” Inquests: Mr Vollenweider has experience of the same, appearing for the partner of the deceased in a notable one involving Stepping Hill Hospital, where the hospital admitted liability after the inquest resulting in a substantial settlement for the partner. Direct Access: He regularly accepts instructions involving complicated matters at a very late stage. Litigation Certificate: He has an extension to his practising certificate, which allows him to conduct a case in a similar manner to a solicitor, including the ability to instruct experts, barristers and to issue proceedings. Reported/Notable Cases: • W v W [2023] – High Court. Counsel for the father, convicted of fraud and imprisoned in Australia. Father allowed contact with his children, to progress to unsupervised upon release from prison. • R v RJ [2023] – Counsel for the defendant and instructed privately. Defendant a jeweller, well known in Hatton Garden circles charged with money laundering (over £100,000 worth of Rolex watches). Defendant acquitted after submissions to the judge from counsel, following cross-examination of the defendant by the prosecution. • R v KC [2023] – Counsel for the defendant instructed by ABV solicitors. Defendant charged with sexual activity with a child. Prosecution had potentially incriminating evidence of pictures and messages between the defendant and the alleged victim. Defendant’s case was that he could not remember anything occurring but that he would not do such a thing. Defendant acquitted after trial. • GM v GMP [2023] – unusual appeal against the revoking of a shotgun certificate and seizure of the appellant’s shotgun. Appellant alleged to have threatened his partner’s father’s new wife in terms that he would shoot her in the head. Counsel instructed privately by the appellant. Following written submissions from counsel on the evidence and the Law and submissions before the Recorder of Manchester, GMP restored his shotgun to him and re-instated his licence. • M v B [2022] - Counsel for the father. Mother previously abducted child to Poland. Child returned; significant findings made against the mother; child to live with father and have supervised contact only to mother. • J v J [2021] - Counsel for the husband involving complicated Self-Administered Pension Scheme and allegations against the husband of hidden assets not ultimately found proved. • H v R [2021]- Counsel for the German wife, who wished to relocate to Germany with her partner and child. English father resisted the same. Child allowed to be relocated to Germany. • LG v LG [2020] - Counsel for the mother against Silk initially. Allegations by the mother of significant physical violence through third parties, and mental health issues. Significant findings made against the father. • A v G [2020] - Counsel for the wife against Silk. Mr Vollenweider ran a Xydhias concluded agreement argument – case settled. • L v L [2020] - Counsel for the mother, a television celebrity, against Silk. The father sought shared care of the children. Successfully prevented the same. • 2018 - 2019 - Counsel on paternity leave/sabbatical • E v T [2018] - Counsel for the wife, who was a partner of her own Solicitors’ Firm, such instruction being an endorsement of counsel in itself. • O v O [2017] – Leading counsel for the wife in financial remedy proceedings involving a multi-million pound trust. Wife secured 83.5% of the capital assets. • M v M [2017] – For the husband. Wife alleged husband worth £75 million. Case settled with Wife receiving less than £1million in capital assets. • R v DM [2017] – Rape re-trial. For the defendant running defence of consent and fabrication based upon complainant’s upset that defendant had called her names. Injuries to complainant, torn thong, text messages at time from complainant seeking help. Defendant acquitted. Mr Vollenweider did not represent the defendant at the original trial. • G-P v P [2017] –Very short marriage. Husband proceeded without leading Counsel, who had previously advised him on his case, and instead instructed Mr Vollenweider alone. Allegations of damage to wife’s business not found proved. Wife received less than 15% of the gross value of the FMH. • V v V [2017] – Represented the wife - application to re-open final hearing on basis of husband’s dishonest non-disclosure of multi-million pound inheritance granted – Wife secured 100% of the capital assets and increased maintenance. • B v H (SW applying to intervene) [2016] – against Nicholas Bowen K.C. for SW – application by SW, a million pound creditor, to intervene in a financial remedy case refused. • J v J [2016] – financial remedy case for the husband alleged to have dissipated huge sums of money – wife equal shareholder in companies - against Farrer & Co, led by the Honourable Mr Justice Francis K.C. until his appointment. • R v TH [2016] – Leading junior Counsel for the defence in a £12 million Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 application following a conviction for conspiring to assist in the management of brothels by offering a money laundering service to them. TH was not represented by Mr Vollenweider on the original trial. Most of the assets were alleged to be hidden. The prosecution were persuaded that the realisable amount was a mere £175,000 and they abandoned the hidden asset allegation which amounted to £5 million. • K v S [2016] – Led by the Honourable Mr Justice Nicholas Francis K.C. until his appointment. For the husband, alleged to have committed fraud by submitting a forged financial remedy consent order. Leading handwriting expert, Professor Radley, involved. Mr Vollenweider then appeared without leading Counsel. Issues or privilege involved and a potential referral of the husband to the DPP for prosecution if unsuccessful. Case settled favourably to the husband. • R v BS [2016] – Leading junior Counsel for the defence, listed for 5 weeks – former police officer acquitted of two counts of fraud • R v LW [2016] – Leading junior Counsel for the defence, listed for 5 weeks – wife acquitted of money laundering. • NS-F v SW and FL [2016] – Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 – for the claimant. £250,000.00 AC Cobra restored to its rightful owner. • Henderson v The Secretary of State for Justice [2015] – Led judicial review case involving human rights and costs – the appeal came before Lord Justice Ryder who preferred Mr Vollenweider’s argument to that of the Silk who previously led him. • NCA v A [2014] – Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 application sought by the National Crime Agency against a businessman with substantial property interests and companies, and brought after his successful acquittal. • R v SI [2014] – 4 week trial for the defence at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) concerning an alleged conspiracy to import firearms from Germany; acquitted of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. • Inquest of GB [2014] – for the deceased’s partner; following which Stepping Hill Hospital accepted liability for the negligent care of a patient who subsequently died. • R v JF [2013] – 4 week trial for the defence, parachuted in the Thursday before the start of the trial on the Monday. Thousands of pages of evidence. 7 day abuse of process argument before Mr Justice Keith – effective trial – acquitted of attempted murder. • R v JM [2013] – Oxford Crown Court. Grievous bodily harm with intent (stabbing). For the defence – acquitted. • R v AH [2012] – Leading junior counsel for the prosecution. 5 week trial. Convicted of attempted rape. • Kosar v Bank of Scotland Plc trading as Halifax (appearing for the appellant) [2011] All ER (D) 08 (May), Divisional Court – alleged harassment by the bank of a debtor • R v Khan and others (appearing for the appellant) [2008] All ER (D) 212 (Mar), CA (also reported in the Times) – attempted murder conviction appeal • CPS v Thompson (responding for the Prosecution) [2007] All ER (D) 179 (Jul), Divisional Court • R v Rampley (appearing for the appellant) [2006] EWCA Crim 2203, CA (re: Sexual Offences Prevention Orders) • Parry v Halton Magistrates’ Court and another (appearing for the appellant) [2005] All ER (D) 192 (Jun), Divisional Court • Causey v DPP (appearing for the Director of Public Prosecutions) [2004] All ER (D) 177 (Nov), Divisional Court
Barry Coulter
Barry Coulter
Barry practices in commercial and civil litigation particularly in international arbitration, construction (adjudication) and property related disputes. He is a member of the Ciarb and is a qualified mediator. He started his legal career as a common law practitioner. In thirty-five years of practice there are few areas of law where he has not been instructed. His experience taught him that the techniques of successful civil litigation cross over from one area of law to the others, for example general commercial disputes, partnership disputes and land and building disputes (including planning) which of course feed into the international arbitration cases. Notably, he has also represented claimants and defendants in defamation proceedings. He lectures to commercial lawyers and businesses in the UK and abroad on the subject of International Arbitration, most recently in Tbilisi (Georgia) but also in Singapore (when attending SIAC), Kuala Lumpur, Warsaw and Budapest. He is available to lecture on specific areas or issues within each of his practice. Notable Cases:   CIVIL BW Legal Services Ltd v Trustpilot A/S [2024] EWHC 1449 (KB) strike out of defamation claim (permission to appeal to the CA has been granted). Craft Development SCI v ACTIS LLP [2024] EWHC 484 (KB) On the question of Cameroonian procedure and the authority of a provisional administrator to bring proceedings in England. CCP Graduate School v NatWest and Santander [2024] EWHC 581 (KB) is the first judgment discussing the Quincecare duty owed by banks since the Supreme Court’s decision in Philipp v Barclays Bank, the High Court considered the novel question of whether and to what extent the Defendant banks had a duty to retrieve funds which the Claimant alleged had been dissipated as a result of authorised push payment the High Court refused summarily to dismiss the claim against Santander (permission to appeal to the CA has been granted). Hay v Cresswell [2023] EWHC 882 (KB). Defamation claim following historic allegations of sexual assault. Secretary of State for Education v CCP Graduate School Ltd [2021] EWHC 2432 (QB) the High Court dismissed the government’s claim for repayment of fees from SNT Ltd v Bootes a current argument in the bankruptcy court as to whether an international arms dealer is entitled to claim diplomatic immunity such that he can avoid the consequences of default judgments and whether Tomlin orders can be enforced by the Bankruptcy courts. Njie v Shofoluwe October 2021 High Court Master Cook. A successful defence of an application under CPR 3.7(3) to revoke a judgment made by consent apportioning liability between insurers (on the one hand the MIB Art 75 insurer and on the other hand the RTA insurer) in a substantial personal injury claim. Secretary of State for Education v CCP Graduate School Limited Queen’s Bench Division [2021] EWHC 2432 (QB) successfully defending a test case brought by the Secretary of State against a higher education college for return of tuition fees said to have been wrongly paid out to the college. Miles v Shearer [2021] EWHC 1000 (Ch) representing on appeal the disappointed parties following the refusal of an Inheritance Act claim by disinherited adult children seeking provision from the estate of their wealthy father. Shah and Shah v Shah and Shah 2020 [2021] EWHC 1668 (QB) Successful defence of a claim arising out of an internecine property dispute with the assets in India (save for nominal payment) but unsuccessfully resisting a costs order. CMC Markets Plc v Mayce Constructions Pty Limited High Court claim arising out of alleged bribery in Australian construction contracts. Leggett v Giambrone Law LLP (In Liquidation) Queen’s Bench Division [2020] EWHC 724 claim by 41 individuals against their solicitor for breach of contract in failing to warn of the potential risks posed by Mafia involvement in an Italian sea side development (the claim now being brought against the solicitor’s insurers AIG). SSE v GE Medway Power Station a dispute over liabilities arising out of engineering damage in a nuclear reactor. Pepe’s Piri Piri Ltd v Junaid Queen’s Bench Division [2019] EWHC 2097 (QB) High Court a successful defence (save for a de minimis payment) of a claim relying on the economic torts by the franchisor against a franchisee. Also interesting for the line of authority followed over the definition of ‘the winner’ under CPR 44.2. Mete v AXA Insurance (2013) High Court decision on the ability or otherwise of insurers to rely on the default of the insured to avoid liability to third parties on claims arising under the Road Traffic Acts and European Regulations. Anderton v Clwyd CC [2002] 1 W.L.R. 3174: Court of Appeal guidance on the application and practice of CPR r 6. Casey v Morane [2001] ICR 316: Court of Appeal guidance on the consequences during a trial of a submission of no case by a Defendant.   PROPERTY Landlord and Tenant – W v Z Advising and representing leaseholder company against interest of freeholder on rights of development potential. Planning – LB v L successful planning appeal overturning refusal by a London Borough seeking effectively to outlaw HMO’s within their borough. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE Solicitors – G v H dispute between solicitor and former client in relation to failure to advise as to the effects of ‘overage’ rights ultimately setting on the payment of substantial damages and costs to the client. Medical practitioners – D v E NHS Trust mother and child suffering lifelong injuries (the child suffering permanent brain injuries) due to negligent pre-natal care and during the birth.
Ben Walker Nolan
Ben Walker Nolan
Practice: Property Law, Regulatory and Disciplinary Law, Public Law, Financial and Regulatory Crime, Commercial Law Property Law: Ben has a wide ranging experience of property and landlord and tenant work including: • Fraudulent contracts for sale • Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act applications • Residential possession proceedings • Disrepair • The appointment of Law of Property Act Receivers • Adverse possession • Business leases (including renewals and forfeiture) • Party Wall Act disputes • Leasehold enfranchisement and lease extensions • Easements • Regulatory and Disciplinary Law Ben has dealt with a wide variety of regulatory and disciplinary cases. He has recently acted in High Court proceedings on behalf of the British Kendo Association. He has experience of defending allegations of misconduct before the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal, the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Legal Executives and the Fitness to Practise Committee of the General Pharmaceutical Council. Administrative and Public Law: As part of his regulatory and disciplinary practice Ben has been involved in judicially reviewing the decisions of public bodies where there have been grounds to suggest that those decisions have been unlawful or procedurally unfair. He is currently instructed by the government of Mauritius to appear before the Privy Council in respect of an application to judicially review the Mauritian Gambling Regulatory Authority. Financial and Regulatory Crime: Ben has experience of criminal advocacy across the spectrum of criminal offending including in large scale drug importations and offences of terrorism. He has developed a particular interest in cases of complex commercial fraud and has acted in cases of fraud perpetrated in the banking sector, as well as against the Home Office (Immigration and Nationality Department), Ministry of Defence, Land Registry and HM Revenue and Customs. Ben is frequently instructed in cases involving complex allegations of money laundering and in cases which involve the tracing and seizure of the proceeds of crime. Recent criminal cases: Operation Pagoda (Harrow CC) – Instructed as leading junior in confiscation involving 90 kilos of cocaine. Operation Peregrin (Manchester CC) – Conspiracy to supply class A drugs Operation Rampaz, R v TCH (Southwark CC) – Banking fraud concerning the fraudulent transfer of funds in excess of £1 million using KVM technology Operation Pallinup (Woolwich CC) – Money laundering of over £9 million through casinos. Operation Coronary (Ipswich CC) – Importation of over 100 kilos of cocaine Operations Digit and Raiment (Birmingham CC) – VAT and Income Tax frauds of £37 million, with protracted and complex POCA proceedings Operation Sniper (Birmingham CC) – conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, Ben was prosecuted by leading counsel and junior and secured the only acquittal of 19 defendants Operation Bend (Birmingham CC) – money laundering by “cuckoo smurfing” (£20 million) R v Downer and others (Reading CC) – fraudulent sale of property (£14 million) Commercial: Ben is able to utilise experience derived from both criminal and civil litigation in commercial disputes. He has advised and acted in numerous commercial disputes including in cases involving: • The passing off of unregistered trademarks • Enforcement of third party guarantees • Default in respect of personal loans • The fraudulent sale of property (at auction and by private sale) • Allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation (including fraudulent misrepresentations procuring court orders) • Breach of contract and professional negligence by developers in construction disputes • The sale of goods • Licensing rules in the pharmaceutical industry • Licensing requirements in respect of controlled goods • Civil recovery proceedings under the POCA 2002 • Applications to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) • Ben has experience of representing high profile and celebrity clients. Please contact chambers for details. Reported Cases: Peerless v GRA (Mauritius) [2015] UKPC 29 (Regulation of Gambling Licences, Judicial Review) Coghlan v Bailey [2014] EWHC 924 (QB) (fraudulent misrepresentation, application to set aside judgment) R Square Properties v Nissan Motors Limited (Chancery Division), WestLaw 13 March 2014 (easements concerning exclusive parking rights) R (on the application of Chemistree Homecare Limited) v MHRA [2013] EWHC 4491 (admin) (Regulation of Licences, Judicial Review of a governmental regulatory body) Thompson v Starr [2013] EWHC 1972 (QB)(striking out of claim against the governing body of the BKA, conduct by litigant in person) Greenglade Estates Ltd v Chana [2012] 3 E.G.L.R. 99 (Chancery Division) (fraudulent sale of property, quantification of loss) R v Bourne [2011] EWCA Crim 1671 (rape) R v Auton [2011] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 75 (cultivation of cannabis) R. v Tointon Courts Martial Appeal Court [2010] EWCA Crim 1781(desertion) R. v Louka [2010] EWCA Crim 2015 (blackmail) R. v Cardazzone [2009] EWCA Crim 2512 (affray)
Bernard Eaton
Bernard Eaton
Principally in practice in the Crown Court an Appellate Courts in Criminal matters. Also appears in Judicial Review from Police Disciplinary Tribunal and the Magistrates’ Court. Highly experienced member of the Bar. Expertise at all practical levels of serious crime whether instructed alone or as leading counsel, including: Murder; Robbery; Rape; Kidnap; False Imprisonment; Firearms; Other Serious Violent and Sexual Crime; Arson; Theft; Serious Fraud (VAT, Deception, Diversion, DSS); Drugs (high level, supply and importation); Money Laundering; Public Nuisance; and additional experience of the complex overlay that Conspiracy, multi-handed defendant cases and the Human Rights Act 1998 adds to each of the above categories of crime. Keen on the use of technology in the preparation and presentation of criminal cases. Access to an electronic law library/reports and internet access to law report sites. With respect to VHCC and Serious Fraud, instructions and papers can be served by CD which, together with the use of ‘Data Capture’ (whole scale scanning into serviceable format of major amounts of material), maximises preparation and efficiency. Also accepting service of statements by email, by prior arrangement, in substantial cases. In addition to the regular diet of admissibility issues that arise during the trial process he also has experience of the pre-trial arena, including Applications to Stay, Quash or Dismiss indictments for Abuse of Process, Breach of Convention Rights or Insufficiency, many of which have involved the evidential ‘Trial-within-a-trial’ process requiring examination of undercover police, covert/intrusive surveillance and expert witnesses.
Charles Benson KC
Charles Benson KC
Charles honed his skills at the cutting edge of very serious crime from pupillage to the present day. He has an appetite for hard work which has kept him in constant demand over 25 years of practise. Charles is able to rationalise large amounts of complex material and to brings practical clarity to difficult cases. Charles is not just a lawyer able to deal imaginatively with difficult legal points but he is an extremely effective advocate with keen forensic and tactical skills as well as a quirky charm. Charles involves his clients as part of a team and is uncomplicated, patient and frank in his dealing persons entrusted to his care. He is not pompous and expects his clients and all members of the team to dedicate the same degree of effort to the case as he does. Charles is a dedicated ‘client' man and his focus is intense and unwavering in his defence of those whom he represents. • Proficient Greek speaker • Computer literate and IT efficient Experience: Cases of interest: (i) The Millennium Dome robbery – the failed attempt to steal the diamonds from within the secure vault of the Millennium Dome during the exhibition year. (ii) The Ostrich Farming Corporation fraud, then one of the biggest SFO prosecutions. I represented the principal financier. The case achieved public notoriety and involved the exploitation of 2200 separate purchasers netting the fraudsters £21 million. (iii) The Operation Norfolk prosecutions involved allegations of money laundering involving solicitors and professional persons whom it was said had direct collaboration with apex criminals. (iv) Operation Draft concerning prosecutions into international drugs trade and money laundering on a commercial scale and punctuated by the use of major underworld informants and corrupt policemen; High profile HMCE and other trials including: • R v White and others (Operation Stealer) • R v Doran and Togher and others (Operation Stealer); • R v Williams and others (the "Foxtrot 5" case involving the importation of 1.4 tonnes of cocaine); • R v Ronald O'Sullivan, which involved massive amounts of obscene material –so called – and where the defendant was the father of a well-known snooker player serving a life sentence for murder. I also appeared in the conviction appeal on the murder; • R v John Haase involving gun running for an underworld figure who had been released from a 25 year sentence after only 11 months as a result of the Royal Prerogative; • R v England carousel fraud avoiding VAT); • R v Whitehead, an SFO fraud using a complex matrix of interrelated foreign and UK based companies. • R v Meghrabi involving £50million of laundered money passing through a currency exchange and involving a high ranking Lebanese family who had become intertwined with corrupt lawyers and developers and used their profile and cunning in setting up a network of businesses using family members to cover their dishonesty. • R v Danny Land, a CPS officer accused of perverting the course of justice and misfeasance in public office. • R v Adams where I represented first R Adams, latterly T Adams on his appeal against sentence and against the Financial Reporting Order and in the judicial review challenging the imposition of a Recovery of Defence Costs Order. • R v Royal in CA on appeal against his conviction for the largest cash robbery in UK history • R v Brian Regan (“Tommy” from Brookside) charged with conspiracy to murder involving allegations of drug running, professional crime and contract murder. • Crash for Cash mortgage fraud allegation • R v Chaggar and others mortgage fraud and corruption of professionals involved in land transactions • R v Fury drugs and mortgage fraud allegations involving high profile professional criminals • R v Dark robbery • R v Harris robbery • R v Bolden Robbery • R v Mitchell conspiracies involving money laundering and mortgage fraud • R v Bridges cannabis factory • R v Austin money laundering involving complex international transactions • Innumerable POCA and Confiscation case • Some 50 odd murder allegations over the course of my career. Reported cases include: • R v Fadden (confiscation); • R v McNamara (receipt of new evidence' following close of evidence); • R v Chenia (drugs and company fraud, silence in interview); • R v Veysi (determinate sentence when no future danger likely to exist following plea to manslaughter.); • R v Malik (manslaughter by arson); • R v Smith and Others (informant disclosure and handling issues); • R v El Delby (money laundering, character and status of foreign convictions); • R Whiteway-Wilkinson and others (massive co-ordinated drug supply and confiscation involving allegations of "hidden assets" – guideline case). • R v Adams which is a guideline case for FRO and RDCO.
Charlotte Mitchell-Dunn
Charlotte Mitchell-Dunn
Charlotte excels in a wide array of legal disciplines, showcasing her versatility and expertise within Chambers' areas of practice. Her practice spans regulatory and professional discipline, personal injury, civil law, public inquiries, sports law, and criminal law. As a Legal Assessor/Adviser for several regulators, including Social Work England, the Health and Care Professions Council, the General Optical Council, and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, Charlotte provides invaluable guidance on regulatory matters. She is often sought after to represent professionals facing allegations of misconduct or deficient performance. Charlotte's involvement in fast-track trials, civil matters, and business crime investigations demonstrates her comprehensive skill set. Over several years she contributed to two high-profile public inquiries, analysing evidence with precision. In the realm of sports law, Charlotte advises athletes and sports professionals on regulatory issues and civil disputes, and she sits on The Rugby Football Union's Disciplinary Panel. Charlotte's extensive experience in criminal courts, prosecuting and defending cases spanning from serious violence to fraud, has finely tuned her cross-examination skills, which she adeptly applies across other areas of her legal practice. Charlotte's expertise recently extended beyond the traditional legal arena when she provided valuable input to ITVX on the legal aspects of their new fictional psychological thriller, Platform 7. Charlotte is available to clients through direct access instructions, offering streamlined access to her expertise. Regulatory and Disciplinary With extensive experience in healthcare regulation, Charlotte is highly sought after by individuals, regulatory bodies, and professional clients. She has a proven track record of successfully defending numerous doctors facing allegations brought by the GMC before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS). These cases often involve intricate clinical issues and rigorous cross-examination of medical professionals. Charlotte is frequently engaged early in the disciplinary process, providing comprehensive advice on all stages leading up to the final hearing, including representations at interim order hearings. Moreover, Charlotte serves as a Legal Assessor/Legal Adviser for several regulators, including Social Work England, the Health and Care Professions Council, the General Optical Council, and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. This unique role provides her with invaluable insights into achieving the best possible outcomes for her clients. Charlotte has successfully managed a diverse range of healthcare regulatory cases, tackling issues such as sexual misconduct, dishonesty, and deficiencies in professional performance. Her meticulous preparation consistently earns praise from panels. Charlotte was also led in the Winterbrook Nursing Home case at Oxford Crown Court, her comprehensive skeleton argument which submitted that the Crown had improperly charged her client under s21 of the CJCA 2015, resulted in the Crown offering no evidence on all of the 10 counts of Care Provider ill treatment/ neglect. Civil Charlotte is regularly instructed a diverse range of civil matters, including personal injury, credit hire, and road traffic accidents. She is frequently sought after by both Claimants and Defendants to represent them in various proceedings such as application hearings, MOJ Stage 3 hearings, small claims trials, and fast-track trials. Charlotte's expertise extends to advising on quantum, providing guidance on liability and causation, and drafting pleadings, showcasing her comprehensive understanding of civil proceedings. Inquests and Inquiries Over a six-year period, Charlotte regularly assisted a Tier 1 Business Crime department in analysing evidence for two high-profile public inquiries on behalf of an international PLC and a well-known UK company. Her expertise and dedication were valuable assets during these investigations, showcasing her ability to handle complex matters effectively. Charlotte's consistent involvement in these cases demonstrates her reputation as a reliable legal advisor on public inquiry matters. Media Entertainment and Sports Charlotte was appointed as a Panel Member on the Rugby Football Union Independent Judiciary in 2020, reflecting her expertise in sports law. She prosecutes a wide range of complex cases on behalf of sports governing bodies, including England Boxing, and has extensive experience presenting cases before Sports Resolutions. Before independent practice at the bar, Charlotte served as the Discipline Case Manager at the Rugby Football Union (RFU), where she managed and presented complex disciplinary and safeguarding cases. Charlotte is frequently sought after by athletes for her guidance on sports regulatory issues and other civil disputes, showcasing her versatility and expertise in legal matters outside of sports law. Recently, Charlotte provided legal advice to ITVX on fictional legal issues within the script of their Psychological thriller Platform 7, highlighting her ability to provide expert legal insight in various contexts. Crime Charlotte defends and prosecutes in criminal cases in the Crown, magistrates’ and youth courts. In the Crown Court, Charlotte has represented defendants charged with a wide range of serious offences including serious sexual offences, GBH, fraud and possession with intent to supply. Charlotte has been led in a number of cases involving children and vulnerable witnesses, including being led in two serious sexual offences trials, one of which involved allegations of sexual activity with four children and a vulnerable adult. Notable Cases: Regulatory and Professional Discipline MC v IO Successfully defended a doctor before the MPTS against allegations of attempted rape by his wife, who was also a registered doctor. Following a full hearing, the allegations were found not proved, and as a result, no misconduct was found. The case involved deeply personal issues and a significant acrimonious history between the couple.. TRA v HW Represented the TRA in a case involving multiple allegations of grooming and failures to observe professional boundaries. The Teacher was made the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for review. TRA v DMD Represented the TRA in a case involving allegations of inappropriate use of force or restraint by a primary school teacher in respect of four young pupils. The teacher was made the subject of a prohibition order, with a 3-year review period. GMC v DP Defended a doctor before the MPTS accused of breaching the professional standards in respect of prescribing. The doctor accepted various breaches in respect of prescribing remotely to patients, who were overseas, and accepted current impairment. Following submissions on sanction, the doctor received a short 1 month suspension. HCPC v S (2017) Represented the HCPC in a complex case involving a social worker who failed to take appropriate action in four cases where service users expressed suicidal ideations, resulting in one fatality. The panel found both misconduct and lack of competence, concluding that the registrant’s fitness to practice was impaired. As a result, the social worker was struck off. R v C Oxford Crown Court. Led in the first prosecution of care home abuse under s21 of the CJCA 2015. A skeleton argument which submitted that the Crown had improperly interpreted s21 of the CJCA 2015, resulted in the Crown offering no evidence on all of the 10 counts of Care Provider ill treatment/ neglect. Link to BBC News report on this case. Sport JC v Swim England Represented a coach in an appeal against the decision of Swim England to suspend the coach from coaching. The coach had previously been accused of sexual offences, to which the crown offered no evidence, following a successful Sexsominia defence. X v The FA Advised a professional footballer regarding an appeal against a sports arbitration decision concerning a dispute with the player's agent. RG v Badminton England Represented a coach in an appeal against a child protection disciplinary panel decision, which occurred after the police took no further action regarding an indecent image of a child found on the coach's personal computer. Additionally, the coach accepted breaching the governing body's suspension order and acknowledged several safeguarding policy breaches. Following a contest hearing before a Sports Resolutions panel, the coach received a 12-month suspension, despite the regulator advocating for permanent removal from the sport. England Boxing v SB Represented England Boxing in a significant case involving an amateur boxing coach who worked in Nick Blackwell’s corner during a sparring session. This session occurred while Nick Blackwell's BBB of C license had been revoked, following his placement in a medically induced coma after a professional fight with Chris Eubank Jr. The sparring session resulted in Nick Blackwell being placed into a second medically induced coma, with severe long-term consequences.As a result of the case, the coach was banned from training and coaching activities for six months. This case not only addressed the immediate consequences but also set a precedent for coaching responsibilities in similar situations. Crime R v B Court of Appeal. Successfully appealed against a sentence imposed for possession of indecent images, resulting in the sentencing being reduced by 9 months R v A Oxford Crown Court. Led in a sexual offences case involving four child complainants and one vulnerable adult, who alleged she was penetrated whilst in a diabetic coma R v NT Represented a high-profile prisoner who attacked a convicted sex offender while on remand. Link to Daily Mail news article about this case.  
Christopher Harding
Christopher Harding
Practice: Crime - Murder, serious sexual offences, major drug importations, financial and regulatory offences and serious fraud. Appeals, particularly in fresh evidence cases, and Judicial Review. Proceeds of Crime - Restraint, Receivership & Charging Orders. Confiscation and enforcement proceedings. Also civil Condemnation proceedings in relation to seized goods and vehicles. Professional Regulatory Tribunals - Defending allegations of misconduct, negligence and dishonesty. Judicial Review and public law - Matters affecting criminal clients, including challenges to police cautions, prisoner categorisation, parole decisions etc. Experience: Crime: Long and wide ranging experience of criminal defence, across all categories of case. Regularly instructed in high profile and complex criminal cases, from murder and violent sexual offences through to commercial serious fraud. Often instructed in two counsel cases where painstaking preparatory work, proficiency in IT presentation, and imaginative advocacy are required. Particular experience in the defence of professionals charged with white-collar fraud, and of businesses facing Trading Standards, BERR/DTI, Health & Safety or Revenue & Customs prosecutions. Regularly instructed in complex appellate work, particularly appeals against conviction relying upon fresh evidence. Recent Cases: • Regina v A.H. - National Crime Agency investigation into a lengthy series of conspiracies to smuggle illegal immigrants into the UK across the Channel using lorries and later small boats. Defendant, who was a Radio Controller for a major London Minicab firm was acquitted by the jury following a 4 week trial. • Regina v A.S. - Special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity obtained for a defendant adversely affected by a change in his prescribed anti-psychotic medication. The jury was satisfied that the defendant was suffering a psychotic episode that absolved him of criminal responsibility, when he attempted to stab his neighbour whilst responding to command hallucinations to murder. Prosecution had invited a conviction, on the basis that, despite the mental health episode, the defendant must still have been aware of his actions. • Regina v L.M. - Instructed to defend businessman prosecuted by trading standards department for orchestrating a nation-wide website advertising fraud. Three employee defendants also charged. Prosecution alleged that the whole business was a sham and infringed the copyright of Apple, Virgin, Adidas, Merlin and Sky. A detailed abuse of process argument was lodged (investigative/disclosure failures, defective indictment, no authority to prosecute). Prosecution offered no evidence on all counts - accepting that their had been fundamental failures in the disclosure process, and that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. • Regina v S.K. - Female defendant (previous convictions/mental health issues) charged with sexual assault on learning disabled adult. Disclosure applications revealed previous documented false allegation of sexual assault. s.28 recorded cross-examination used. Jury acquitted on all counts. • Regina v A.D. - Presented detailed written mitigation submissions for a solicitor partner pleading guilty to £2.5m frauds on his firm and HMRC, committed over a 10 year period. Secured a sentence of 4 years imprisonment with no POCA application. • Regina v D.G. - Instructed to defend a businessman charged with 10 conspiracies to import and supply drugs, and to launder money. Throughout Crown Court proceedings complaint was raised about disclosure and the "reverse-engineering" of a circumstantial case against the defendant. Following the service of an abuse of process argument, and the appointment of Special Counsel to enquire into disclosure issues, the Crown eventually offered no evidence on all counts - accepting that there had been fundamental failures in the disclosure process, and that material which the police had not revealed to the CPS made their case against the Defendant untenable. He should not have been charged. • Regina v C.S.. - Successful defence of a single mother charged with a £100k benefit fraud. Trial judge stayed an indictment against her on an abuse of process application, finding that the five year delay in the DWP and CPS bringing charges against her meant that she could not have a fair trial. Prosecution did not appeal this terminating ruling. • Regina v A.T. - Successful defence 19 year old charged with the attempted murder of 4 police officers. The prosecution alleged that a frenzied knife attack, on officers responding to a false 999 call, had been a pre-mediated attempt to kill. The defendant, who had no history of violence and no previous convictions, had been smoking a particularly potent form of cannabis. He was acquitted of attempted murder and convicted only of wounding offences, to which he had offered to plead guilty before the trial. • Regina v E.K. - Appeared first as junior led by Sir Geoffrey Cox KC, and later on his appointment as Attorney General, as leading counsel in a massive immigration applications fraud. Trial ran for more than 7 months at Southwark Crown Court. • Regina v W.F. - Successful defence of Park Home site developer in 9 week trial at Hull Crown Court. The prosecution alleged fraud by misrepresentation in the sales of park homes to 70 elderly, vulnerable purchasers over a 4 year period - amounting to more than £7million. Through painstaking work and cross-examination it was demonstrated that the witness accounts were unreliable and motivated by self-interest, and that the fairness of the police investigation had been compromised by outside influences. The defendant was acquitted on all counts at half-time, when the trial judge ruled that the Crown had no reliable evidence of fraud. • Regina v D.L. - Instructed as junior counsel to defend a professional accountant to media industry clients, charged with cheating the public revenue. HMRC alleged that the defendant's company had lodged false tax returns on behalf of a client base of over 7,000 individuals and companies - leading to a loss to the revenue of more than £10million. Crown's case ranged across large sections of the defendant's client base, and the two trials involved very substantial document analysis and handling skills, as the total evidence relied on by the Crown exceeded 50,000 pages, and the unused material contained more than a million documents. • Regina v M.B. - As leading counsel, successfully defended an SIA licensed door man charged with manslaughter after his restraint of a party-goer resulted in death. The prosecution alleged manslaughter by gross negligence, in particular a failure to guard against the risks associated with positional asphyxia. Case lasted 4 weeks and involved expert evidence in the fields of pathology, toxicology, SIA physical intervention training, and the use of certain martial art neck holds. • Appeal of R.K. - Successful appeal against conviction in gang-land murder, on grounds that the negligence/inadvertence of original trial counsel, in his cross-examination of the prosecution ballistic expert, and his failure to correct his misconstruction of the defendant's instructions, rendered the conviction unsafe despite all other aspects of the trial process being regular and fair. Re-trial ordered. • Regina v A.A. - Multi-handed rape case. Defendants convicted at the first trial, but those convictions were successfully appealed on grounds that the behaviour of the trial judge, which CACD described as entirely improper, had prejudiced a fair trial. At the re-trial at the Central Criminal Court defendants were acquitted. • Regina v R.B. - Northwest Regional Crime Squad investigation into a nationwide network of cocaine and heroin supply. Multi-handed trial. Evidence against the defendant was circumstantial only. Secured acquittal of the defendant on successful Galbraith submission, demonstrating that the Crown's evidence was insufficient to found an inference of guilt capable of sustaining a conviction. • Regina v Q.R. - Represented professional financial advisor charged with fraud and forgery. Case was brought by SFO and concerned the disinvestment and disbursement abroad of £52million distressed pension fund assets by the professional trustees appointed to manage the funds. • Regina v M.H. - Junior Counsel for defendant charged with the joint enterprise murder of an Eccles shop-worker, shot with a semi-automatic weapon, in the course of a dispute between two criminal gangs. Trial involved substantial cross-examination of an alleged accomplice who was giving evidence for the Crown. Appeal on basis that jury's verdicts were inconsistent. • Regina v A.C. - Successful defence of a businessman charged with the murder of a Cheetham Hill Gang member. As the subject of two previous unsuccessful prosecutions for murder brought by the same police force, the Defendant maintained that this prosecution was brought in bad faith. The case turned on the interpretation of a huge body of forensic scientific evidence. Prosecution eventually accepted, after being served with a very substantial dismissal argument, that they were unable to prove that the killing had not been in self-defence. • Regina v G.M. - Successful defence of managing director charged with substantial fraud and theft in respect of the company's nationwide direct sales operation. Case involved complex factual circumstances, including the assertion that the desperate financial circumstances had been inherited, unwittingly, from outgoing directors. Shortly before the listed trial Crown accepted that to continue with the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process. • Regina v S.B. - Junior Counsel for defendant charged with the joint enterprise murder of the owner of currency exchange business in Longsight Manchester, who was shot in the course of being robbed of substantial amount of cash. Successfully negotiated limited basis of plea to robbery and defendant received 13 months imprisonment. • Regina v T.T. - Successful defence of alleged gang member charged with conspiracy to murder - case concerned a drive-by revenge shooting using a semi-automatic weapon in which victims were members of an opposing street gang. • Regina v Y.B. - Defence of professional interpreter charged with conveying a prohibited article into prison under the new provisions of the Offender Management Act. Successful argument, appearing alone in the Court of Appeal, defining the interpretation of the Act - that offence was not one of strict liability but required proof of mens rea. • Regina v K.Z. - Largest seizure of opium in British history. Appearing alone, successfully defended Iranian national charged with the importation of opium into the UK through Dover. • Regina v G.B. - Successful defence of care-worker charged with 30 counts of historic sexual assault and familial rape. Case included delicate cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses, and of the Defendant's own mother who was a key prosecution witness. • Regina v K.K. - Instructed as leading counsel in the defence of a Polish national charged with large conspiracies to import drugs and firearms into the U.K. Case involved 25 defendants. • Regina v K.O. - Successful defence of chart-topping music industry professional after seizure of £2million of heroin by Operation Trident officers. • Regina v K.A. - As leading counsel, successfully defended an allegation of attempted in murder in North London drug gang context. • Regina v D.C. - Groundbreaking prosecution, under the Computer Misuse Act, of a security analyst suspected of having "hacked" into the Tsunami Relief Fund donations website. • Regina v B.L. - Multi-handed Flying Squad prosecution at the Old Bailey involving a series of armed robberies. Instructed as leading counsel and conducted successful defence. • Jubilee Line - Instructed as junior counsel to defend in this exceptionally lengthy and complex case at the Central Criminal Court. The case concerned allegations of conspiracy to defraud and corruption by professional surveyors, in the context of a huge, politically-charged civil engineering project. • Transatlantic Aircraft Terrorist Plot - Instructed to defend one of the 15 men arrested and charged in connection with a terrorist suicide plan to detonate liquid explosives on transatlantic flights. Proceeds of Crime: Extensive experience of confiscation work, including the protection of third party interests, revisiting confiscation orders upon the discovery of new assets, certificates of inadequacy and the enforcement of orders through the implementation of default sentences. High Court restraint orders and civil freezing injunctions. Tribunals: Representation of professionals on a regulator's applications for orders based on misconduct, breaches of professional regulations, negligence and dishonesty. Application of recent regulatory reform legislation and standards expected of regulator's investigations by the BERR's Statutory Code of Practice for Regulators. Recent success includes forcing the withdrawal of allegations in the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal and obtaining an order that the Respondent's costs be paid by the Regulator, owing to deficiencies in the quality and extent of the investigation by the SRA. Reported Cases: • Smith Graham (A Firm) v Lord Chancellor's Department [1999] 2 Costs L.R. 1 (Appeal from taxing Master to QBD - Solicitors Costs - self employed enquiry agent's fees allowed as fee not disbursement) • R v Cox (Allan) [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 57 (Return Orders under CJA 1991) • Weston, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 370 (Extradition to USA) • R v Martins Dada [2001] EWCA Crim 1716 (Conspiracy to Defraud) • Att. Gen. Ref. (No. 133 of 2002) [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 108 (Manslaughter, Length of sentence) • R v Camwell (Barry) [2003] EWCA Crim 1388 (Sentence for Rape, aggravating features, extended sentences) • R v Robinson [2003] EWCA Crim 2375 (Totality of sentence for multiple assaults with intent to rob) • R v Kayhan Ali [2006] EWCA Crim 1950 (Conviction appeal - Fresh evidence) • R v Tanzarella & Bryars [2007] EWCA Crim 2987 (Sentence for Kidnap and False Imprisonment) • R v Carr (Roger) [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 72 (Sentence for breach of SOPO and recall on licence) • Ambassador Cars Limited (R, on the application of) v Central Criminal Court [2009] EWHC 1325 (Admin) (Judicial review of decision of the Crown Court to refuse to state a case) • CPS v M & B [2010] 2 Cr. App. R. 33; [2011] 1 W.L.R. 822; [2010] 4 All E.R. 51 (First authority on the interpretation of the new offences of conveying prohibited articles into prison, under Offender Management Act 2007. Successfully resisted Crown's appeal of a preparatory hearing ruling that the offence under section 40C(1) required proof of some mens rea and was not strict liability. Rebuttal of presumption in favour of mens rea. Legislative intention.) • R v Stodgell (Colin) [2011] EWCA Crim 402 (Successful appeal against terms of original confiscation order to remove hidden assets and tainted gifts from the Court approved schedule of assets) • Litvinski & Ors v CPS [2011] EWCA Crim 727 (Sentencing of members of conspiracies to supply very large quantities of cocaine and cannabis and to import prohibited weapons and ammunition) • R v Robert Knott [2013] EWCA Crim 2198 (Successful appeal against murder conviction, based on criticism of cross-examination of original trial Q.C. Re-trial ordered) • R v Muzzafar Hussain [2016] EWCA Crim 2006; [2016] 12 WLUK 17 (Successful appeal against a 3 year sentence for bribery, in relation to a £1m local authority contract for transport services) • R v Martin O'Hara [2017] EWCA Crim 525 (Successful appeal against a 6 year sentence for series of indecent assaults by gymnastics coach) • R v Russell Knaggs & Ors [2018] EWCA Crim 1863 (Drug importation. Interception of communications by Dutch authorities. Safety of convictions) • GUH v KYT [2021] EWHC 3312 (QB) (Successfully resisted High Court application for committal to prison for serious contempt of court by breach of orders)
Clive Wolman
Clive Wolman
My practice is quite eclectic and diverse, consisting primarily of commercial litigation, insolvency, financial services, company law and shareholder disputes, professional negligence and property and planning disputes. Although it is not a comprehensive list, I attach below the main reported Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court cases in which I have been involved, particularly over the last few years. Save for the cases asterisked, my involvement was as the sole advocate. My two biggest cases over the next three months are: • a large class action, with 500 clients, for Edwin Coe solicitors; trial has been set down in May 2016 for 18 days; • two interrelated trials of a £15m claim for wrongful trading and the granting of preferences by company directors of an insolvent company; the second part of first trial is set down for April 2016 for 4 days. Prior to qualifying as a barrister in 2003, I worked as a financial journalist, after graduating with First Class Honours in Philosophy Politics and Economics from St Catherine’s College Oxford. I was employed by the Financial Times for seven years, covering financial services, in particular as its Securities and Investment Banking Industry Correspondent. While I was working there, the FT also paid for me to take and complete a part-time MBA at London Business School. Thereafter I worked as City Editor of The Mail on Sunday, in charge of its business and financial coverage and the Financial Mail on Sunday section, for six years. I also set up, edited and partly financed a weekly financial newspaper, the London Financial News, which focused on investment banking and in particular jobs and organisational issues. After 10 years, we sold it for £80 million, in two parts, to the Wall Street Journal (now owned by News Corporation) and to Dice Holdings Inc, a New York Stock Exchange-quoted company. Selection of High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases: Southern Cross v Deka Immobilien Investment [2005] BPIR 1103 Smurthwaite v Simpson-Smith & Mond [2006] BPIR 1483*(led by Andrew Lenon, now QC) Mond v Smurthwaite [2006] EWCA Civ 1183, [2006] BPIR 1504 Kamali v City & Country Properties Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1879 [2007] 1 WLR 1219 Parker v SJ Berwin [2008] EWHC 3017 (QB), [2009] P.N.L.R. 17* (led by Jeremy Stuart-Smith, QC) Connolly v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 1059, [2010] 2 P. & C.R. 1 Cowey v Insol Funding Ltd [2012] EWHC 2421 (Ch); [2012] B.P.I.R. 958 Hayes v Hayes [2012] EWHC 1240 (Ch), [2012] B.P.I.R. 739 TAG Capital Ventures Ltd v Potter [2012] EWHC 3323 (Ch) Clark v In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd [2012] EWHC 3669 (QB) [2013] P.N.L.R. 14 Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA v Gulzar Ahmed Khan & ors [2013] EWHC 482 (Comm)* (led by Nigel Jones QC) Wright v Michael Wright (Supplies) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 234; and [2013] EWHC 4406 (Ch) Power v Godfrey [2013] EWHC 4359 (Ch)* (written submissions only) Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17: [2013] 2 All ER 405, [2013] 1 WLR 935 Finch and Others v Hall [2013] EWHC 4360 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 92 (Oct) New Century Media Ltd v Makhlay [2013] EWHC 3556 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 252 (Nov) Clark v In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 118, [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2502 Re Guidezone Ltd: Kaneria v Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch), [2014] WLR (D) 177 Girdhar and Parekh v Bradstock [2014] EWHC 1321 (Ch); and [2016] EWCA Civ 88. Hayes v Butters [2014] EWHC 4557 (Ch), and [2015] 2 WLR 1634; Hall v Maritek [2015] UKPC 23* (written submissions only) Lagna v Secretary of State for Justice (Ch. D, Mrs Justice Rose, 2015/001154) (not reported). Lakeminster Park Ltd v East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (QBD, CO/4839/2014) (to be reported). (1) Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd (2) Neil Wilson Accountancy Ltd v (1) S. Wilson and Ors (2) Nationwide Building Society [2015] EWHC 4069 (Ch).
David Gotlieb
David Gotlieb
David Gottlieb is a leading junior practitioner and trial lawyer with an extensive defence practice in complex crime including terrorism, fraud and money laundering. He also continues, where possible, to represent anyone who believes they have been treated unfairly and require fearless representation. He has advised and continued to advise in relation to criminal and quasi criminal civil matters including Inquests, Disciplinary and Regulatory Hearings. His cases, many of which are high profile and have been reported, involve Terrorism, Freedom of Speech, Murder, Firearms, Drug Trafficking, Money Laundering, Fraud, Extradition, Control Orders and TPIMS, Special Immigration and Appeals Commission, Human Rights, Civil Liberties and Public Law. He has a long-standing interest in cases concerning the treatment of people with mental health issues. Notable Cases: • 2017 R v Mashoud Miah. Central Criminal Court. (Charity worker who aided insurgents in Syria after Aleppo bombing) First successful acquittal of terrorism offences on grounds of self defence. • 2017 UK (name redacted) Successfully advised teachers in the ‘Trojan Horse school Inquiry’. • 2016 R v Bashir. Central Criminal Court. (speeches supporting ISIS with ~Isabella Forshall QC). • 2016 R v Hamlett. Central Criminal Court. (‘The ISIS-style drive-by shooting plot’) Successful acquittal with Nigel Lambert QC of conspiracy to murder. • 2015 Cage Prisoners UK v Charity Commission. (The ‘Jihadi John’ case) Represented Cage Prisoners UK. Charity commission conceded they did not have the power to direct charities not to fund Cage. • 2014 R v Yousma Jan. Central Criminal Court. (Young woman accused of failing to disclose husband was a terrorist). Successfully argued for bail. Case dropped shortly before trial after legal arguments. • 2014 Y1. Represented the first British citizen to be stripped of his nationality before Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal. • 2013 R v Michael Adebolajo. Central Criminal Court. Represented Michael Adebolajo, the first defendant, in the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby (the Woolwich murder). • 2013 R v Salma Kabal. Woolwich Crown Court. Successfully acquitted of failing to disclose husband was a terrorist. • 2012 R v HE. Central Criminal Court. (downloading bomb-making instructions from the internet). Successful defence young man before a jury. • 2012 R v M Smith. Worcester Crown Court. Successful defence of singer and songwriter PJ Proby before a jury (benefit fraud). Case dismissed after cross-examination. • 2010 R v NJ. Snaresbrook Crown Court. (making up a false allegation of rape in order to stay in the U.K). Successful defence of NJ, a young mother, before a jury. • 2010 R v M. Weston. Inner London Crown Court. Successful acquittal at half time for five possession of firearm charges with intent. • 2009 R v Sadrettin. Inner London Crown Court. Importation £10 million of heroin. Successful acquittal. • 2009 R v J. Hatch. Manchester Crown Court. (Fathers 4 Justice handcuffing of a government minister). Successful acquittal of false imprisonment on grounds of justifiable protest. • 2009 R v Usman Malik. Central Criminal Court. First prosecution under section 57 Terrorism Act (2000). Possession of an article for a terrorist purpose. Successfully argued for bail in a terrorism case. Conviction quashed on appeal. Reported Cases: • R v Alangir and others [2018] EWCA Crim 1321 Speeches supporting ISIS. • R v Adebolajo and others [2014] EWCA Crim 2779 Represented the first defendant in the Lee Rigby Woolwich murder trial. (meaning of ‘under the Queen’s peace’ in the definition of murder/ whole life sentences) • M (Parliamentary candidate name redacted) [2012] Conviction for possession of child pornography quashed and retrial ordered; to be reported. • Saunders v R [2012] EWCA Crim 1380; [2012] EWCA Crim 1380 (inferences from silence). • Arshad v Southwark Crown Court [2011] EWCA 2728 108(20); L.S.G. 2110 (£10 million fraud). Successfully released on bail due to failure to comply with Custody Time Limits. • R v Abbas [2009] EWCA Crim 1386; [2010] Cr.App. R (S) 47; [2010] 1 Cr.App. Rep (S) 47. Successfully reduced sentence for an unprovoked assault. • R v Shah Jala Hussain [2009] EWCA Crim 920 leading Freya Rowe. Successfully reduced sentence for fundraising contrary to s.15(1) Terrorism Act 2000. • Zafar & Ors v R [2008] EWCA Crim 184; [2008] 2 Cr App R 8; [2008] 2 Cr App Rep 8; [2008] 2 WLR 1013; [2008] 4 All ER 46; [2008] QB 810. Successful appeal against section 57 Terrorism Act which distinguished M(2). In his judgment, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said: ‘Early in the trial Mr Gottlieb, on behalf of Malik, asked the judge to rule on the meaning and scope of section 57. His concise written submissions in support of the application argued that the phrase ‘a purpose connected with’ required the connection to be direct, not merely remote, and that the purpose had to be connected with the immediate commission, preparation or instigation of terrorist acts, at least in the sense of something that was to happen within a relatively short time’. • R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 1900; [2009] 1 All ER 510; [2009] 1 Cr App R 9; [2009] 1 Cr App Rep 9; [2009] 1 WLR 694; [2009] PNLR 6, [2009] WLR 694. Successful interlocutory appeal for non-practising barrister accused of practising without a certificate. • R v M [2007] EWCA Crim 298, [2008] Crim LR 71. Interlocutory appeal successfully dismissing an offence under section 57 Terrorism Act 2000 (later overturned). • R v M (2) [2007] EWCA Crim 970; [2007] 3 All ER 53, [2007]; [2008] 2 Cr App R 8, [2008] 2 Cr App Rep 8, [2008] 2 WLR 1013, [2008] 4 All ER 46, [2008] EWCA Crim 184, [2008] QB 810 First attempt to challenge the overturning of M1, leading Faisal Saifee. • AD (Control Order) [2007] The Times May 18 2007: First prosecution of a control order to reach the Court of Appeal (defendant absconded before trial; prosecution stayed). • Malik v Central Criminal Court & another [2006] EWHC 1539 (Admin) [2006] 4 All ER 1141, [2007] 1 WLR 2455. First successful Judicial Review leading to the release on bail of a person accused of an offence under 2000 Terrorism Act. • Dales & Others (on the application of) v Wolverhampton Crown Court & Another [2003] EWHC 1307 Successful appeal leading to release on bail for large drugs conspiracy on Custody Time Limits. • R v Watters [2000] EWCA Crim 89 (19th October 2000) Successful Appeal against conviction. The trial judge wrongly directed the jury on the significance of unsupported DNA evidence. • R v Waseem Malik (1999) EWCA 1718 (22nd April, 1999) A police-officer may be cross-examined on his disciplinary record. In his judgment the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, said that ‘[Mr Gottlieb] made his submissions in an attractive and persuasive manner’.
Desiree Artesi
Desiree Artesi
Desiree is regularly instructed and has successfully appeared in the Privy Council in appeals concerning difficult, complex and interesting points of constitutional and human rights law, whether arising in the context of civil and commercial disputes, criminal appeals or appeals from domestic constitutional claims. Desiree is an experienced trial advocate who regularly appears in the High Court, County Court, First Tier (Property Tribunal), and has appeared successfully whilst being unled in the Court of Appeal. Through her work as panel counsel for local government, she has regularly appeared unled against silk, and leading seniors. Desiree has appeared in the High Court in state immunity applications and strike out applications. Desiree has a diverse civil and commercial practice, as well as all aspects of property, public law and judicial review. She is experienced at tacking the most complex of community legislation and regulatory regimes and virtually any area of judicial review. In addition Desiree regularly advises on challenges to decisions of the Information Commission Office (ICO), which is a natural fit with her specialist knowledge of constitutional and administrative law. She however has particular interests in commercial litigation, property, public procurement, planning, regulatory and judicial review which together now represents a large proportion of her practice. Desiree has experience of campaigning on patient issues and is currently representing a MESH Litigation group working alongside fellow Founder Bridgette York and Kath Samson, patient leader in the fight for changes to the NICE guidelines. Administrative and Public Law: A substantial proportion of Desiree’s practice concerns public law and judicial review, she is therefore able to tackle and has experience of any aspect of public law and statutory interpretation, planning and regulatory matters. Desiree has throughout her career acted for and against public bodies. Desiree has been a member of Approved Panel Counsel for Local Government for more than 15 years. Most recently Desiree has been involved in advising a nursing home under the new legislative framework governing nursing homes. Desiree is also very experienced in the area of homelessness and education. Privy Council: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final court of appeal for many Commonwealth and Caribbean countries. Presided over by the same judges as those sitting in the UK Supreme Court, its decision are highly persuasive in both domestic UK proceedings, as well as, across the common law world, and contributed greatly to the development of key common law principles. Desiree is called to the Bar of St Lucia with the ability to appear in most courts at all levels throughout the Eastern Caribbean. Desiree regularly appears in the Privy Council representing individuals, public bodies or governments, government agencies and local government departments. Desiree has successfully appeared before the panel of Judges, referred to as the Board, in appeals often concerning difficult, complex, and interesting points of constitutional and human rights law, whether arising in the context of civil and commercial disputes, criminal appeals or appeals from domestic constitutional claims. Desiree is currently instructed in an appeal before the Privy Council for and on behalf of the inhabitants of the island of Barbuda in a claim alleging that the Paradise Found (Project) Act of the Antigua Parliament, passed to facilitate a massive development on the island of Barbuda, is unconstitutional and invalid. The Defendant is the Attorney General. Desiree is currently acting in an appeal before the Privy Council in relation to the employment contract of a diplomatic employee involving both common law and the Napoleonic Code. Additionally, Desiree has just been instructed in a new Privy Council matter from the Bahamas raising important and complex points of constitutional law. Property: Desiree enjoys all areas of real property litigation both public and private, including commercial and residential landlord and tenant (including housing), adverse possession, trusts of land, mortgages, proprietary estoppel, leasehold and commonhold enfranchisement. Desiree has experience acting for both property developers, and individuals, drafting option and other agreements for the sale and purchase of land using a special purchase vehicle. Desiree is adept at handling complex rating appeals from the Valuation Tribunal before the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber). She has also acted for clients seeking alterations of local rating lists from the VOA as well as from the tribunals. She has particular experience of proposals to nil-rate hereditaments based on uneconomic repair. Desiree also has experience in judicial reviews and statutory challenges in the High Court in London. General Civil Litigation: In addition to her specialist areas Desiree also undertakes contractual matters, bankruptcy, mortgages, consumer credit matters, property related professional negligence claims, inheritance act claims, and some insolvency work. Regulatory and Disciplinary Law: Desiree has experience of regulatory law in the telecommunications and legal sectors and experience of advising on sector compliance. Product Liability: Mesh Litigation Desiree is a former founding Director of Fibroids Network and has worked along with fellow Founder Bridgette York to achieve much of the changes to NICE guidelines in this area. Desiree has experience of campaigning on patient issues and is currently representing a MESH Litigation group. Click on these links below for more details. Campaign website Report in Wisbech Standard Twitter campaign link Arbitration: Desiree has a particular interests in international commercial arbitration with a focus on Caribbean and North American jurisdictions. Desiree is a member of the Caribbean Group of Arbitrators. Desiree has completed Part 1 of the Fellowship exam of the Institute of Chartered Arbitrators (London). Lecturing: Desiree has tutored at the College of Law and lectured at Birkbeck College, University of London, and has written and lectured on a wide range of legal subjects. Academic: Desiree is an affiliate expert of the Centre for Law and Social Justice at Leeds University. https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/research-centre-law-social-justice/doc/experts-2 Recent Cases: • Desiree represented a large construction company in the High Court in bringing claim under the Public Procurement regime for damages in respect of a 10 million fund government contract. • Successfully advised a company in respect of a challenge to the decision of the Information Commissioner (ICO) regarding the use of third party data in marketing and attendant opt outs and TPS infringements. • Advice and representation to local community to successfully defend against developers building on local green space. • Successfully representing company partner in a partnership dispute and dissolution of the partnership with multi-cultural and cross border issues. • Successful representation on behalf of a well known pub and clubs landlord against local authority enforcement action. • In 2015 within a three month period advised a major firm in respect of over 50 leasehold and common hold enfranchisement matters, many of which were complex and time sensitive. • Desiree represented 4 of the 5 successful bidders in the High Court on an application for disclosure, where the unsuccessful bidders sought disclosure of tender documents. Contract worth 50 million pounds over 5 years. • Desiree represented a local authority in the Court of Appeal in this landmark case involving succession rights. • Successfully advising in a Privy Council multi-million pound arbitration matter concerning the construction of a hotel and marina in a Caribbean island. Led by silk, (Deputy High Court Judge). • Challenge to decision of local authority and the application of its homelessness policies. • Representing landlords and tenants in possession cases. • Representing both landlords and tenants before the Property Tribunal. • Successfully advising and representing a Defendant co-habitee in a property dispute after a 12 year relationship had ended. Obtained 97% share for the defending partner. International: Desiree has a particular interest in the challenges faced by small jurisdictions and is an Associate of the Island Rights Initiative, a consultancy and think tank dedicated to helping small island communities facing global human rights challenges. www.islandrights.org/about-us/ In 2016, Desiree advised and assisted the Ministry of National Security and the Office of the Attorney General of the Bahamas with the implementation of the Office of the Public Defender Bahamas. For the past 6 years Desiree has regularly advised, and, appeared in the appellate court of the Caribbean. Between 2006 and 2014, Desiree was the legal adviser to the High Commission for the Government of Antigua and Barbuda. Desiree is called to the St Lucian Bar with the ability to practice in most Caribbean Countries. Reported Cases: Williams (Appellant) v Supervisory Authority (Antigua and Barbuda) (Respondent) [2020] UKPC 15 This case concerned whether or not the Freeze and Civil Forfeiture Order regime pursuant to the Money Laundering (Prevention) Act 1996 as amended (the MLPA), Antigua and Barbuda, infringed the relevant clauses of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda. The case sets precedence for the entire Eastern Caribbean all with similar civil money laundering regimes. Desiree was successful in this constitutional and public law case argued in the Privy Council which set predence and established conclusively that firstly, the MPLA does not infringe the constitutional rights of those against whom orders under these provisions bite; and, secondly, even if those orders did infringe on the Defendants' constitutional rights, the courts had a wide margin of appreciation and could, relying on section 20A(2) find that the breach was not disproportionate. Watch the hearing: Morning session : Afternoon session The Honourable Attorney General and another (Appellants) v Isaac (Respondent) (Antigua and Barbuda) [2018] UKPC 11 Desiree was successful in this administrate and public law case argued in the Privy Council which established conclusively that the procedure for obtaining an administrative law order did not fall under the same regime as that for obtaining judicial review. Watch the hearing: Morning Session. Afternoon Session. Chigwell (Shepherd’s Bush) Ltd v ASRA Greater London Housing Association Ltd [2012] EWHC 2746 (QB) Desiree represented this company against a public body in this multi-million pound public procurement case Lettings International Ltd v London Borough of Newham Public Procurement/EC Directives/Disclosure – Desiree represented 4 of the 5 successful bidders on an application for disclosure London Borough of Newham v Hawkins Desiree represented the local authority in the Court of Appeal in this landmark case. Onyaebor v London Borough of Newham (judicial review, mechanism of decision making process; application of Mohammed principles) Public Access/Litigation Certification: Desiree undertakes work direct from the public, and is certified by the Bar Standards Board to conduct a case in a similar manner to a Solicitor, including the ability to instruct experts, barristers and to issue proceedings. You can see Desiree's entry in the Bar Standards Board's Barrister Register here. You can follow Desiree on twitter @ArtesiLaw Articles/Publications: ARTICLES: • Desiree writes regularly for Counsel Magazine of which she is an Editorial Board Member has interviewed the Attorney General of England and Wales, Gary Younge, Editor-at-large of the Guardian Newspapers and Lord Anthony Hughes to highlight a few. Desiree is currently writing a book. • COSTS Damages based agreements - Qualified one way costs shifting. • PUBLIC PROCUREMENT Impact of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 on what was previously classed as non-priority services, or Part B Services • CO-HABITATION AND TRUSTS OF LAND Effect of Court of Appeal decision in Bagum v Hai & Another [2015] EWCA CIV 801 • LEADING THE WAY ON ETHICS - Counsel Magazine, January 2017
Edward Risso-Gill
Edward Risso-Gill
Property: Edward Risso-Gill has expertise in a broad range of property-related work, including commercial landlord and tenant and property-related professional negligence. He has also appeared in property-related appeals before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Edward’s practice covers the following core areas: • Landlord and tenant (residential and commercial); • Leasehold enfranchisement; • Mortgages and charges; • Easements and boundaries; • Restrictive covenants; • Conveyancing; • Equitable proprietary remedies; • Co-ownership and trusts of land; • Property-related professional negligence; • Property-related insolvency. Landlord and Tenant The majority of Edward’s landlord and tenant work has involved commercial leases, including central London high street lease renewals with well known national multiple lessees. Covenants Edward's experience has included dealing with an attempt to enforce the burden of a positive covenant against freehold successors-in-title and assessing the effect of an historic restrictive covenant in the context of compulsory purchase. Conveyancing He has particular expertise in dealing with claims for damages following the breach of conveyancing contracts and collapsed conveyancing chains. Property Related Professional Negligence He was instructed for the claimants in group claims against solicitors by 214 buyers and lenders in Mediterranean property developments, for professional negligence, breach of trust and breach of contractual duties as escrow agents by failing to provide the promised security for the funds advanced in purchases and loans. Other Related Areas of Practice Edward appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the Government of Mauritius, together with Sir Geoffrey Cox QC, in an appeal which concerned the interface between public and private law in relation to the termination of leases. Previous experience also includes appearing for the Government of Mauritius with Sir Geoffrey Cox QC in a leading Mauritian property case concerning the proper construction of a purported ‘bail permanent’ (permanent lease) granted by the colonial government in 1901 (Raphael Fishing Company Ltd v State of Mauritius & Anor [2008] UKPC 43). He therefore has experience of dealing with the law of property under the Napoleonic Code and related French jurisprudence. He has, in addition, experience of advising a Commonwealth government in a dispute involving public and planning law, which included claims for compensation for the alleged expropriation of property as a result of the designation of land as a World Heritage Site. Commercial Law & Professional Negligence: Edward's practice covers company law, partnership and shareholder disputes, financial services, commercial fraud and breach of trust and the negligence of solicitors and other professionals in a commercial context. He has dealt with a substantial claim against solicitors for negligent advice on the investment structures of an English public company and their compliance with financial services regulation. He has been instructed in a number of group and other large claims, in addition to the group claims in respect of the Mediterranean property scheme noted above. More recent instructions include dealing with a complex set of multiple claims against professionals, working with a team at Herbert Smith Freehills on multi-stranded litigation, delivering drafting, advocacy and advice. They also include representing one of the defendants in SKAT v Solo Capital and others, a claim by the Danish revenue authorities for over £1bn. Edward appeared before the Commercial Court in an important insurance coverage dispute arising out of the Mediterranean property scheme group case noted above. (AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2015] EWHC 2398 (Comm); [2016] Lloyd's Rep. I.R. 147) and in the subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court ([2016] EWCA Civ 367; [2017] 1 All E.R. 143; and [2017] UKSC 18; [2017] 1 W.L.R. 1168). These were the first decisions on the construction of the aggregation clause in the Law Society's Minimum Terms and Conditions for the provision of professional indemnity insurance to solicitors. Regulatory and Disciplinary Law: Edward has had experience of a variety of regulatory and disciplinary cases, including regulatory proceedings under FSMA and sporting and professional disciplinary actions. He also has expertise in dealing with private law claims brought following regulatory infringement. Administrative and Public Law: Edward’s experience includes cases involving the regulation and internal governance of professional associations, licensing, prisoners and housing. He appeared for the Government before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in a judicial review of a decision of the Mauritian Health Ministry. He also appeared for widowers claiming discrimination in the award of bereavement benefit in the High Court and subsequently on appeal up to and including in the House of Lords (R (Hooper & Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1681). Public Inquiry: Between 2021 and 2022, led by Sir Geoffrey Cox QC, Edward was instructed by Withers on behalf of the Attorney General and Elected Government of the Virgin Islands, in the BVI Commission of Inquiry. International Arbitration: Edward accepts instructions in international arbitration, a field in which he has a growing interest. He has advised in a substantial ICSID dispute. In 2016 he addressed the Female Fraud Forum on the impact of the UK Bribery Act 2010 in the field of international arbitration. Criminal Law: Edward has dealt with proceeds of crime and money laundering litigation in both the civil and criminal courts and is well placed to advise on related issues arising in his other areas of civil practice. His previous practice in the criminal courts gave him substantial advocacy experience. It involved a high proportion of complex and serious financial crime. He appeared in cases involving the evasion of Community customs duty, multi-handed insurance fraud and the execution of bills of exchange. Privy Council: Edward has appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in both civil and criminal appeals and has experience in dealing with the Napoleonic Code and related jurisprudence. Significant and Reported Cases: • Westminster City Council v McDonald [2003] EWHC 2698 (Admin) [2005] Env L.R. 1 • R (Hooper & Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1681; [2003] EWCA Civ 813; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 2623; [2002] EWHC 191 (Admin); [2002] U.K.H.R.R. 785 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC) • Gujadhur & Ors v. Gujadhur & Anor (Mauritius) [2007] UKPC 54; [2007] 7 WLUK 764 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC) • Raphael Fishing Company Ltd v State of Mauritius & Anor [2008] UKPC 43 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC) • Gokool & ors v Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health & Anor [2008] UKPC 54 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC) • Hill v Department of Business Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 3436 (Admin); [2012] B.C.C. 151 • Celine v State of Mauritius [2012] UKPC 32; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 3707 • Beezadhur v The Independent Commission against Corruption [2014] UKPC 27; (2014) 158(34) S.J.L.B. 37 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC) • Rainbow Insurance Co Ltd v Financial Services Commission [2015] UKPC 15; [2016] 1 B.C.L.C. 273 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC) • AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2015] EWHC 2398 (Comm); [2016] Lloyd's Rep. I.R. 147 • AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 367; [2017] 1 All E.R. 143; [2016] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 289 • AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2017] UKSC 18; [2017] 1 W.L.R. 1168; [2017] Lloyd's Rep I.R. 209; [2017] P.N.L.R. 22 • Gunesh v National Transport Corp [2019] UKPC 17 Articles/Publications: • 'Value Judgment’ Estates Gazette 13 June 2009, p.88 (an examination of the Wroth v Tyler principle in the assessment of damages for failure to complete on a conveyance) • ‘Home Truths’ Estates Gazette 10 July 2010, p.76 (anticipating the new avenue of defence opened up by the decision of the Supreme Court in Manchester City Corporation v Pinnock for Hammersmith v Monk, joint tenancy/notice to quit cases)
Faisal Saifee
Faisal Saifee
Since November 2024, Faisal has been a door tenant of Chambers. Please contact the clerks for further information. Faisal has considerable breadth of experience across several areas of practice, bringing particular depth of knowledge and expertise to bear in each. He is often instructed in the High Court and specialist tribunals. He has extensive experience of working on document heavy, long-running and complex disputes; and is often involved in cases from their inception through until trial. He has been involved in cases at appellate levels, including appearances in the Privy Council, several appearances in the Court of Appeal and cases before the ECHR and UNHRC. His practice covers a wide breadth of work including the areas listed below. Faisal is a pupil supervisor, school governor and rugby coach. Commercial law: Faisal represents clients in a range of commercial disputes, including high net worth individuals and companies. He has experience in ICC, LCIA and PCA arbitrations. Recently, he has acted in several cases concerning allegations of commercial fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. He has recently appeared on television discussing these kinds of issues. He has particular expertise in injunction applications, including freezing orders and enforcement issues. His practice covers all the key areas of construction, joint venture, franchising, finance, agency and shareholder disputes. Company disputes he is regularly instructed in include unfair prejudice claims, and derivative claims against directors. He also has considerable experience in disputes concerning the theatre industry, particularly disputes between artists, production companies and agents. Examples of recent cases include: Fraud proceedings relating to a dishonest lawyer. Acting in proceedings to have a multi-million pound commercial judgment set aside. Acting for an accountant caught up in a EUR 100 million fraud. Counsel in a high value investment arbitration involving an allegation of expropriation. Advising and bringing a claim of malicious falsehood in the media industry. Successfully defending a billionaire in a long-running breach of trust claim. Advising in one of the largest ever tax fraud cases, with a value in excess of £1 billion. Public and Human Rights: His cases include several involving secret evidence before both the Administrative Court and SIAC. He has particular expertise in relation to civil liberties, and takes on some of the most difficult cases in that field. He has advised a sovereign country in respect of fundamental changes to its election laws and the law on corruption. Recent or current cases in which Faisal has been instructed include: Acting for an exiled MP facing serious allegations relating to his character. Acting for the former premier of a country in appellate proceedings. Human rights issues arising from communications interceptions Secret evidence cases. Damages arising from deprivation of liberty, following proceedings in the House of Lords. Property: He has considerable experience and expertise in most areas of property, including trusts, proprietary estoppel, restrictive covenants and rent reviews. In Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP, concerning the liability of mortgagors in substituted claims, Lord Justice Lloyd said at [4] "the appeal was argued admirably well for the appellant by Mr Faisal Saifee" and paid "special tribute to Mr Saifee for the excellence of his clear and sustained oral submissions". Information Technology: Faisal has a broad and in-depth understanding of information technology issues including data protection, cryptocurrency and electronic contracts and regulation. He is frequently instructed to advise and act in such matters. Publications and seminars: He has published in several law journals, including: The European Private Company (2009) 30 Company Lawyer 227; In terrorem appeals to the Crown Court [2007] Cambridge Law Journal 53; Prawo pracy Polaków zatrudnionych w Zjednoczonym Królestwie Wielkiej Brytanii, July 2006, Monitor Prawa Pracy; UK Bribery Act Update [2015] Comply (Fachmagazin for Compliance-Verantwortliche) Faisal is a regular speaker at both in-house and external seminars. Selected cases: Confidential investment arbitration (2017 – 2023) Abu Seedo v El Gamal [2023] EWCA Civ 330 Partington v Rossiter [2022] Ch 43 Syed v Shah [2020] EWHC 319 (Ch) Group Seven and others v Notable [2019] EWCA Civ 614 (with Philip Hackett QC) AS v SSHD [2018] EWHC Admin (with Hugh Southey QC) Confidential ICC dispute in the oil and gas sector (2018) L2 v SSHD (SIAC, 31 May 2017) (with Hugh Southey QC) Care London Ltd v Nationwide BS [2016] EWHC 3890 (QB) Hashi v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 1136 (with Baroness Kennedy QC) Dhooharika v DPP of Mauritius [2015] AC 875 (with Rt Hon Geoffrey Cox QC)
Fiona Edington
Fiona Edington
Crime and Courts Martial: Regular appearance in courts martial and the Crown Court with appearances as a leading junior, junior and led junior. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC). In 2018 led by Mathew Sherratt QC in the case of R v P, a manslaughter trial and also in the trial of R v Ciphers 1A & 1B , negligence; leading Puneet Rai in the case of R v L a continuity of education allowance fraud allegation. In 2021 leading Puneet Rai in R v R a continuity of education allowance fraud trial, reported in The Times, 21st June 2021. Some Reported Cases: • R v L (2011) EWCA Crim 2808, CMAC, A human right to object to war. [See judgment] • R v B (2011) EWCA Crim 46, CMAC, acting for appellant appealing sentence of dismissal from the Army sentence quashed • R v I (2010) EWCA Crim 1645 CMAC, acting for appellant appealing sentence of dismissal from the Army; • R v L (2008) EWCA Crim 989 CA (Criminal Division) concerning dangerous provisions in making and possession indecent images of children. Sentence of imprisonment for public protection quashed and replaced with determinate custodial sentences and sexual offences order; • R v S (2005) EWCA 2040 CMAC, acting for appellant concerning the power of the Commanding Officer under the Air Force Act 1955 on an election for trial by district court martial. Family: Regular appearances in the Family Court and High Court – private and public law Children Act cases representing parents, Children’s Guardians and on occasions local authorities; financial remedies proceedings along with removal from the jurisdiction and other Hague Convention proceedings. Reported Case: H (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 714 - CA 3rd May 2012 Appeal in private law children proceedings concerning, amongst other matters, discussions taking place between counsel and the judge. Appeal dismissed. For the Respondent Mother. Human Rights: • Baines v Army Prosecuting Authority (the Ministry of Defence Intervening) (2005) EWHC 1339 (Admin), (2005) NLJ 1207, High Court. Acting for a solider challenging the Article 6 compatibility of summary dealing under the terms of the Army Act 1955; • Heidelberg Graphic Equipment Ltd & Othrs v Hogan & Othrs (2004) Ch Div BLD 0710044109 contempt of court criminal standard in civil proceedings Coroners Inquests: City of Westminster (2007) - death arising from a military diving incident in Germany Cardiff (2013) – death arising from a range incident at Castlemartin Solihull (2015) - deaths of reservists on Selection Birmingham (2017) – death arising from an adventure training canoeing incident in Cyprus Birmingham (2019) – death arising from a military training incident in Brecon Advice to Deepcut Families prior to the New Inquests being ordered Regulatory: Military AGAI 67 advice, drafting and representation; Service Complaints advice, drafting and representation. Public Inquiries: Represented core participants in Baha Mousa Public Inquiry (Sir William Gage Chairman (reported 2011) Advice and assistance to personnel called to give evidence to the Iraq Fatality Investigations (2019/2020) Alternative Dispute Resolution – Resolution trained Collaborative lawyer; FMA trained Family Mediator
Freya Rowe
Freya Rowe
Experience: Coming from a background in hard hitting criminal litigation, including complex terrorism cases, Freya specialised some years ago in family litigation, and for the last 5 years has practised exclusively in family work. She is regularly instructed by opposing solicitors who have seen her in action at court, and has been described as “formidable”, with “truly outstanding cross examination skills”, and a “tactical genius”. She regularly receives positive feedback from clients who have described themselves as “eternally grateful” for her outstanding success and passionate efforts, even in the most unlikely of cases. She has an instinctive grasp of what is required, an impressive memory, and an eloquent persuasive charm which have won her credibility at both High Court and county court level. Freya has conducted many seminars for chambers (which can be accessed on this website) including “Capital City” regarding capitalisation if maintenance claims, “Suing Cassanova” regarding EU family law, “Sending Round the Heavies” in relation to enforcement of orders, and “Keeping it in the Family” setting out useful crossovers between family and crime. She has extensive experience in complex private law disputes and is recommended as a leading junior, including in applications to remove from the jurisdiction, child abduction, residence/shared residence and contact disputes. Freya is often used as a crucial tool in cases involving the need for effective devastating cross examination. In care cases Freya has represented parents and Guardians in complicated cases involving FII, mental health, non accidental injury, sexual abuse and chronic neglect. In financial remedy cases, she has regularly appeared in the High Court in relation to international asset cases, non disclosure and big asset cases involving lump sum maintenance variations; She has also successfully defended prenuptial agreements and inherited wealth arguments, and acted in a number of TLATA claims. Freya is described as highly sensitive and diplomatic to her clients, and ensures that they understand what is happening at all stages in the court process, and is able to communicate effectively and build up a strong rapport with clients from all backgrounds and abilities. Reported Cases: Mo v Ro and Another [2013] EWHC 392 - Freya represented an international company as a third party in a marital status dispute.    
Gary Hayes
Gary Hayes
Gary’s practice is focused on chancery, commercial litigation, insolvency and personal injury. He has particular interests in examinership, bankruptcy & liquidations, enforcement and debt proceedings, title and land disputes, professional negligence, tort and personal injury law. His current and recent instructions as junior counsel include substantial proceedings before the Supreme Court, Irish Court of Appeal, High Court and Circuit Court. Commercial and Banking Gary welcomes instructions in all types of commercial and banking litigation. He regularly advises, drafts pleadings and related applications, as well as negotiating in commercial and contractual disputes. He advises on enforcement of financial agreements and securities as well as the enforcement of foreign judgments in Ireland and the UK. Recent and current cases Sole Counsel in the High Court resisting various applications for interim injunctions and stays of execution brought by tenants and mortgagors. A dispute between members of a Company limited by guarantee concerning shareholder oppression, statutory compliance with the Companies Acts involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy. Sole counsel in a multi-million euro dispute between a husband and wife involving alleged fraud, conspiracy, and forgery, and for the recovery of equity in several properties. Insolvency Gary advises on all aspects of insolvency and reorganisations. He acts on behalf of pillar banks, investment funds and private clients in all aspects of enforcement and defence. This includes the prosecution and defence of bankruptcy matters for institutional banking clients and funds. Recent and current cases Sole Counsel in Defence of a multi- million euro bankruptcy claim in which agreement was reached with the petition struck out with significant debt write off. Examinership and winding up applications. Professional Liability Gary regularly advises solicitors and Claimants in the prosecution and defence of professional negligence applications. This includes proceedings at professional tribunals as well as in court. Recent and current cases Acting as junior counsel for the Claimant in a of a multi-million pound negligence claim brought against a Solicitor. Prosecuting a large scale solicitors’ negligence claim in relation to advice given on property transactions. Acting as sole counsel in the prosecution of a claim brought against a solicitor in respect of the provision of allegedly negligent advice on a personal injury claim. Acting as sole counsel in the enforcement of negligently executed solicitors undertakings. Acting as sole counsel against solicitors for negligently provided legal and tax advice in respect of property transactions. Construction Gary has experience in a wide variety of construction disputes both in relation to large scale commercial developments as well as smaller construction projects. Recent and current cases Acting for a conglomerate in a multi- million euro case relating to the construction of two large scale nursing homes. Acting in for a Claimant seeking redress for the negligent construction of a family home. Personal Injury: Gary is instructed for Claimants and Defendants in personal injury matters. He is also a standing member of defence panels and is regularly instructed in volume cases as well as long running complex injury cases. Recent and current cases Acting in personal injury proceedings on behalf of a high profile UK artist seeking significant damages and loss of earnings. Other Recent & Current Cases IECA 93; Promontoria (Oyster) DAC v McKenna [2021] IECA 94; and Promontoria (Oyster) DAC v McHale [2021] IECA 95. Successfully represented an investment fund in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, which had acquired a loan book and associated securities from a pillar bank was required in applications to enforce equitable mortgages in which the Court of Appeal held that a level of proof was not required, which proof would have caused systemic difficulties for the fund and other funds in a similar position. AIB Mortgage Bank v Hayes [2016] IEHC 280 Successfully represented a debtor in a €4.5m euro claim to estop a mortgage bank from enforcing a secured debt of which the Bank had improperly sought repayment. Muintir Skibereen Credit Union v Hamilton & Crowley [2016] IECA 213 Successfully argued in favour of Defendants that the Court make no order in favour of the Claimant who were seeking enforce a secured debt on the basis of provisions of previously untested legislation.
Genevieve Moss
Genevieve Moss
Genevieve has a busy criminal practice, with a focus on serious and organised crime. This has included being led in a six month gangland murder trial; securing numerous jury acquittals and enjoying success in the Court of Appeal, where she was thanked for the “eloquent and focussed nature of her submissions”. Genevieve is also regularly instructed in public and private family law matters, as well as undertaking fast track trials and a variety of other civil matters. In cases involving cultural sensibilities, she draws on her first-class degree from the School of Oriental and African Studies and experience volunteering and working abroad, in Zambia, South Africa, Russia and France. Genevieve accepts direct access instructions. Crime Genevieve has a thriving Crown Court practice, both prosecuting and defending. She is held in high regard for her client care skills and her sensitive handling of cases involving vulnerable witnesses and defendants. She has been widely praised for her courtroom skills and tenacity and success in difficult cross-examinations. Genevieve is currently instructed in a fraud in Southwark Crown Court and GBH in Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has experience in criminal proceedings throughout England and Wales and in the Court Martial. Family Genevieve regularly acts for local authorities, guardians and parents in public children cases. She is frequently instructed to represent parents facing removal of their children. Genevieve has particular skill in empathising with and gaining the trust of those who find themselves suspicious of professionals. In private children matters, she is noted for her child-focussed approach and ability to concentrate the parties’ minds on reaching agreement. She is nonetheless robust in her witness-handling and legal argument, in particular in contested section 8 applications (including Child Arrangements Orders, Specific Issue Orders and Prohibited Steps Orders). Such applications have included a successful application to prohibit a mother from taking two children to Tunisia in the wake of the Sousse massacre, in which Genevieve acted pro bono. She has also successfully sought an FGM Protection Order. In cases where domestic violence and child abuse are alleged, Genevieve has acted to prove and disprove allegations in fact-finding hearings. She has also secured and defeated many applications for Non-Molestation Orders and Occupation Orders. Genevieve has appeared in the High Court to argue jurisdiction in a child abduction case and assisted more senior barristers on such cases. Civil Genevieve has a strong track record in fast track and small claims track personal injury trials; RTAs; credit hire and landlord and tenant disputes. Genevieve’s witness-handling skills developed in the criminal courts are a particular asset when examining witnesses in the County Court. Employment In her first employment trial, in which Genevieve acted pro bono, following two days of legal argument and witness-handling, her two clients were found to have been unfairly dismissed. She returned to represent them at the remedies hearing and achieved an award in excess of their expectations. Genevieve has since acted in other employment cases and currently accepts instructions from both claimants and defendants. Notable Cases: Crime R v B, Court of Appeal, 2019 Genevieve successfully appealed a young mother’s sentence for a violent assault committed in front of her child. She persuaded the Court of Appeal to substitute a suspended sentence of imprisonment and the Court noted in its judgment that it was “particularly grateful for the assistance [of] Miss Moss... and for the focussed and eloquent nature of her submissions.” R v L, Oxford Crown Court, 2018 Genevieve was led in this multi-handed murder, representing a 67 year old woman client charged with perverting the course of justice following her two sons’ involvement in the killing. Genevieve secured post-conviction bail not only for her own client but for one other, while that brief, who had been found smuggling drugs into the dock during the trial. Genevieve drafted the sentencing note which was instrumental in ultimately achieving a six-month suspended sentence for her client. R v D, Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey), 2017 Breach of prevention of terrorism notification requirement. Appeared from first appearance at Westminster Magistrates’ Court to conclusion of case at the Old Bailey. Genevieve negotiated pleas, drafted written submissions on sentence and ultimately persuaded the court to suspend the defendant’s custodial sentence. R v K, Snaresbrook Crown Court, 2019 Sole counsel. Genevieve's client was acquitted of possession of a bladed article following a jury trial. Following the verdict, Genevieve mitigated in relation to other matters to which he had pleaded guilty resulting in a suspended sentence. R v K, Canterbury Crown Court, 2018 Canterbury Crown Court. Sole counsel. Jury acquitted client of s.20 GBH after a week-long trial. R v DC, Isleworth Crown Court, 2020 Appeal against conviction. Crown offered no evidence after Genevieve successfully opposed its application to adjourn. R v HM, St Alban’s Crown Court, 2017 Successful appeal against conviction for domestic assault. R v KM, St Alban’s Crown Court, 2017 Successful appeal against sentence. Client had an immediate custodial sentence after drink driving with her young son in the car. Genevieve secured bail pending appeal from the sentencing bench. At the Appeal, Genevieve persuaded the court to suspend the sentence. R v B, Chelmsford Youth Court 2019 Acquittal of teenager charged with burglary following Genevieve’s successful submission of no case to answer. R v B, Lincoln MC, 2019 Client acquitted of two violent domestic assaults by lay bench. Genevieve’s forensic cross-examination of the complainant had revealed that the incidents could not have happened as she alleged. Family LB Barnet v B-L, 2020 Secured the return home of a young mother and baby after arguing that an Interim Care Order should be discharged. Genevieve was praised by the other advocates for her impact on the case, including before the Circuit Judge. LB Hackney v W, 2020 Genevieve negotiated the reunification of her client with her baby as the country went into lockdown at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Civil A v A, High Court (Chancery Division), 2019 Genevieve was led in a complex dispute in relation to family trusts and the law of agency in an international commercial case.
Hector MacLean-Watt
Hector MacLean-Watt
Hector is instructed in a broad range of criminal cases and courts, from the Youth Court to the High Court and Court of Appeal. His practice is predominantly defence based, although he regularly prosecutes for HMRC and also for other prosecuting agencies. He also accepts instructions in personal injury matters.
Hina Pattani
Hina joined Thomas More Chambers in October 2023 as a twelve month pupil. Since successfully completing pupillage, Hina has developed a busy mixed common law practice. Background Before coming to the Bar, Hina had a twenty three year career as a doctor. She practiced as a consultant in intensive care medicine with a special interest in weaning and long term ventilation at a London teaching hospital for fourteen of those years. She has expertise in medical education and works as an appraiser, coach and careers advisor for doctors. She has held a number of roles in medicine including being an educator for the Resuscitation Council (United Kingdom), Lead Assessor for the National Clinical Advisory Service of NHS Resolutions (now known as the NHS Litigation Authority) and Academic Lead for final medical examinations at King’s College London. Civil Law Hina regularly appears in the County Court and has experience of civil trial work in the fast and small claims tracks. She has a particular interest in personal injury and clinical negligence work. Her background as a doctor means that she can quickly navigate substantial medical evidence and establish trust and rapport with vulnerable clients. Criminal Law Hina appears regularly in the Magistrates, Youth and Crown Courts. She defends and prosecutes. Hina has experience in appearing at appeal hearings, drafting grounds of appeal and advising on the merits of appeal. Family Law Hina accepts instructions in a range of family matters. She appears regularly for both applicants and respondents in the Family Courts. She has experience in private children matters, non-molestation and occupation orders and financial remedies work. Hina has a developing interest in regulatory and disciplinary law, inquests and enquiries and employment law.
Jack Ventress
Jack Ventress
Jack joined Chambers in October 2024, on successful completion of his pupillage. He is developing a busy mixed practice and accepts instructions across all of Chambers’ main areas of expertise. Background Prior to pupillage, Jack was a judicial assistant to Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the King’s Bench Division) in the Court of Appeal. Jack also completed the Fox Scholarship, which involved a 10-month placement at one of Canada’s leading litigation firms. This included a period working as a ‘clerk’ (equivalent to a judicial assistant in England & Wales) at the Ontario Court of Appeal. Jack has volunteered as an Employment Tribunal representative through the Free Representation Unit (FRU) and the Cleaners and Allied Independent Workers Union (CAIWU). He also enjoys mentoring future barristers at various stages, including applications for pupillage (through ‘Young Bar Mentoring’), Inns of Court scholarships and the Fox Scholarship. Before coming to the Bar, Jack successfully completed the TeachFirst Leadership Development Programme. General Civil Jack regularly appears in proceedings in the County Court and has also appeared in the High Court. Jack has experience of representing clients in contractual/tortious disputes, personal injury claims, insolvency proceedings and possession proceedings. Employment & Discrimination Jack has experience of representing claimants in the Employment Tribunal through volunteering with the FRU and CAIWU. Whilst in Toronto, Jack advised a distinguished Canadian law professor who was navigating a sensitive faculty dispute involving allegations of ‘reprisals’ (similar to victimisation in the UK). Jack gained further experience of employment law matters during pupillage under the supervision of Faisal Saifee. Jack is keen to develop his practice further in matters involving employment and discrimination law. Public & Human Rights Jack gained practical experience in these areas during pupillage. This included assisting with an advice on the merits of a judicial review of the terms of a probation licence (with Mathew Sherratt KC) and assisting with a successful statutory review of the Home Secretary’s decision to refuse British citizenship on good character grounds (with Faisal Saifee). In his previous role as a judicial assistant, Jack worked on numerous judicial reviews (both at first instance and on appeal), including: R (Balkwell) v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2022] EWHC 1288 (Admin): judicial review on Wednesbury irrationality and Article 2 ECHR grounds of a decision not to reopen a murder investigation R (Miller) v College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926: appeal against dismissal of judicial review of the CoP’s guidance concerning ‘non-crime hate incidents’ which succeeded on Article 10 ECHR proportionality grounds R (Archer) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2021] EWCA Civ 1662: unsuccessful Article 5 ECHR challenge to police’s decision to detain a minor for his own protection Jack also spent a year at Stockwoods LLP, Canada’s leading public law litigation firm, where he worked on a variety of administrative law and constitutional law matters relating to data privacy, COVID-19 vaccine exemptions, indigenous rights and press freedom. Jack has a strong interest in public law (including matters that intersect with criminal law) and is keen to build his practice in this area. Criminal Jack defends at all stages in the Crown and Magistrates Courts, including trials, sentences and interim hearings. He has experience of drafting written legal applications and grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Recent instructions include: R v SF (Northampton Crown Court): successfully persuaded the CPS to drop charges of assault against an emergency worker on behalf of a client suffering from extreme psychiatric issues R v AM (Kingston Crown Court): trial concerning assault on an emergency worker R v DP (Staines Magistrates’ Court): successfully defended a 30-year-old autistic man accused of riding an e-scooter without insurance, whilst drunk and whilst banned from driving R v LD (Norwich Crown Court): POCA proceedings – successfully applied to vary a confiscation order from roughly £150,000 to a four-figure sum State of Mauritius v BM (Supreme Court of Mauritius): researched grounds of appeal against a murder conviction in Mauritian criminal proceedings (led by Mathew Sherratt KC, ongoing) R v GS (Lincoln Crown Court): trial concerning intentional strangulatio Family Jack is regularly instructed to represent both applicants and respondents in private law children and finance proceedings, as well as applications for non-molestation orders. Recent instructions include: L v P: represented the respondent mother at a final hearing involving internal abduction A v A: financial remedies – secured a positive settlement for the respondent at the FDR W v W: non-molestation proceedings – parties agreed to an undertaking at the directions hearing
Jacob Gifford Head
Jacob Gifford Head
Jacob is an experienced barrister with a broad practice in chancery, family and general civil & commercial litigation. He particularly welcomes cases that are factually or legally complex and which require the creative use of law to resolve. His strengths are providing clear, practical advice together with fearless advocacy in court. He is happy to be, and has been, instructed as sole counsel, leading another barrister or being led. In addition to this brief summary, Jacob also maintains a website at http://www.giffordhead.co.uk which includes fuller profile, details of significant cases, and articles about various areas of law. Chancery & Property: Jacob accepts instructions in all areas of chancery and property. Cohabitation & Other Property Ownership Disputes Much of Jacob’s chancery work involves disputes about the ownership of property whether under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (“TOLATA” / “TLATA”) or otherwise. Many of these cases are cohabitation disputes where an unmarried couple disagreed about the beneficial ownership or property in one or both of their names. However, he has also dealt with ownership disputes which arise between businesses or from failed partnerships and joint ventures. He has been instructed in the full range of these cases, from implied common intention and resulting trusts, to disputes about written declarations of trust, together with other related areas such as promissory estoppel. Allegations of fraud or counterfeiting are a common theme and he has experience with these high-risk cases. Jacob is happy to represent clients in these cases however they arise. Most commonly this is through a claim in the High or County Courts. However, he also has experience of representing clients in pre-action mediation; the Tribunals; the Family Court (intervening under the TL v ML [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam) procedure); insolvency proceedings; and more unusual examples such as arising out of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Wills & Probate Jacob provides advice and representation to clients in all major areas that arise about the administration of estates. This includes claims involving the validity, interpretation or rectification of wills; allegations of misfeasance in the administration of the estate (including fraud and theft); and applications under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. He has had good success in resolving these cases through mediation but is also experienced in court work if necessary. Insolvency Jacob welcomes instructions in all areas of corporate and personal insolvency. This can include conventional insolvency actions but also more complex issues such as the tracing and recovery of assets, including those located abroad. Examples of recent reported cases: NCA v Dong & Fang [2017] EWHC 3116 (Ch); [2018] 1 P.&C.R. DG20: Trial concerning presumptions relating from gratuitous transfers of property. Family and Court of Protection: Jacob accepts instructions in all areas of family law. Financial Remedies Jacob has represented numerous clients in their applications for financial remedy. Clients appreciate his willingness to give clear and practical advice. His cases have included almost every conceivable area of dispute including third-party ownership, fraud, international assets and substantial familial trust funds. Here there is much overlap with his chancery work: he is often instructed in cases involving a third-party intervention into matrimonial finance proceedings. He also has experience of the rarer financial remedy applications, such as those under Schedule 1, Children Act 1989 and s.17 Married Women’s Property Act 1882 as well as those cases with overlap with civil disputes. Private Law Jacob welcomes private law children cases, ranging from ‘straight-forward’ contact disputes to international cases; Hague Convention proceedings; and wardship cases. Many of his cases involve serious allegations made by one parent against another such as serious domestic abuse, including sexual violence against parents and children, or allegations that one parent has psychologically manipulated a child to be hostile to the other. His particular expertise is in applications for removal from the jurisdiction or relocation, either permanently or temporarily. Care Jacob has considerable experience in care and public law children cases, particularly acting for the parents, where a willingness to challenge and push for a favourable resolution is of particular importance. Here, he finds having a background in criminal law is an invaluable advantage. Court of Protection Finally, Jacob has experience in all major jurisdictions within the Court of Protection, representing applicants, respondents and interested parties. He is particularly interested in the overlap between civil and Court of Protection actions. Examples of recent reported cases: A (A Child), Re [2020] EWHC 2784 (Fam): Hague Convention proceedings concerning the meaning of “actually exercising” rights of custody. N v N (Afghanistan: Validity of an overseas marriage: Procedure) (Rev 1) [2020] EWFC B55: Contentious divorce and the family procedure rules. This reported judgment was overturned on an unreported appeal. Re: EE (Children) (Habitual Residence) [2016] EWHC 3363 (Fam); [2017] 1 F.C.R. 500: Habitual residence of children who had spent extensive time in Latvia. General Civil & Commercial: Commercial Jacob is regularly instructed in commercial and contractual disputes, representing companies large and small. This work includes litigation, arbitration, other ADR and non-contentious work. The areas of dispute can be extremely wide-ranging. They have included: The interpretation and performance of contracts both in the UK and abroad. Intellectual property including trademarks, copyright and patents. Regulatory disputes. Building and other construction disputes Consumer protection, such as PPI claims. Examples of recent high profile cases: • Re: a Bank: Representing one of the UK’s largest banks in a number of claims arising out the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products to corporate customers. • Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees et al. v. Serious Fraud Office: Disclosure counsel in this high-profile, £300 million claim which arose out of the Serious Fraud Office’s failed investigation into the collapse of Kaupthing Bank. Landlord & Tenant Jacob is often instructed in commercial and residential property disputes, such as applications for possession, disputes about forfeiture, dilapidations and disrepairs. Personal Injury & Other Areas Jacob has regular experience in personal injury, having carried out numerous EL, OL & RTA trials trials for both Claimants and Defendants. He is familiar with all of the usual issues which arise in these cases including allegations of fundamental dishonesty and disputes about credit hire. Finally, Jacob welcomes less-common civil actions ranging as widely as bailment; conversion; or civil applications under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Examples of recent reported cases: R. (on the application of Wilus) v Poland [2014] EWHC 2718 (Admin): Whether the non-availability of an interpretor for an appellant in the High Court violated Article 6 ECHR Employment Jacob welcomes instructions for both the claimant and respondent in cases under all Employment Tribunal jurisdictions and has experience of employment disputes in the Employment Tribunal; employment cases in the Civil Courts; and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Johan Grefstad
Johan Grefstad
Johan became a tenant on completion of pupillage at chambers. Prior to coming to the Bar, Johan was employed as a decision writer at the Financial Ombudsman Service for several years and later as a regulatory consultant at a financial services consultancy. Johan then practised as a solicitor at a leading criminal defence firm based in the City of London. Johan’s criminal practice is exclusively for the defence. Financial crime: Johan draws on his experience in financial services to provide first-class representation to those accused of financial crime offences. Selection of recent cases: R v A (2023): Defending alone. Multi-handed conspiracy to commit fraud and convert criminal property arising from the activities of members of a church. Jury discharged following defence application of no case to answer in relation to one of the counts. Re-trial listed for 2024. R v S (2023): Defending alone. Multi-handed trial alleging entering into a money laundering arrangement. Johan’s client (D1) was accused of personally facilitating the transfer of more than £1.2m. R v S (2023): Defending alone. Johan was privately instructed to represent a German national accused of laundering more than €1m in a multi-handed international fraud. Following extensive representations, the private prosecutor discontinued the case against Johan’s client. Thereafter, Johan sought and obtained £35,000 of wasted costs against the prosecutor following a contested hearing. R v H (2023): Defending alone. Acquisition and conversion of cash transferred following a sophisticated banking fraud scheme. R v D (2023): Defending alone. Cash forfeiture of just over £140,000. Johan raised novel arguments in relation to the operation of s.298 POCA 2002 taking the case to the High Court and Court of Appeal. Serious organised crime / drugs: Johan often defends in cases brought by the NCA and regional serious crime directorates. Selection of recent cases: R v R (2023). Led junior. Multi-handed drugs supply conspiracy involving the attempted discharge of a prohibited firearm in an alleged retaliatory attack. The trial was aborted in late 2023 due to the prosecution silk withdrawing. The trial is listed to proceed in 2024. R v Q (2023): Led junior. Multi-handed drugs supply relating to 11.5kg of heroin. The trial involved complex and lengthy abuse of process submissions. R v S (2023). Led junior. Multi-handed drugs supply operation which involved the distribution of wholesale quantities of class A drugs across the country. R v S (2023): Defending alone. Drugs supply conspiracy where bulk quantities of class A drugs were marketed and distributed through a network of sites on the dark web. Violent crime: Selection of recent cases: R v R (2023): Led junior. Multi-handed murder trial arising from a stabbing on a London estate. R v N (2023): Led junior. Manslaughter retrial involving death by a single punch. R v I (2023): Defending alone. Representing a prisoner serving a life sentence accused of GBH on another inmate and attempting to stab a prison officer, both offences involved improvised weapons. Civil: Johan accepts instructions on a range of civil matters. He has conducted numerous road traffic small / fast-track claims across the country predominantly acting for the claimant. Johan also undertakes a range of other civil work spanning employment to a claim relating to the ownership of a sculpture by a well-known street artist.      
Jonathan Ray
Jonathan Ray
Court work in tribunals ranging from the Crown Court to appellate courts. Serious crime including acting as a leading junior
Joy Adeniran
Joy Adeniran
Joy joined Chambers after the successful completion of her pupillage. Joy’s practice draws on significant prior experience. Prior to coming to the Bar, Joy spent two years in the litigation department of the Home Office, assisting in the defence of judicial review claims made against UKVI’s rules, policies and procedures. Joy also spent time as an Assistant Private Secretary to the Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC, then Minister of State for Courts and Justice. Joy was responsible for overseeing the minister’s portfolio in various areas, including the MOJ’s Brexit negotiation strategy, EU Law, Human Rights, the Bill of Rights Project, Crown Dependencies, problem solving and specialist courts, and the work of the Law Commission. Joy began her practice with a broad mixed common law practice which saw her working across a number of Chambers’ practice areas. This included a busy criminal practice, frequently appearing in the Magistrates’, Youth and Crown Court. Joy had much success in this practice area, securing numerous acquittals and successful appeals. Joy has found that this foundation in criminal law provided her with unparalleled advocacy experience, which has been of huge benefit to her family law practice, particularly in fact finding and final hearings. FAMILY: Joy accepts instructions in a range of family matters. Joy regularly acts in public and private children proceedings and has secured and defeated applications for Non-Molestation and Occupation Orders. Joy has also been instructed in financial remedy proceedings and family committal proceedings. Examples of recent cases include: Public Law: GCC v S (Gloucester County Court) - Successfully opposed the Local Authority’s application for an Interim Care Order and removal of the children. LBOL v M (Central London Family Court) - Representation of father in care proceedings. The father’s application for contact was granted despite difficult psychological evidence. LBOE v D (West London Family Court) - Representation of paternal grandparents in care proceedings. The parents were alleged to be involved in human trafficking and were subject to criminal prosecution. At the outset of proceedings, the Local Authority sought Care Orders and removal of the children from the family’s care. At final hearing, the court was persuaded to impose a supervision order for the children to remain in the care of their mother and paternal grandparents in the family home. WCC v M (Coventry County Court) - Representation of mother who had purportedly published information online about the children and proceedings, in contravention of Section 97 Children Act 1989 and Section 12 Administration of Justice Act 1960. LBOL v C (Central London Family Court) - Received commendation for representation of an extremely vulnerable mother in care proceedings. The mother had a diagnosis of autism, history of psychosis and mild learning difficulty, and was aided by an intermediary throughout the proceedings. HCC v M (Watford County Court) (Reported) - Representation of mother in care proceedings. Notwithstanding strong opposition being raised by the Children’s Guardian, the court acceded with submissions for the children to remain in the parents care under the auspices of a supervision order. LBOL v A (Central Family court) – Representation of a father in care proceedings. The children were removed from the Nigerian parents care on an interim basis due to concerns about the use of harmful cultural practices. The successful use of culturally sensitive experts led to the family being reunified at the conclusion of proceedings. Private Law: A v A (Milton Keynes Family Court) representation of a mother in private law proceedings. Serious allegations of sexual abuse and rape were made against a vulnerable father with learning difficulties, serious mental health conditions, and substance abuse issues. At fact finding hearing evidence was heard from the eldest child. The case concluded with an order for no contact between the children and the father and the imposition of a prohibited steps order and section 91(14) order. Commendation was received from the judge for management of the complex case and vulnerable witness handling. W v H v CG (Medway Family Court) Representation of the applicant mother who had been in a same sex relationship with the respondent mother. Complex legal issues arose around the existence of parental responsibility for the respondent mother and whether she could be deemed to be the other parent pursuant to section 42 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The case was further complicated by complex and extensive factual dispute and the involvement of a Children’s Guardian and the respective Local Authorities for each child. P v C (Dartford County Court) representation of mother from the outset to conclusion of private law proceedings. The mother made serious allegations of domestic abuse against the father. All allegations were found in the mother’s favour at fact find hearing, bar one. A non-molestation order was later secured to protect the mother. After protracted proceedings, the matter concluded with an order being made for indirect contact between the father and child. Commendation was received from the judge for oral and written advocacy. S v I (Central London Family court) Representation of father at final hearing in which interim Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order, Prohibited Steps Order, and non-molestation orders were all discharged. S v S (Chelmsford County Court) representation of mother in long standing private law proceedings in which allegations of parental alienation were made by the father. During the course of proceedings, the Guardian reached the point where recommendations were made for a change of the child’s residence to the father’s home. At final hearing, the Judge accepted the mother’s argument that the child should continue to live with her. It was also accepted that every effort had been made for direct contact to be achieved and consequently, contact between the child and father should be limited to indirect contact. A v B (Northampton County court) - Representation of father in non-molestation and children act proceedings. Despite longstanding fractious relationship between the parties agreement brokered. Family Law Act proceedings: S v O (Barnet Family Court) Successfully aided the respondent in discharging a Non-Molestation Order at final hearing. T v T (Kingston County Court) Successfully secured a non-molestation order for the applicant daughter who had faced unrelenting molestation from the respondent mother. The applicant was particularly vulnerable due to her learning difficulties. A v A (Barnet Family Court) case concerning serious allegations of domestic abuse. After hearing evidence, the Judge acceded with submissions for the imposition of a non-molestation order and occupation order. Financial proceedings: I v I – (Croydon Family Court) Successfully represented the respondent wife at a financial remedies final hearing. The applicant’s case was dismissed, and it was determined that there was to be a clean break between the parties. R v R (Romford Family Court) – detailed and thorough representation of the applicant husband at a Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment. The judge gave a strong indication against the wife’s request for deferred sale of the property and acceded with the submission for equal division of the wife’s pension provision. C v C v A (Cambridge County Court) – Representation of an intervener who claimed to have an interest in matrimonial assets. Complex questions where raises about the validity of agreements entered in to between the intervenor and respondent husband, whether the court could be satisfied that there was an existence of a beneficial interest via constructive trust, and whether the disposition of £50,0000 to the intervener was a reviewable disposition pursuant to section 37 MCA 1975. H v S (Peterborough Family Court) – Representation of party in TOLATA proceedings. Abduction G v J – (The High Court) Representation of the applicant father in abduction proceedings in the High Court. CIVIL: Joy regularly appears in a range of civil matters, including personal injury, credit hire and road traffic accidents. Joy is frequently instructed on behalf of claimants and defendants in, a range of hearing and trials. Joy provides written advice on liability, causation, and quantum, and also drafts pleadings. Joy has found her extensive knowledge of civil procedure has been transferable to her family practice, where she is able to tactically utilise the Family Procedure Rules to her clients’ advantage. DIRECT ACCESS: Joy is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access (or Public Access) scheme. Articles / Publications "Give and Take" Counsel Magazine, October 2013 edition
Juliet Donovan
Juliet Donovan
Defending - Road Traffic and Regulatory Matters in the Magistrates Court Domestic Disputes/Violence Dangerous Dogs Crown Court – Grade 3 Prosecutor, Rape Panel (pending application) Prosecuting - Rape/Sexual Assault historical and present day Acid Attacks Money laundering – converting criminal property Aggravated Burglary Benefit Fraud S18 Assault Drug Importation Cigarette Importation Dangerous Driving Vat/Tax Fraud Mental Health – Defending Vulnerable Paranoid who had been hospitalised under the mental health act but found fit to plead. Significant Cases: R v W W S & G - Successfully prosecuted a four handed case of half a million-pound Fraud and Transferring Criminal Property. R v S – Successfully prosecuted a series of continuous rapes and sexual assaults by the victim’s sister’s fiancé over a period of 2 years on a 13–15 year-old. Jury came back in under an hour and convicted S. R v R (A youth) - Successfully prosecuted a young man age 14 who raped a girl on multiple occasions in a local park. (Non-stranger rape) R v S - Successfully prosecuted a serious aggravated burglary/s18 case stranger entering a house uninvited causing very serious life-threatening injuries and chasing him with a police ASP. The Recorder passed an overall sentence of 6 years. I advised on an AG reference which was successful and a sentence of 9 years replaced the earlier sentence. Defending R v KR a reported case - Successfully appealed conviction and second sentence. Mr R had been found guilty of sexual intercourse with a child under the age on 13 and other sexual offences up to the age of 16. The jury had erroneously been given copies of the ABE transcripts. At the second trial, the defendant was found guilty and only appealed his sentence. The Judge, erroneously made his sentence “more severe” contrary to s2 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 and LJ Leveson ruled that the sentence he was given was more severe but passed a more serious sentence by giving him an indeterminate sentence when he previous had a determinate sentence as their Lordships thought they could not ignore s328 of the 2015 which requires the Court to pass an indeterminate sentence where an individual is charged with having sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 13. The first trial Judge had failed to do this, the Prosecution had failed to come back under the slip rule. The matter is now of “important public interest” which “act’ prevails ie. should a person be put off appealing when he had solid grounds of appeal as he may get a more serious sentence if his appeal fails and he loses his second trial. Clearly if Mr R had thought he would lose his determinate sentence who would not have appealed his case that was quashed by the Court of Appeal. This will be a matter in due course for the Court of Appeal. R v F – A RAF pilot was accused of sexually abusing his neighbour’s daughter from the age of 13 to 16. The jury were hung despite over whelming evidence. At the second trial he was was found not guilty of Rape. R v G – Step grandfather accused of rape and sexual assault on three step grandchildren. G was acquitted on 10 counts the jury were hung on 2. The crown did not proceed on the remaining charges. COURT MARTIAL R v L – I successfully defendant a soldier who was accused of buggery and a series of indecent assaults on his step sons whilst he was a serving soldier in Germany in the 1980’s. The Board came back and found him not guilty on all counts in under an hour. R v S – I successfully defended H who was accused of attempted rape. Trial 1 – after three days I submitted that the Judge should recuse himself having cross-examined the defendant on key parts of the evidence, the Judge agreed. S was found guilty at his second trial. I appealed the conviction on the basis that the Crown had given the wrong draft of the ROTI to the jury which contained prejudicial evidence in it. The trial Judge refused to discharge the jury. Hooper LJ in the Court of Appeal did not agree with the trial Judge and allowed the appeal and refused an application by the Crown to pursue a third trial. R v M – A young black man of 19 was accused of attempted rape and sexual assault. It was a “three in a bed” scenario. The evidence was wildly inconsistent and despite the Judges attempts to secure a conviction M was acquitted in under an hour and the SCPO that the Crown were gunning to impose on M despite the fact there was no evidence of matters raised in it was not pursued. R v V and others - A group 6 males including V who was 16 at the time were accused of systematically raping and abusing a woman in her mid-thirties. My client was released from the dock following a half-time submission. R v N and others – A group of Lithuanian males were accused of “Conspiracy to Rape” a 15-year-old girl. N was the first to be acquitted. Mr N’s case was, the victim had said she was 23 and was drinking as smoking and acting like a girl that age and was consenting to sexual intercourse with him and the other males present. Comments from solicitors: "A fearless advocate” “Best speeches in the business” “An eloquent and attractive advocate” “A star” News Articles: Praise for the unsung heroes of the pandemic, keeping the criminal justice system operating - East Anglian Daily Times
Kerry Anne Currie
Kerry Anne Currie
Family: Kerry is an experienced family barrister whose practice covers a broad range of family law including private and international children cases, family finance, injunctive relief and emergency applications. Kerry appears at Family Proceedings Court, County Court and High Court levels and has been instructed in a number of lengthy and complex disputes, involving allegations of domestic abuse. Kerry is particularly apt at dealing with fact finding hearings and family cases with a criminal/immigration overlap given her prior experience in these areas as a junior barrister. Financial Remedies Kerry advises and represents clients in all aspects of financial remedies. She has experience in dealing with complex claims involving trusts, company shares, pensions and the intervention of third parties. Kerry also has experience in financial claims arising under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 and TOLATA proceedings. Private Children Law Kerry represents parents and children in all disputes concerning child arrangements, including applications to remove children permanently from the jurisdiction. Kerry is regularly instructed in matters relating to alleged parental alienation and intractable disputes. Financial Services Regulation: Kerry has experience in Financial Services Regulation and has undertaken a number of secondments with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). More recently, Kerry worked in the Enforcement department of the FCA on a portfolio of unsuitable pension transfer advice cases. Previous Experience: Before coming to the Bar, Kerry spent six months as Middle Temple’s Fox Scholar working in the litigation department of a law firm in Toronto, Canada. Prior to that, she worked as a stagiarie at the European Commission in Brussels and as a congressional intern in Washington D.C. as part of the Washington Ireland Programme. Kerry was Vice Chairperson of the London Irish Lawyers’ Association from 2015 until 2021 and currently acts as a Mentor for the organisation to support and assist younger members of the legal profession.
Laura Collignon
Laura Collignon
Personal Injury / Clinical Negligence: Claimant work, including: • catastrophic brain injury claims • cases involving substantial future loss of earnings based on the Ogden tables  A to D • claims by military and private security personnel, including training injuries and cold injuries • chronic pain cases • accidents at work, in particular claims where there is an employment law overlap (see above) • road traffic accidents • fatal accidents Laura is regularly instructed in substantial personal injury claims as sole counsel and is also instructed as a junior in very large claims. She has specific expertise and experience in dealing with claims (typically running into six or seven figures) where the Claimant has a disability as a result of an accident or other injury but has or may have some residual earning capacity. Laura accepts instructions in claims involving clinical negligence. Employment: Extensive experience in the Employment Tribunal and experience in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, representing both employers and employees in a wide range of employment disputes including: • unfair and constructive dismissal cases • sex, race and disability discrimination claims • wage disputes including holiday pay • other contractual disputes • equal pay claims • restrictive covenants Laura has a particular expertise in the overlap between employment and personal injury claims, for example in relation to accidents at work, disability discrimination, harassment and stress at work claims. She has conducted a number of cases involving both areas of law. Property / Landlord and Tenant / Professional Negligence: Experience across a wide range of commercial and residential property and landlord and tenant work including the following: • business tenancies including renewals and forfeitures • construction of leases • easements, covenants, rights of way and boundary disputes • mortgages • constructive trusts • Party Wall Act disputes (including urgent injunction applications where necessary) • agricultural tenancies • adverse possession • disrepair (sometimes including related personal injury claims) • residential tenancies, including nuisance related injunctions and evictions • rent and housing benefit issues • leasehold enfranchisement and lease extensions • service charge disputes • professional negligence claims arising from property law issues Reported Cases: Privy Council Bundhoo v Mauritius Privy Council (Mauritius), 25 April 2007 (civil procedure, sale of land by judicial auction) Daby v Mauritius Privy Council (Mauritius), 13 October 2008 (nuisance, measure of damages, water law, civil procedure) Court of Appeal Winter v Traditional & Contemporary Contracts Ltd Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 20 December 2006 (costs in the Lands Tribunal) [2006] EWCA Civ 1740; [2007] 2 All E.R. 343; [2007] R.V.R. 122; [2007] 3 E.G. 124 (C.S.) Winter v Traditional & Contemporary Contracts Ltd Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 07 November 2007 (restrictive covenants affecting freehold land, compensation, loss of amenity) [2007] EWCA Civ 1088; [2008] 1 E.G.L.R. 80; [2008] 3 E.G. 180; [2007] R.V.R. 353; [2008] J.P.L. 1011; [2007] 46 E.G. 177 (C.S.); (2007) 104(45) L.S.G. 30; [2007] N.P.C. 117 Raja v Van Hoogstraten (Application to Strike Out) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 21 July 2004 (strike out, civil procedure, right to fair trial) [2004] EWCA Civ 968; [2004] 4 All E.R. 793; [2005] C.P. Rep. 6; Times, July 27, 2004; Independent, July 27, 2004 Zarb v Parry Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 15 November 2011 (adverse possession, boundaries, reasonable belief) [2011] EWCA Civ 1306; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1240; [2012] 2 All E.R. 320; [2012] 1 P. & C.R. 10; [2012] 1 E.G.L.R. 1; [2012] 3 E.G. 88; [2011] 47 E.G. 105 (C.S.); (2011) 161 N.L.J. 1633; (2011) 155(44) S.J.L.B. 31; [2011] N.P.C. 118 Billett v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 773; [2016] PIQR 1 (cold injuries, Ogden 7 reduction factors, disability, personal injury) High Court Billett v Ministry of Defence Queen's Bench Division, 5th September 2014 (cold injuries, Ogden 7 reduction factors, disability, personal injury) [2014] EWHC 3060 (QB) Davidson v Aegis Defence Services (BVI) Ltd Queen's Bench Division, 24 January 2013 (limitation, extension of time, personal injury) [2013] EWHC 590 (QB) (on appeal at Davidson v Aegis Defences Services (BVI) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1586) Employment Appeal Tribunal Mehmet (t/a Rose Hotel Group) v Aduma Employment Appeal Tribunal, 30 May 2007 (race discrimination, unauthorised deductions from wages) Premium Care Homes Ltd v Osborne Employment Appeal Tribunal, 01 September 2006 (procedure, non-compliance, striking out)
Manus Egan
Manus Egan
Experience: Civil law with a particular emphasis on employment law and related areas. Manus is an experienced practitioner providing practical and effective advice to a broad spectrum of clients - ranging from employees and individuals through to small and medium sized business as well as FTSE listed companies, local authorities and NHS Trusts. Employment: Manus provides representation in all areas of employment law litigation. Areas of practice include: • unfair and wrongful dismissal claims • unlawful discrimination • transfers of undertakings • other employment related contractual disputes • restrictive covenants • unlawful use of confidential information Significant cases include Legends Live Limited v Harrison [2017] IRLR 59 in which Manus successfully represented Equity by defending a High Court claim for an injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant against a Michael Jackson tribute act. The case was won by relying upon the claimant’s delay in bringing the claim for injunctive relief pursuant to the equitable doctrine of laches. Recruitment/Employment Agencies Manus provides advice and representation to employment agencies and employment businesses in relation to their regulatory requirements. In addition, Manus acts for and against such agencies in relation to contractual disputes with clients and other related litigation. Manus is co-author (with Michael Smith of Thomas More Chambers) of Employment Agencies, Recruitment Agencies and Agency Workers – A Practical Guide to the Law (published December 2016, LexisNexis). Regulatory and Disciplinary Hearings Manus regularly represents registrants who are subject to conduct or other regulatory hearings in front of their professional bodies and upon appeal to the High Court. Professional bodies that Manus has provided representation in include the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Health and Care Professionals Council. Manus successfully represented Midwife Okeke in the landmark case of Okeke v The UK Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting [2013] EWHC 714 (Admin) where it was established that it was virtually impossible, under the then existing Government Regulations, to strike off nurses and midwifes found guilty of incompetence. Manus also successfully argued that the time that it took for the NMC to conduct the regulatory proceedings against Midwife Okeke (4 years and 10 months) was a breach of her human rights under Article 6(1) ECHR. This case led to changes being made to the sanctions provisions contained in the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. GDPR Manus also advises employers and employees in relation to GDPR issues arising in the field of employment. Commercial/contractual: Representation in respect of all forms of contractual and commercial disputes, with particular emphasis on the law of agency and unfair terms in consumer contracts Manus is co-author of "Unfair Terms in Consumer Agreements – The New Rules Explained" (Wiley Publishing). Manus regularly advises and represents businesses and individuals in financial services disputes both in litigation and through the Financial Ombudsman Service. He is co-author of EC Financial Services Regulation (Wiley Publishing). Property: Manus advises and represents both landlords and tenants in commercial property disputes, particularly in forfeiture/relief from forfeiture proceedings and contentious applications to renew and applications to terminate business tenancies under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. In Fast Drinks Limited v Cetyl International Group Inc [2017] L & TR 17, Manus successfully argued on appeal to the High Court that where the contractual term of a tenancy comes to an end pursuant to the exercise by the landlord of a break clause in a superior lease, the tenant’s request under section 26 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 for a new tenancy commencing on a date before the tenancy would have expired by the effluxion of time is not invalid under the proviso to section 26(2) of the Act. Tortious Claims: Areas of practice include: • Professional negligence • Personal injury • Trespass to the person
Mathew Sherratt KC
Mathew Sherratt KC
FINANCIAL AND REGULATORY With a predominantly civil practice in his early years at the Bar Mathew is well equipped to deal with complex allegations of fraud and regulatory offences. He has wide experience of the whole gamut of fraud including: MTIC; carbon credit; boiler room; cash for crash conspiracies; revenue offences and related international money laundering. Mathew advises and appears in civil restraint, forfeiture and confiscation proceedings. He spoke as a keynote speaker and panellist at the March 2019 Legal Era Conference in Mumbai on the topics of international bribery investigations and unexplained wealth orders. He has appeared before a wide range of regulatory and disciplinary tribunals including the GMC, The Showman’s Guild and disciplinary hearings on behalf of professional sportsmen, police officers and doctors. He has a particular expertise advising and appearing in respect of no supply and Kittel/Mecsek-Gabona issues in VAT appeals. Significant cases: R v Marino & Ors - instructed to represent an investment banker accused of multimillion pound fraud by abuse of position of the Gaddafi controlled Libyan sovereign fund, LAIP. First NCA prosecution of complex international fraud. News report. Sheth & Ghazi v. HMRC [2022] UKFTT 167 (TC) – Successful First Tier Tribunal appeal of HMRC assessment against director and managers’ liability to pay penalties of circa £1.8 million on basis their company submitted deliberately inaccurate VAT returns on the grounds that HMRC had not discharged the burden of proof on it to show that the conditions exist for denying the zero-rating of supplies made by their company AIL on the basis of Mecsek- Gabona principles. HMRC did not prove that the AIL’s transactions were connected to transactions giving rise to fraudulent VAT losses. M&M v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 107 (TC) Company which sold luxury motorcars should have known that those transactions were connected to fraudulent evasion of VAT. R v M – instructed to represent director accused of multimillion pound fraud by abuse of position in respect of Libyan sovereign fund, LAIP. First NCA prosecution of complex international fraud. Case is ongoing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/frederic-marino-banker-accused-of-using-libyan-money-to-fund-lavish-lifestyle-a6912796.html R v. B – instructed to represent Defendant after conviction in his confiscation proceedings. The Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt arising from the activities of his co-defendant who was Lead Director of the Impaired Assets Division of HBOS in the South of England (ongoing). Rogue HBOS banker sentenced to 11 years in prison | Financial Times R v. N - Defendant charged with conspiracy to defraud, fraud by abuse of position and perverting - the boiler room fraud involved the mis-selling of shares in a luxury hotel development and off-the-plan villas in Madeira. This was one of the FCA’s most complex fraud investigations and the first FCA prosecution of an offence of perverting the course of justice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45521235 R v. H - representing director of engineering firm contracted to install broadband for BT and Carillion Telent. Conspirators alleged to have set-up a series of bogus companies dishonestly purporting to sub-contract labour. The bogus companies evaded the payment of more than £15 million in VAT and CIS payments. Defendant acquitted of main count on indictment after successful half-time submission. R v. D - million-pound conspiracy to defraud arising from abuse of garage liens by a high turnover car engine remanufacturer https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4406570/Father-sons-conned-motorists-jailed-11-years.html R v. W - successful defence of conveyancing legal executive charged with multi-million-pound conspiracy to defraud multiple mortgage lenders. https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10716335.Twelve_appear_at_court_in_connection_with_multi-million_pound_mortgage_fraud_probe/ R v. E - successful defence of land registry fraud after successful submission of no case on issue of indefeasibility of title. R v. W - instructed by Registrar in appeal against conviction for boiler room fraud based on allegations of competence of a legal professional. R v Wilmot (Christopher) [2014] EWCA Crim 529 COMMERCIAL FRAUD AND ASSET RECOVERY Mathew has significant experience in cases involving allegations of commercial and insurance fraud. He regularly advises and acts in relation to allegations of civil fraud, interim freezing and production orders, unexplained wealth orders and Part 5 POCA proceedings. Recent instructions include advising an individual alleged to have dishonestly conspired to secure a default judgment and world-wide freezing orders via sham litigation in High Court. GENERAL CRIME Mathew is instructed in complex and difficult cases of national and international interest including murder, manslaughter, health and safety prosecutions and large-scale organised crime. High profile instructions include: junior counsel for the notorious millionaire Nicholas Van Hoogstraten; junior counsel in the Johnson Matthey gold bullion robbery; acting for the bookkeeper for Tommy Adams and the successful defence of soldiers 1A and 1B prosecuted for neglect of duty in respect of the deaths of three candidates during SAS selection in the Brecon Beacons. Significant Cases: R v B – Attempted Murder – unusual case of alleged attempted murder of a high-profile Nottingham plastic surgeon by a fellow consultant plastic surgeon. Case is ongoing. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/plastic-surgeon-broke-into-consultants-house-and-stabbed-him-court R v P – Murder – historic cold case involving allegation murder of a prostitute in 1994. Case is ongoing. https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/north-london-man-charged-murder-26438845 R v D – Murder – tragic case defending young mother charged with murder and neglect of her three month old child. Case is ongoing. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10688677/Parents-deny-child-cruelty-murder-two-month-old-daughter.html R v L – Double murder - represented Georgian ex-policeman alleged to have stabbed two friends to death in a violent fracas after a heavy drinking session. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/vytautas-garmus-charged-murder-house-ilford-b859136.html R v S – Murder - Defending the principal defendant convicted of the murder of an aggressive drug dealer in Ealing in excessive self-defence. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/three-brothers-convicted-stabbing-man-to-death-acton-osvaldo-de-carvalho-b923882.html R v M – Murder - Defending young Defendant convicted of the murder of popular drill rapper Crosslon Davis. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56380622 R v. G – Murder - Successful defence of Polish national charged with murder in which it was alleged that he was one of three men of who stamped their friend to death in a homeless shelter after a disagreement. Murderer 'Chillingly calm' after substantially kicking man to death. R v. L – successful defence of Millwall fan charged with one punch manslaughter of a Nottingham forest fan. Crown offered no evidence on manslaughter count at trial upon accepting defence submissions on causation and medical evidence. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-45889608   R v. D - Murder - Successful defence of fourteen-year-old charged with murder following death of an elderly man after a violent street robbery. Plea to manslaughter accepted https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-43321402 R v. M – defence of the bookkeeper for Tommy Adams in money laundering trial. https://news.sky.com/story/gangster-tommy-adams-jailed-for-seven-years-for-money-laundering-11109735 R v. SM – defence of a notorious Liverpool gang enforcer in a series of blackmail allegations and s.18 GBH with a machete. Defendant acquitted of five of the six counts of blackmail and the one count of GBH. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/violent-pimp-who-banned-liverpool-12331437 R v. M - Defendant was charged with attempted murder after shooting a couple as they lay in bed sixteen times. Acquitted of attempted murder, convicted of GBH. https://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/news/croydon-news/gunman-tells-judge-suck-your-530949 R v. B – successful defence of owner of a bonded warehouse charged with importation of 250 kgs of cocaine and 2 tonnes of cannabis in shipments of fruit and vegetables. The Defendant pleaded to conspiring to evade duty on cigarettes http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hm-revenue-customs-hmrc/news/fruit-and-veg-cigarette-smuggling-ring-squashed-123918 R v. Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48 - leading authority on abuse of process arising from executive misconduct. In this case serious police misconduct rose in respect of the handling of a supergrass. R v. Van Hoogstraten - junior counsel in retrial which led to millionaire’s acquittal. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/09/1 COURTS MARTIAL Mathew has a particular expertise in Courts Martial, defending in the two major SPA prosecutions of 2018 in including the successful defence of Cipher 1A and 1B. He also appears in inquests involving deaths in the military. Significant Cases R v. P - captain charged with gross negligence manslaughter following the accidental shooting of a soldier on the Castlemartin live firing range in 2012 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-44945232 R v. Cipher 1A and 1B - the successful defence of an officer and warrant officer charged with neglect of duty who invigilated a test march in the Brecon Beacons for a Special Military Unit during which three candidates died of heat illness in 2013. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45557588 ARBITRATION Mathew has a particular interest in the issue of corruption in the context of international arbitration proceedings. He spoke as a panel member at the Paris IBA Corruption conference in June 2018 on the subject. He is a contributor to IBA Joint Sub-Committee on Corruption and Arbitration. He was a keynote speaker at the Legal Era Conference in Mumbai in March 2019 on this issue. Reported Cases Darmalingum v Secretary of State for Mauritius(PC) [2000] WLR 2303 R (Mudie) v Dover Magistrates [2003] 2 WLR 1344 (CA) R v Van Hoogstraten [2004] Crim LR 498 Att-Gen’s Ref (No.3 of 2004) [2006] Crim.L.R 63,CA R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48 R v Wilmot (Christopher) [2014] EWCA Crim 529 R v. Ehi-Palmer [2016] EWCA Crim 1844 M&M v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 107 (TC) Seth & Ghazi v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 167 (TC)  
Michael Smith
Michael Smith
Michael became a tenant at Thomas More following successful completion of pupillage. He has a general common law practice with a particular focus on personal injury and employment law. He is the co-author of “Employment Agencies, Recruitment Agencies and Agency Workers - A Practical Guide to the Law". Personal Injury: Michael acts for Claimants and Defendants in the full spectrum of personal injury claims including accidents at work, road traffic accidents, occupier’s liability, product liability and Highways Act claims in both fast track and multi-track matters. He has a particular interest in military claims and has recently acted as junior counsel in a highly complex multi-million pound Non-Freezing Cold Injury claim. As well as being adept at dealing with liability, Michael is fully conversant with all of the causation, evidential and quantum issues that arise in this area. Michael is particularly sought after by defendants in cases where fraud or fundamental dishonesty is alleged, having formerly practised as a criminal barrister. Michael appears in hearings at all stages of a case and his court work is complemented by a busy paperwork practice. Michael is happy to work on a conditional fee basis where appropriate. Employment: Michael has experience of acting for both claimants and respondents in many areas including unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, discrimination and whistleblowing. Michael appears regularly in multi-day hearings the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal and can also be instructed on an advisory basis. Commercial: Michael’s practice in commercial law is predominantly based on contractual disputes. Michael is regularly instructed in matters ranging from small claims matters right up to substantial multi-track trials. Notable Cases: • G v G – acted for the claimant in a dependency claim arising out of a fatal accident where the damages sought exceeded seven figures. • I v A – Represented the claimant in a claim against a leading retailer in respect of fire damage caused by a faulty fire extinguisher. • British Airways v Pinaud UKEAT/0291/16/DA – Acted for the Claimant in successfully establishing that a long-standing cabin crew contract treated part-time workers less favourably contrary to the Part-Time Workers Regulations 2007. • OV v HR – Instructed for a leading recruitment agency in a ten-day claim in which it was alleged that the agency had aided in racial discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages against the Claimant. • BB v MB – Achieved a six-figure settlement for the Claimant in a claim of unlawful discrimination involving a leading financial institution. • AT v ST – Represented the Defendant in a four-day multi-track commercial dispute.  
Nadim Bashir
Nadim Bashir
Nadim practices in both civil and crime with particular experience of Court Martial. He is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Legal Service Reserves. He is considered an expert in coronial law and sits as an Assistant Coroner in South Wales Central and in Kingston upon Hull. He has been appointed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as Deputy Coroner for the British Indian Ocean Territory. He also practises from PSQB Leeds. BACKGROUND AND EXPERTISE Having been called to the Bar in November 1988, Nadim has many years of worldwide experience, in the past travelling to countries such as Cyprus, Brunei, Germany and Northern Ireland in order to practise criminal law. Nadim’s style of practice involves extensive preparation of every case he tackles in order to achieve perfection with notable attention to the minute details which of course, can win or lose the case. Nadim is also a member of the British Army Reserves with the Army Legal Service, and attached to the Service Prosecuting Authority, currently holding the rank of Lt Col. He practises in Courts Martial around the world, both prosecuting and defending all members of the three Armed Services (British Army, Royal Navy & RAF). Moreover, he is on the criminal advocacy training team. He was appointed the Cultural Co-Ordinator for Op HERRICK 11, and deployed with Bde HQ of 11 Light Brigade to Lashka Ghar, Helmand Province, Afghanistan between Oct – Dec 2009 after 3 months of pre-deployment training. In criminal law, he enjoys a predominantly prosecution practice and is a Grade 4 external advocate for the CPS, specialising in serious organised crime, fraud and confiscation proceedings and on the Level B List for the Specialist Regulatory Advocates Panel comprising the HSE, Office of Rail & Road, Environment Agency, Care Quality Commission, Office for Nuclear Regulation and Natural Resources Wales. In civil law, he has a personal injury practice involving employer's liability, public liability and claimant and defendant road traffic accidents involving allegations of fraud, vehicle damage and credit hire. These include allegations that an accident may have been staged or contrived, or involve bogus passenger allegations, exaggerated damage or a low-velocity impact. Nadim has a civil Police practice specialising in Firearms/Shotgun Certification and the obtaining of civil orders on behalf of Chief Constables. He also sits as an Assistant Coroner for South Wales Central having been appointed in June 2018 and has conducted both Jury and Non-Jury Inquests in a busy Coroners Area. Nadim has further been instructed by Interested Parties to represent their interests at Inquest Hearings involving deaths in custody. The final area of Nadim's practice includes delivering high-quality legal training between 2004 and 2009 with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre, and independently from 1998 to 2004, and since 2010, delivering a comprehensive two-day seminar on civil preventative orders under the Sexual Offences Act 2003; more recently under the Anti-social Behaviour and Policing and Crime Act 2014. In addition, he is a freelancer for BPP, delivering higher rights of audience seminars to newly qualified solicitors.
Naila Hadid
Naila Hadid
Naila joined Thomas More Chambers in January 2024. She has a busy mixed common law practice and welcomes instructions in all of Chambers’ practice areas. Crime Naila is a Level 1 CPS Prosecutor and also defends in all criminal matters appearing in the Crown Court, Youth Court, and Magistrates' Court. Criminal Appeals Naila welcomes instructions relating to advising on the merits of appeals, drafting grounds, and representing appellants at hearings. Family Naila regularly acts for both applicant and respondent parents in private law children matters. She also represents clients in applications for non-molestation and occupation orders including those suffering and accused of perpetrating domestic abuse. Naila has previously represented parents and local authorities in applications for care placement, and supervision orders.. Family (Finance) Naila has represented clients at different stages of financial proceedings. Civil Law Naila is regularly instructed in a variety of small claims matters. Sports/ regulatory law Naila has extensive experience of Sports and Regulatory law from previous employments and welcomes instructions in all such matters. Other Experience Naila assisted Ms Clare Wade KC on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review (published in 2023) and her contribution was acknowledged in the report by Ms Wade KC. Her previous employments include working for the IKWRO, a Women’s Rights Organisation where she provided support and advice to victims of ‘honour’ based violence, forced marriage, and domestic violence. Naila also worked as the Safeguarding Case Officer for The Football Association (The FA), leading on safeguarding investigations for individuals involved in or seeking to be involved in football. She worked as a County Court Advocate before moving to the General Dental Council (GDC) where she initially worked as a Registration Caseworker and then as a paralegal in their In-House Legal Presentation team. Naila sits as an independent Chair on The FA Judicial Panels where she hears cases of misconduct and/or concerning aggravated misconduct (discrimination) charges. In April 2024, Naila was appointed to the Sports Resolutions Safeguarding Panel. Naila takes pride in continuing her voluntary work despite her busy practice and regularly contributes to community-based organisations. She was also recently appointed as a School Governor for a primary school.
Nicholas Maggs
Nicholas Maggs
Specialist criminal defence practitioner. Regularly instructed in high profile, complex and lengthy trials as leading junior and lone junior counsel. Experienced in murder cases, firearms and serious violence. Particular experience in multi-million pound fraud, having successfully defended in a wide variety of tax, immigration and fraudulent trading cases, including complex money laundering investigations. Long and wide-ranging experience in large scale drug conspiracies, involving Encrochat and encrypted phones, county lines and associated complex cell site and telephone evidence. Frequent instructions in serious driving offences resulting in death and serious injury. Substantial experience defending allegations of sexual offences often involving s.28 hearings, and including numerous acquittals in rape, serious sexual offences, and historic sexual offence cases. Recent cases include: Fraud: R v ES - Leading junior, leading Nicola Thompson in Chambers, in £3million Gift Aid fraud on HMRC. Defendant acquitted of all charges following month long trial. R v EK - Led junior, led by Chris Harding in Chambers, representing the second Defendant in Operation Bygone / Berg Meeker, a substantial case concerning an immigration applications fraud, one of the lengthiest cases ever tried at Southwark Crown Court. R v LC - acquitted of all counts in Operation Perth, a case alleging a professionally organised duty fraud on HMRC carried out by hauliers. R v GP - Led junior representing the first Defendant in Operation Aldgate, involving multiple allegations of Fraud at Southwark Crown Court. R V LM - The only Defendant acquitted in an 11 handed Conspiracy to launder the proceeds of a fraud. Prosecution case built on substantial quantities of telephone evidence. R v MN - successful defence at trial of allegations of organised employee theft over many years, leading to a conviction of possession of criminal property alone. Further successful arguments at sentence reduced the loss suffered from £1/2 million to £50k leading to the imposition of a suspended sentence. Link to news report. R v LM - Acquitted in Operation Entail, allegations of duty evasion. R v BS - Instructed to represent the first Defendant facing numerous allegations of money laundering and fraud against HMRC and other creditors. Acquitted of a number of the counts faced. Violence: R v BK - Led by KC defending in murder case, involving complex evidence re: blood pattern analysis and other forensic evidence. R v BC - Acquitted of s.18 GBH in case concerning widespread Violent Disorder in high profile Central London department store, involving a knife fight between multiple parties. Complex case involving significant tactical considerations as cut-throat defence in which the 6 other defendants indicted all implicated the defendant whilst he implicated them. R v PD - Led junior in missing body murder case, concerning complex cell site and telephone analysis evidence. R v QH - Acquittal of all charges in s.18 GBH stabbing case in the face of eye witness evidence implicating the defendant. R v SC - Acquittal in serious firearms case alleging possession of shotguns implicating a number of other defendants. R v AN - In a case capturing national media attention, represented a Defendant facing allegations of s.18 GBH for biting part of another man's ear off. Acquitted of all charges. R v MW - Defending alone in case concerning Attempted Murder and Kidnap, successfully negotiated a plea to s.18 GBH on the eve of trial, the allegation of Attempted Murder being dropped. R v MR - Possession of firearms and ammunition, a case concerning complex issues of expert testimony concerning the firearm itself, DNA evidence and telephone analysis. R v TE - Successful defence of all counts alleging Blackmail and Kidnap in complex case resting on cross-examination of key eye witnesses. R v BK - Defence in case alleging a knife attack against 2 complainants. Acquitted of s.18 and all possession of knife related counts, convicted of s.20 GBH that alleged only a single punch. Drugs: R v KJ - Acquitted in case alleging a substantial county lines drugs Conspiracy - Operation Warship. Case involved 14 Defendants. R v RC - Ongoing case concerning multi-kilo supply of cocaine on nationwide basis. Case involves complex issues of encrypted phones and Encrochat, cell site analysis and substantial quantities of phone evidence. R v LE - Led junior, led by Mathew Sherratt KC, defending allegations of massive nationwide supply of cocaine alleged to involve more than 1 tonne of cocaine. Case concerned complex evidence involving encrypted phones, cell site analysis and surveillance. Acquitted of nationwide supply, negotiated plea to local supply of a far smaller quantity of Class A. R v NF - Represented first Defendant in a 7 handed Conspiracy to import and supply class A drugs. The case involved substantial quantities of telephone evidence and transcripts of coded telephone conversations. Involved cross-examination of phone, forensic, DNA and drugs experts. R v MR - Defending alone in case concerning the supply of more than 5kg of cocaine, a case concerning complex other issues of DNA evidence, firearms evidence and phone analysis. R v PS - Led junior in a 5 handed Conspiracy (Operation Rampage), representing the second Defendant facing allegations of involvement in the supply of £25 million of cannabis smuggled into the UK. R v JK - Representing the first Defendant in one of the largest importation cases prosecuted in the UK. Sexual Offences: R v AL - Acquittal of multiple counts of rape and sexual offences allegedly committed by an older male against a teenager. R v BA - Historic allegations of sexual offending with multiple different complainants. Acquitted of 2 of the 4 counts faced. R v AI - Multiple allegations of rape within a marriage, acquitted of all counts. R v AA - Representing the first Defendant in a case involving a sexual attack on an elderly, mentally vulnerable, individual. Acquitted of multiple counts of sexual assault. R v RA - Acquitted of multiple counts of rape despite the case proceeding in the Defendant's absence.
Nicola Thompson
Nicola Thompson
Nicola is developing a mixed common law practice and welcomes instructions in all of Chambers’ practice areas. Nicola completed her pupillage with Chambers in November 2022. Prior to coming to the Bar, Nicola practised as a solicitor at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, specialising in commercial litigation and international arbitration. Civil / commercial From her time as a commercial solicitor, Nicola has significant experience of High Court litigation in both the Commercial and Technology and Construction Courts, as well as international arbitrations under the ICC and LCIA Rules. She acted for and against clients in the construction, housing, energy and infrastructure sectors. Her last case before coming to the Bar was the recent landmark ruling in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co. Ltd [2022] EWHC 1813 (TCC), the first successful claim in the High Court for defective cladding following the tragic Grenfell fire (see The Financial Times, 15 July 2022 ‘Landmark English court ruling finds contractor liable for cost of removing unsafe cladding’. Nicola has been appointed to the Attorney General’s Junior Juniors Panel. Crime Nicola regularly defends in the Crown, Youth and Magistrates’ Courts. During pupillage, she gained experience of a range of Crown Court trials under the supervision of Tara McCarthy. She assisted in a number of trials involving serious crime, including allegations of double murder, high-value cross-border fraud, serious sexual offences, robbery, GBH and ABH. Current instructions include matters involving allegations of fraud, assault, handling stolen goods and robberies. Recent cases include: racially aggravated assault, in which she secured an acquittal (Inner London Crown Court – R v A); successful resolution of allegations of domestic burglary (Ipswich Crown Court – R v M); successful resolution of allegations of robbery (Southend Crown Court – R v A); and handling stolen goods (Ipswich Crown Court – R v L). Family Nicola is regularly instructed in child arrangement order proceedings.
Patrick Wise-Walsh
Patrick Wise-Walsh
Since successfully completing his 12-month pupillage in chambers, Patrick has been developing a busy mixed practice spanning civil, crime and employment work. Background: Before coming to the Bar, Patrick had a career in politics, working in Westminster for several Members of Parliament. He also worked for a literary trust in Oxford and as a Legal Officer for a national organisation. He enjoys delivering workshops, seminars and training across a range of areas. Civil and Commercial: Patrick regularly appears in the County Court and has also appeared in the High Court. He has experience of civil trial work in the fast and small-claims tracks. He prides himself on mastering the detail of cases, providing commercial advice and in being responsive to both professional and lay clients. Recent instructions have raised issues including: • Allegations of fraud; • Third party rights under contracts; • The setting aside of previous court orders; • Disputes involving costs; and • Inheritance Act claims. Patrick has gained experience of drafting pleadings in civil claims across a range of areas and disputes and welcomes such instructions. He gained experience of commercial claims during pupillage, under the supervision of Faisal Saifee, including high-value claims involving alleged fraud, trusts, agency disputes, and unfair terms. Crime: Patrick appears regularly in the Magistrates, Youth and Crown Courts. During pupillage, he gained experience of criminal defence in cases involving serious crime, including allegations relating to terrorism offences and sexual offences. Current instructions include matters involving allegations of violence, sexual offences and multi-handed fraud. Examples of recent cases: R v K (Wood Green Crown Court): 7-day trial involving section 20 OAPA. Trial included points on bad character. R v W (Isleworth Crown Court): section 18 OAPA. Successfully resolved in favour of defendant. R v C (Basildon Crown Court): represented defendant at Newton Hearing involving allegation of production of substantial quantity of cannabis. R v A (Inner London Crown Court): mitigated for defendant charged with ABH involving kick to the head and bleed on the brain. Suspended sentence obtained. R v V (Snaresbrook Crown Court): false imprisonment and section 20 OAPA. Offences had been filmed and distributed online. Defendant played leading role in group attack. Mitigated successfully for defendant after drafting detailed sentencing note. R v Y (Wood Green Crown Court): multiple counts of attempted sexual contact with child. Complex issues raised regarding correct categorisation of offences. Mitigated successfully for defendant. R v A: with David Gottlieb, supervisor during pupillage, involving charges of terrorist fundraising. Detailed legal argument surrounding meaning of terrorist fundraising and complex questions of disclosure. R v L: with Tara McCarthy, during pupillage, serious sexual allegations against a child complainant. Case was widely reported. Patrick has significant experience with raising legal points in criminal proceedings and is diligent in researching and deploying points of law that may assist his clients. He draws on his broad experience of other areas of law in drafting written representations for solicitors and for written submissions in trials. Criminal Appeals Patrick has experience of drafting criminal appeals and always welcomes instructions relating to advising on the merits of appeals, drafting grounds, and representing appellants at hearings. Protest law Patrick has a particular interest in the right to protest and has experience of advising and representing clients charged with alleged offences arising out of direct action and other forms of protest. These offences often require a specialist understanding of the availability of certain defences. He welcomes such instructions, for advice and trial work. Employment and Discrimination: Patrick has experience of employment disputes through advising and representing clients before the Employment Tribunal, on appeal, before internal disciplinary and grievance hearings in the workplace, and at judicial mediations. He has appeared at a range of trial and preliminary hearings. Current instructions include allegations of maternity and pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal. Patrick advises on redundancy matters, including local community groups, employers and employees, and has delivered training and workshops on redundancy in the context of COVID-19. He has represented members of path-breaking trade unions and through the FRU. Recent cases include: N v A: successfully represented client at trial bringing wages claim against experienced counsel and joint head of employment law within their chambers. D v S: represented client at trial bringing claim for unfair dismissal against a local authority. T v M: obtained generous settlement for client bringing claims of disability discrimination and harassment. N v W: represented client at judicial mediation involving claim of direct race discrimination and harassment. C v A: represented client at judicial mediation involving claims of harassment and victimisation. Landlord and Tenant and Real Property: Patrick has experience of a range of Landlord and Tenant and Real Property work. He acts in possession proceedings, including those with complex case histories and wide-ranging allegations. He has knowledge of drafting and advancing disrepair claims. He advises on disputes involving the full range of property issues and has experience of cases involving expert evidence. Personal Injury Patrick has experience advising on the merits and quantum of personal injury claims, including those requiring complex calculations of loss. He is happy to settle statements of case and to provide representation at trial. Human Rights and Public Law: During pupillage, Patrick gained experience of cases involving control orders and claims for breaches of human rights, as well as seeing claims for judicial review across various areas. Regulatory Law: GPhC v NA: Led by David Gottlieb, 10-day regulatory proceedings raising issues of freedom of expression and protest, and other Convention rights.
Philip Noble
Philip Noble
Property: Extensive experience in property and landlord and tenant work including a variety of building and construction disputes. Has dealt with cases in the Technology and Construction Court, including actions for disrepair and building costs disputes on behalf of tenants, builders and architects. In addition to experience in dealing with general commercial property disputes, Philip has built up an expertise in constructive and resulting trusts, and probate related claims. Scullion v Bank of Scotland: Philip won damages in the High Court in a ground breaking action brought by a buy-to-let owner who claimed that the Bank of Scotland's surveyor had overvalued the property and the potential rental income. This is the first case where the courts have imposed a duty of care on a surveyor in relation to a third-party buy-to-let investor valuation. The judge held that a buy-to-let purchase is no different to a residential house purchase in that the duty of care that was owed by the surveyor in a residential purchase, also applied to buy-to-let investors. Recent claims include: • a claim by tenant for damages for disrepair against landlord holding company; • a claim for fees and interest by an architect in excess of £1/2 million; • a boundary dispute involving adverse possession, rights of way and prescription; • a claim on behalf of a cohabitant to a share of a multi-million pound estate; • a claim by an illegal overstayer to a share of her former partner’s estate; • a claim by an estate to overturn a will drafted by a beneficiary on the grounds of lack of understanding, knowledge and approval, undue influence and forgery. Professional Negligence: Philip has a particular interest in professional negligence involving surveyors, architects, builders and solicitors. Articles/Publicatons: • Special Damages for Disability, 1988, Sweet & Maxwell
Puneet Rai
Puneet Rai
Areas of Practice: • Family • General Crime • Courts Martial • Direct Public Access Experience: Puneet has an extensive family and criminal law practice. Her accumulated experience and skills from specialising in both areas has frequently proved to be a significant advantage when acting for clients. Family Puneet has a busy family law practice, providing advice and representation in all aspects of matrimonial disputes and disputes following relationship breakdown, with a focus on Financial Remedy, Private Law Children, TLATA and Schedule 1 matters. She is able to advise, assist and provide representation at any stage of proceedings, including early neutral evaluations and non-court dispute resolution appointments. She accepts instructions for both financial and private law children proceedings for clients, appreciating the benefits of continuity of counsel in this respect. Puneet welcomes requests for initial advice. Family Finance Puneet is experienced in conducting financial remedy applications, regularly attending first appointments, FDRs, final hearings, as well as preliminary issue, MPS and enforcement hearings. Puneet often deals with matters involving significant factual disputes, including arguments of non-disclosure, add-back, interveners, non-matrimonial and inherited property, private businesses, shareholdings and complex company structures, pre-nuptial agreements, trusts, and pension arrangements. Children Law (Private) Puneet acts in children disputes (private law) for parents and other family members at all stages, from FHDRA to fact-finding hearings and final hearings. Puneet often acts in cases of considerable complexity, such as those concerning allegations of serious domestic abuse (including coercive and controlling behaviour), intractable contact disputes/ parental alienation, cultural issues, internal and external relocation and change of name disputes. TLATA and Schedule 1 Puneet accepts instructions from clients pursuing or defending claims under TLATA and financial provision for children under Schedule 1. She has advised and acted for clients in, and is familiar with, the issues arising from crossover between the two areas. Puneet is qualified to accept instructions on a direct public access basis. General Crime and Courts Martial Puneet is an experienced criminal junior, frequently instructed in cases involving a varied spectrum of offences, including organised crime (involving firearms and drugs), sexual offences, fraud, drugs, and matters involving serious violence. As well as her considerable experience in conducting trials as sole counsel, Puneet also acts as junior counsel in cases of serious and complex crime, including murder and manslaughter. Puneet also has expertise in defending in the Courts Martial. Notable cases include the successful defence of a soldier charged with a £98k school fees fraud; of soldiers 1A and 1B, prosecuted for neglect of duty in respect of the deaths of three candidates during SAS selection in Wales; and of a soldier accused of multiple charges of violence against recruits at an Army training college, in the most significant SPA prosecution of recent years. Inquests Puneet has experience of the same and has acted for interested persons in deaths arising from incidents in military training. Selected Cases: R v. R - in 2021 junior counsel (led by Fiona Edington) in a continuity of education allowance fraud trial, reported in The Times, 21st June 2021 R v CN – in 2019 junior counsel in the successful defence of soldier charged with attempted murder. Appeal against conviction of alternative s.18 OAPA charge raised an interesting matter of law – see reported cases below R v. Ciphers 1A and 1B – in 2018 junior counsel (led by Mathew Sherratt KC) in the successful defence of an officer and warrant officer, charged with neglect of duty, who invigilated a test march in the Brecon Beacons for a Special Military Unit during which three candidates died of heat illness in 2013 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45557588 R v. B – in 2018 junior counsel (led by Nadim Bashir) acting for a Colonel charged with negligent performance of duty, in a trial following the accidental shooting of a soldier on the Castlemartin live firing range in 2012 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-44945232 R v. L – in 2018 junior counsel (led by Fiona Edington) in the successful defence of a Colonel charged with a £98m school fees fraud. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-46199060 R v. C – in 2018 successful defence of a warrant officer accused with fellow instructors of the serious ill-treatment of recruits at Harrogate Army Foundation College. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/19/judge-blasts-seriously-flawed-police-investigation-army-recruit/ Reported Cases: • R v Cheeseman [2019] EWCA Crim 149 • R v Theophile [2015] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 68 • R v Miessan and Miessan [2013] EWCA Crim 733
Ravi Dogra
Ravi Dogra
Ravi has specialised in advocacy for over 25 years, since qualifying as a solicitor in 1996. He has enjoyed a busy Crown Court practice as an advocate, undertaking a wide spectrum of cases, regularly co-defending with senior members of the bar, and appearing as leading counsel. He is respected for his skill and expertise, particularly in complex fraud and large drug trafficking cases, armed robberies and sexual offences. Ravi also conducts all the satellite litigation such as civil forfeiture, restraint and confiscation proceedings. In 2019 Ravi was called to the bar by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, and, having decided to enter independent practice as a barrister, joined Thomas More Chambers in 2021. Since joining our criminal team, Ravi has also accepted instructions to prosecute, and has been appointed by the CPS to Level 3 on the General Panel and to the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Panel.
Richard Cross
Richard Cross
Wide experience of advocacy at all levels of Court and advises on all aspects of family law. Regularly instructed in financial remedy claims, including family business cases, and both public and private Children Act cases. Has lectured on financial remedies to Solicitors. Reported: • Re K (1999) Fam Law 220 (Residence Order: Security Contact) • Re Piccadilly Property Management Ltd (1999) BPIR 260
Rima Baruah
Rima Baruah
Practice: • Family - Public Law and Abduction proceedings Experience: Rima is a specialist practitioner and has extensive experience in family law with a particular expertise in cases that involve international and cultural issues, finding that she is assisted by considerable experience appearing in the Higher Courts with a great understanding of the particular specific needs of parents when representing people of differing ethnic groups and religion. Likewise, her entire career having spanned many years of representing individuals who have additional often interlinked difficulties, in respect of matters such as housing, immigration and mental health issues has aided her comprehensive understanding and ability to meet their complex needs in care proceedings in a sensitive and caring manner. She is adept at dealing with matters at short notice and has an energetic and longstanding commitment to ensuring that those marginalised in society are not excluded from the support and assistance that they require. Her background in regularly presenting complex matters in the Higher courts when challenging government decisions requiring the analysis of law and policy has paved the way to her considerable expertise in analysing complex medical research material and challenging experts fearlessly in cross- examination of the same supported by written arguments as required. This being of considerable assistance in matters concerning allegations of non-accidental injury which may have conflictual expert evidence. She has been described as “meticulous in all aspects of her work “and “extremely impressive in cross-examination with the ability to extract key information to pave the way for a positive outcome in proceedings “. Cases of Interest: S, Re (Change of Surname : Child in Foster Care) [2021] EWFC B42 (14 July 2021) Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022] EWFC 106 (12 September 2022) H-M (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 748 (19 May 2021) FF v BM [2020] EWFC B6 (06 March 2020) A (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2240 (16 October 2018)
Robert Deacon
Robert Deacon
Robert is a practitioner of long-standing whose expertise covers the breadth of commercial, chancery and other litigation. He has experience dealing with large class actions, civil fraud and asset tracing, professional negligence and disputes involving estate agents (in particular commission claims), confidential information, partnership, gambling, construction, insurance and sales of businesses. He also has niche specialisms in all forms of intellectual property (including patents, designs, trademarks and copyright), media and entertainment and defamation and privacy. Robert accepts instructions on a direct access basis in all these areas. “Highly experienced and confidence-inspiring”, he is known as a forceful advocate with substantial experience both of trials as well as freezing and search orders and other interim remedies. The legal directories note his “terrific commercial understanding” as well as his “ability to communicate tough concepts in a simple way”. Commercial litigation: Robert has many years’ experience acting as trial advocate and advising in various commercial disputes and is well equipped to handle a wide variety of cases covering sales of businesses, joint venture disputes, gambling contracts, commission payments and theft of confidential information. He has a reputation as an effective team player. Some of his recent experience includes: • Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd [2014] EWHC 2692 (Ch): multi-million pound claim in respect of the sale of a medical trials business. • Chartwell Estate Agents v Fergies Properties [2014] EWCA Civ 506: dispute concerning commission payments on the sale of a very substantial London property. • The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Al Daher [2014] EWHC 2487 (QB): dispute concerning gambling debts resulting in a leading decision in gaming law. • Nordic Insulated Doors v Land Resources Ltd [2014] EWHC 1093 Ch: dispute concerning a joint development agreement for a block of flats. • Medical Innovations v Medlogiq [2014] EWHC 4626 Pat: claims concerning alleged theft of confidential information. • Ingenious v Channing [2014]: claim involving a loan advanced as part of a now discredited tax avoidance scheme and a counterclaim to discharge the payment obligation under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Civil fraud: Civil fraud claims are a regular feature of many of the cases which Robert handles where his experience of obtaining emergency injunctions is particularly valued. Some of his recent cases include: • Medical Innovations v Medlogiq [2014] EWHC 4626: included claims for theft of data and misuse of confidential information. • EDH Tennis v Lindebaum: claim against former employee for wrongful removal of confidential information. • Napier Turbocharger v MGM: claim for misuse of confidential information. • Do Buy: acted as lead counsel for claimant diamond dealer in a substantial claim against a high street bank for failing to honour payment in relation to a merchant services agreement. This was a ground-breaking case which considered many unexplored areas of law. Intellectual property: Robert holds a post-graduate diploma in intellectual law and practice and IP work is an important source of his instructions. Robert has expertise in all forms of IP including patents, trade marks, passing off, copyright, industrial design and confidential information. His extensive trial experience combined with expertise in IP uniquely equips him to deal with heavy commercial cases involving intellectual property issues. He is co-author of “Privacy and Personality Rights – commercial exploitation and protection”. Some of his recent cases include: • Edge Interactive [2014] : trade mark appeal from the Registrar at the IPO. • Napier Turbocharger v MGM & ors [2014]: claim relating to the manufacture of spare parts for turbochargers and involving claims for copyright infringement, infringement of database right and breach of confidence. • Medical Innovations v Medlogiq [2014] EWHC 4626: entitlement claim in relation to patents and registered design right WHICH included claims for misuse of confidential information and a declaration of invalidity. • Mastermailer v Everseal [2013] EWPCC 6: substantial patent action in respect of a selfseal mailer. Acted for the defendant resisting an application for a declaration of non-infringement and revocation of the patent. • EDH Tennis v Lindebaum [2012]: claim for infringement of copyright and misuse of confidential information in relation to the computer software used in tracking devices at sports tournaments. • Jean Christian Perfumes v Thakrar [2011] EWHC 1383 (Ch): acted as leading counsel for the defendant in trial involving the infringement of a Community Trade Mark (CTM). The case involved the construction of distribution agreements and the liability for the importation of perfumes from India into the UK. Robert also advised in relation to a substantial damages claim. • Monster Vision v McKie [2011] EWHC 3772 (QB): acted for the defendant in a case in which an ex-parte injunction was obtained against a former director/employee. The claim was based on breach of confidence and of the terms of a contract of service and raised restraint of trade issues. Media & Entertainment: Media & Entertainment disputes increasingly involve a cross-over between IP, IT and contract law matters which makes Robert’s multi-disciplinary expertise particularly attractive. He also has extensive experience of defamation and privacy claims and is lead author on “Privacy and Personality Rights – commercial exploitation and protection”. Much of his work is highly confidential. He lectures on a regular basis on topics which have included privacy and image rights, performers’ rights, performers’ royalties, database rights and freedom of movement of goods. His recent experience includes: • The Ritz Hotel Ltd v Al Daher [2014] EWHC 2487 (QB): dispute concerning gambling debts resulting in a leading decision in gaming law. • Dorset v Associated Music: Robert acted for the well-known 70’s artiste, Mungo Jerry, in respect of a claim for royalties against a former publisher. The claim was substantial and involved breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and the imposition of a constructive trust. • Choudhury: several defamation cases. Robert acted for a Bangladeshi Supreme Court judge claiming slander and defamation against various political opponents. • Parm Sandhu v Mirror Group: Robert acted for a senior police woman in a libel action against MGN. • Saiph Communications: claim involving VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and involves the construction of the agreement whereby the service was provided and the technical issues involved as to where the third party fraud occurred in respect of which each side has appointed independent IT experts. • Dragonforce v Sanctuary: substantial royalties claim relating to a recording contract involving jurisdiction issues and issues over breach of fiduciary duty. • IMC v Simran: multi-million pound claim in respect of the purchase of software expertise developing a digital distribution platform. The case involved the construction of the various agreements (including funding agreements) and the claims for infringement of the copyright in the software. • Carlton Leisure: case involving proceedings against a radio airtime provider in respect of the allotment of media time for a Tamil radio programme. The claim involved the construction of the commercial agreement. • Abstract Sounds/Archive Media/Plastic Head Distribution: Robert acted in respect of several claims involving distribution agreements of DVDs and various media. The claims involved the construction of distribution agreements and claims for passing off, copyright, database right etc. • Mark James v Young Guns: Robert acted for the former manager claiming outstanding commission. Recommendations: • Robert has been recommended continuously as a leading junior by Legal 500 in Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property, Defamation & Privacy and Media & Entertainment. Chambers UK also recommends him for Media & Entertainment. • Legal 500 comments that he is “highly experienced and confidence inspiring, he is quick to respond and thorough in his approach” as well as the fact that “he’s really intelligent and gets right to the facts.” They note that “stands out for his client care abilities, unflappability and general enthusiasm” and that “he combines sound, practical knowledge with a common-sense approach”. • Chambers UK mentions his “impressive record of handling royalty disputes” and that he “is one of the leading experts on the law regarding royalties from digital music sales”. They add that he is “highly experienced and confidence-inspiring, he is quick to respond and thorough in his approach”.
Samuel Frost
Samuel Frost
Family Finance: Samuel specialises in financial cases following the breakdown of a relationship. He frequently represents clients in a broad spectrum of family finance proceedings, including matrimonial finance, transfers of tenancy and applications for interim relief. Samuel also acts in cohabitation disputes and property disputes between unmarried couples under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1990. Samuel’s civil practice means that he can advise fully on the procedural aspects of these claims and is very familiar with the law relating to trusts. Outside of court, Samuel represents clients in Private FDRs, arbitrations and mediations. Private Law Children: Samuel regularly acts for both applicant and respondent parents in private law children matters. Samuel’s background in criminal litigation means that he is particularly good at dealing with cases of allegations of physical and sexual abuse as well as cases involving domestic abuse, regularly acting for parents in fact-finding hearings. Samuel is regularly instructed in complex Children Act matters involving parental alienation and intractable hostility. Samuel is also able to advise on the financial aspects of private law children cases, including Schedule 1 Children Act applications. Public Law Children: Samuel appears regularly in care proceedings at all stages from interim care and supervision hearings to final hearings. Samuel’s background in criminal litigation means that he is particularly good at dealing with fact-finding hearings and dealing with sensitive allegations. Personal injury and other civil: Samuel receives instructions in all aspects of personal injury litigation appearing for both claimants and defendants in trials and hearings including CCMCs, Stage 3 oral hearings and infant approval hearings . He often acts in claims arising out of road traffic accidents, as well as those arising in other contexts, such as employers liability, occupiers liability and Highways Act claims. He accepts instructions to provide written advices and to settle pleadings and schedules of losses. He regularly receives instructions with claims involving credit hire and acts for claimants and defendants in contractual disputes. Landlord & Tenant: Samuel has a particular interest in advising and providing representation in residential landlord and tenant proceedings and he has experience in mortgage disputes. Direct access: Samuel is a registered public access practitioner.
Sarah Lucy Cooper
Sarah Lucy Cooper
Domestic Practice: Sarah practises exclusively in family law dealing with both children and financial disputes. She has an expertise in international family cases and is a fluent Spanish speaker able to conduct conferences and mediations in Spanish. Sarah has extensive experience of dealing with jurisdictional disputes whether under forum conveniens, international instruments or otherwise. In relation to financial disputes, Sarah is experienced in conducting financial remedy applications, many involving various types of overseas assets including property, trusts and shareholdings as well as the consideration of bilateral tax accords and dowry proceedings. Sarah has a particular expertise in the consideration of overseas matrimonial regimes. In addition, Sarah has successfully brought various applications for financial relief after an overseas divorce pursuant to Part III MFPA 1984. In relation to children, Sarah regularly conducts child abduction cases under Hague 1980 and 1996 conventions as well as the inherent jurisdiction. She also represents parents in leave to remove applications. She has lengthy experience conducting all types of proceedings under the Children Act 1989 both in relation to private and public law matters. Sarah has an in depth knowledge of the procedural implications of international family cases, including service, obtaining evidence from overseas, instruction of overseas experts, freezing orders and disclosure. Sarah’s acknowledged expertise on international family law issues has resulted in her being asked to speak at various domestic and international conferences including for Resolution, the Bar Council, MBL seminars, the College of Law, the British Spanish Law Association and AIJUDEFA. International Experience Experience in providing expert evidence to Spanish family courts. Listed on the panels of recommended lawyers held by the Spanish and Mexican Consulates in London. Reported Cases: • L v M [2012] EWHC 4299 – Pakistan stranded spouse – jurisdictional dispute in relation to children • R v C &S [2013] EWHC 1295 – Colombia child relocation • Re ML [2013] EWHC 2091 – use of Skype technology in international family cases • C v D [2013] EWHC 2989 – Spain child abduction • Ahmed v Mustafa [2014] EWCA Civ 277 – Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Anti-suit injunction post judgment on financial claims in this jurisdiction • Re C (Abduction Article 13b) [2018] EWCA Civ 2834 • P (A Child) (Abduction: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2021] EWCA Civ 1171 (28 July 2021)
Simon Gladwell
Simon Gladwell
Simon is a seasoned barrister with over 25 years’ experience. He receives instructions in criminal law, family law and on special request certain areas of civil law. He prosecutes (level 3) and defends in the full spectrum of criminal cases, and in all courts including Courts Martial. Simon is dedicated to his cases, he has a friendly and approachable manner, and is regularly requested by clients he has represented before. Simon is Public Access qualified and is happy to provide advice and representation direct to both Criminal Law clients and Family Law clients. This can be in relation to all aspect of a case, including any appeal. Legal 500 Recognition He is recognised in the 2022 edition of Legal 500 as a Leading Junior and has been recognised as such since 2015. The following are quotes from Legal 500. 2021: “Instructed in a wide range of serious criminal offences” “Prosecuting and defending across the full spectrum of criminal cases, Simon Gladwell….. is particularly adept at handling cases involving allegations of serious sexual assault and abuse, both historical and recent. In particular, solicitors praise him for his ability to 'look outside the box when considering issues’.” 2020: ‘Legally knowledgeable with excellent advocacy skills, and able to converse appropriately with lay clients.’ 2019: He has “expertise in sexual offences, drugs, fraud and serious violence cases”. 2017: “A senior junior with vast experience in sexual offences cases”. 2015 & 2016: “expertise in criminal cases involving infectious diseases”.  
Simon Livingstone
Simon Livingstone
Comfortably into my fourth decade of practice, I provide robust, authoritative and commercially minded advice and representation to myriad clients, whilst remaining objective, approachable and retaining my sense of humour. With instructions ranging from magic circle firms to small high street practices, I relish the opportunity to forge a relaxed and close working relationship which is consequently more productive and effective. Undaunted and indefatigable, I am frequently instructed to appear alone against Queen's Counsel. I have been accepting instructions directly from members of the public since the inception of the direct public access scheme, allowing access to services that might ordinarily be prohibitively expensive. Particular expertise in cases involving medical and technical evidence. Reported Cases: • London Clubs Management Ltd. v Hood [2001] IRLR 719 (Disability, reasonable adjustments, sick pay) • Brooks v Smith Corona (UK) Ltd. & Anor. [2002] UKEAT 486/00/2501 (TUPE, effect of former director purchasing business) • Towergate Alliance Associates Ltd. v Jayne [2002] All ER (D) 295 (Mar) (Loans to company director) • Chilli Developments Ltd. v The Commission for the New Towns & Anor. [2008] EWHC 1310 (QB) (Commercial property development, lock-out agreements) • Procomm Consultancy Ltd. v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 561 (TC) (Commercial fraud, director's knowledge) • R v Chapman [2010] Birmingham Crown Court (reported widely in media) (Care assistant, neglect) • King v Medical Services International Ltd. [2012] EWHC 970 (QB) (Harassment and bullying at work, psychiatric injury) • R v Turner [2012] Chelmsford Crown Court (reported widely in media) (Specialist Firearms Command officer, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) • Mardner v Gardner & Ors. [2014] UKEAT 0483/13/2507 (Costs, effect of legal expenses insurance) • Mobile Sourcing Ltd. v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1089 (TC) (Application of fraud exception to director's knowledge)   • Re. McConnell [2016] (Widely reported in media) (Inquest, death in custody, mis-prescription of methadone)   • Re. Carey [2019] (Widely reported in international media) (Inquest, Byron Hamburgers allergy death)
Simon Reevell
Simon Reevell
Simon undertakes the detailed analysis of the financial history of businesses where fraud is suspected to have occurred, with a view to civil litigation or private prosecution. A particular feature of this work is the involvement of UK clearing banks in the unlawful manipulation of SMEs. He has advised in a large number of high-profile cases with values ranging from £5 million to £1.4 billion and is experienced in issues relating to corporate governance (not least as a Member of Parliament from 2010 to 2015 when the national media described him as the “secret weapon” of a Select Committee that had “more direct hits than the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, the FCA and the London Stock Exchange combined”). Simon has a wide experience of the conduct of private prosecutions on behalf of individuals, businesses and national organisations. In this context Simon also advises the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking. Simon provides advice in his capacity as standing counsel to WhistleblowersUK. He also acts for individual whistleblowers facing persecution and seeking justice in relation to their protected disclosures. In the field of criminal law Simon has an established defence practice in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), including cases of murder, manslaughter, terrorism, serious sexual offences and fraud (first degree in Economics including accountancy). He is a Grade 4 prosecutor and accredited rape specialist for the North Eastern Circuit and Inner and Outer London and provides pre-charge advice to CPS NE and CPS SE in cases involving serious sexual offences and homicide Simon is one of the most experienced Military Law barristers in the UK dealing with Courts Martial, AGAI proceedings and Service Complaints. He is also the Editor of Westlaw Courts Martial On-line. Recent cases: SUPREME COURT Pakistan International Airline Corporation v. Times Travel (UK) Ltd [Judgment awaited] Sevilleja v. Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 Criminal Cases: JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS Jones v. Whalley (The Times 31 July 2006) The leading authority on the commencement of a private prosecution rather than seeking review of the decision not to prosecute by a public body. COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) R v Mashuk et al (2019) Comparison of sentencing guidelines in respect of fraudulent trading and fraud per se. R v Mackey distinguished. R v. Ainsworth (The Times 13 September 2006) The authority regarding the relevance of intent to kill as an aggravating feature in a case of murder (see paragraph 10 of Schedule 21 to CJA2003). PROSECUTION • R v. Omokaro et al. Human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation – 14 and 15 year old girls trafficked from Nigeria • R v. S Rape and sexual assault of children by Imam during teaching sessions. • R v. P. Rape of child by teenage relative. • R v. B. Historic allegations of rape over three generations of one family. • R v. L and Others Prosecution of 14 year old for causing death by dangerous driving of 8 year old child. • R v. H Issue of gross negligence manslaughter as between taker of drug overdose and ‘friend’ who provided false address to emergency services. • R v. G PSV driver who killed and injured pedestrians. DEFENCE • R v. Hussain Leading Junior in eight-week terrorism trial of group accused of using aid convoys to Syria to smuggle weapons, equipment and funding to anti-Assad forces. • R v. Large Leading Junior in conspiracy to murder. Ten-week trial as to whether defendant hired assassin to murder his male partner and business partner (‘business’ was supply of Class A drugs) so that he could begin relationship with new girlfriend. • R v. Pickard (Appeared alone). Murder of ex-partner in front of their child. Complex evidence regarding strangulation • R v. Ainsworth (Appeared alone) Double manslaughter and death by dangerous driving caused by coach in dangerous condition failing on steep hill and killing occupants of car at bottom. • R v. Toon Leading Junior in a 12 handed ‘super grass’ case. Allegation of conspiracy to supply Class ‘A’ drugs throughout North of England. Instructed for one of main three defendants. Legal argument for 3 ½ months culminated in a stay of the indictment due to inadequate preservation and disclosure of evidence. • R v. Cameron Leading Junior in trial arising from the riot at HMP Lincoln. Listed as eight-week trial. Most significant ‘C’ Wing prisoner charged with Prison Mutiny and section 18. Case generated nearly 20,000 pages of material. • R v. Smith Leading Junior representing man described as “Britain’s worst ever paedophile” after campaign of rape and sexual abuse against over 20 family members from the early 1950’s until 1992. Successfully argued that a determinative sentence had to be imposed as voluntary cessation of offending in 1990’s precluded definition that he was dangerous. • R v. McKenzie Leading Junior representing elderly man accused of the manslaughter of his wife. She was discovered dead outside the matrimonial home having been left outside for most of the night. Causation defence. Crown offered no evidence after submissions re expert evidence. • R v. O’Keefe Manslaughter, issue as to whether fatal attack of epilepsy could have been caused by heated argument prior to physical contact with deceased. After submissions on conflicting medical evidence Crown offered no evidence. Fraud Cases: • R-v-Worsnop ‘Dead’ and ‘ghost’ account fraud within a national clearing bank. Led by QC who withdrew through illness early in prosecution case and so majority of trial appeared alone. • R-v-Taylor Fraudulent transfer and dispersal of large scale funds within nationally known insurance company. (Also Costs authority of status of cross-served documentation in fee claims for POCA cases). • R v. Russell £2m+ ‘Cisco Board’ fraud. Court Martial Cases: COURTS MARTIAL APPEAL COURT • R v. Ball and Rugg (The Times, 17 February 1998) The authority on the actual disparity between apparently equal sentences of prison and corrective detention. • R v. Preece [2004] All ER (D) 96 Defines parameters for sentencing in cases of absence without leave • R v. Armstrong [2012] EWCA Crim 83 Instructed for a high profile defendant at appeal when prosecution sought to appeal against terminatory ruling. • R v. Blaymire Leading Junior defending a TA soldier facing court martial for manslaughter having shot dead his Troop Sergeant whilst on active service in Iraq. Acquitted after a 6-week trial. Case turned on military’s lack of compliance with mandatory training requirements as set out in Army Operational Shooting Policy. (Type ‘Reevell’ and ‘Blaymire’ into Google and search the web (not just UK pages) to see what emerged during this case about the war in Iraq; when decisions were actually made by government and how much the MoD really cared about the pre-deployment training of the TA.) • R v. D, G and S Defendants in the trial of instructors at AFC Harrogate. All acquitted and additional second trial of D not pursued after legal argument. • R v. Hetherington et al For the leading defendant in the series of trials following the BBC panorama programme’s allegations of systemic bullying at the Infantry Training Centre Catterick. Acquitted after second trial. • R v. Clemie Leading Junior. Smuggling of weapons back from Iraq to sell to organised criminal gangs in Germany. Proceeds used to buy Class A drugs to sell to serving soldiers. Only defendant to be acquitted when prosecution forced to abandon case after submissions re witness impropriety prior to re-trial after initial 5 week trial. • R v. Cooper Relevance of psychiatric evidence of post –operational PTSD to ‘reasonable excuse’ aspect of absence charge. • R v. Ferguson Defence of adult charged with historic rape and tried by court martial because was the son of a service family an offence alleged to have occurred on Sovereign Base on Cyprus. Article 6 issues as tried by 6 MOD civilians rather than 12 randomly selected jurors. Stayed as abuse of process but ruling overturned on interlocutory appeal. Acquitted at conclusion of trial. • R v. A. High profile defence of leading accused following allegations made by Afghan nationals against British soldiers.
Sir Geoffrey Cox KC
Sir Geoffrey Cox KC
Practice: Sir Geoffrey has appeared in many high-profile cases receiving national and international publicity from trial to appeal before the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council and the Supreme Court. He has advised and appeared frequently in overseas jurisdictions including Mauritius, Dubai and the Cayman Islands. Until he took silk, he was Standing Counsel to the Government of Mauritius, advising on legislation and representing the Government in a wide range of private law actions as well as constitutional and public law issues. He was Attorney General for England and Wales and Advocate General for Northern Ireland between July 2018 and February 2020, during which period he was the Chief Legal Adviser to the UK Government. Sir Geoffrey is highly regarded for his versatility and for bringing drive, tactical skill and intellectual precision to each field in which he appears. His advocacy has been described by a professional court journalist in a recent book as “flamboyant” and “extremely persuasive”. He appears in the High Court in civil fraud and asset recovery, commercial, human rights, defamation, and judicial review actions. He appears in the First Tier (Tax) and Upper Tribunals and regularly before the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and is often instructed to lead in commercial actions and arbitrations overseas. Versatility Since his appointment as King’s Counsel in 2003, he has appeared for the Government of Turkey in a commercial action in the Cayman Islands which recovered super yachts worth over $70 million and in the massive Jubilee Line fraud trial; for the multi-millionaire businessman Nicholas Van Hoogstraten in his successful civil appeals against international freezing orders and contempt proceedings and in the criminal hearing which resulted in his acquittal, and for a major international IT company in a successful multi-million pound commercial action before the Dubai World Tribunal. He appeared for multiple appellants in their successful appeals against convictions involving the systematic abuse of the guidelines relating to participating informants by British customs officers in Pakistan. He was instructed on behalf of a billionaire metals trader in proceedings related to his company, RGB Resources, a case involving vast and complex alleged international fraud and huge international asset recovery actions in multiple jurisdictions. He has successfully defended a member of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment charged with war crimes and won a challenge for a major telecommunications company in the First Tier Tax Tribunal to VAT assessments of £250 million. Complex financial crime His many major criminal cases include the conduct of the defence for the main defendant in the Iraqi Nuclear Trigger Trial (UN/UK sanctions - R v Daghir), the appeal of R v Preddy and Dhillon to the House of Lords, for the defence in the first major prosecution for breaching international sanctions against Serbia, in the leading case on money laundering, R v El Kurd, and for the MD of a substantial private Bank (Eurobank) in the Cayman Islands in both the civil and criminal actions involving the money laundering laws; he was subsequently instructed by Deloitte & Touche as liquidators to advise the Bank. He led for the defence in the Jubilee Line fraud trial at the Central Criminal Court and in the trial of officers and soldiers of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment for war crimes. He appeared in a series of trials of police officers accused of corruption all of whom were acquitted (he is described as “flamboyant” and “very persuasive” by Graeme Mclagan in his account of the trials, “Bent Coppers”; Weidenfeld & Nicolson). He appeared for the deputy editor of a national newspaper in the Operation Weeting and Elveden trials and for a high-profile politician in the Cayman Islands in his trial for misconduct in a public office. Human Rights and Judicial Review Sir Geoffrey has great experience in human rights, administrative law and constitutional cases. He appeared in the House of Lords for over 400 widowers in their judicial review appeal against the government for equality of provision in survivors’ benefits (Regina (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2005) 1 W.L.R. 1681). He has appeared in the Privy Council in appeals involving the right to fair elections (Mohammad v Ahmad (1994) WLR 697 PC), the right to the fair treatment for ethnic minorities in schooling (Matadeen v Pointou (1999) AC 9), the rights to freedom of expression, (Ahnee v DPP (1999) 2 A.C. 294) and freedom of conscience (Marie v Electoral Commissioner (2011) UKPC 45). He has recently conducted an articles 2 and 3 ECHR challenge for a former covert human intelligence source by judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision to exclude him from the U.K. Civil and Commercial Sir Geoffrey advises and appears in a wide range of commercial, defamation and breach of confidence cases. He appears frequently in commercial actions and arbitrations overseas. He has led in several major commercial actions before the DIFC Courts and advised and appeared for a commonwealth government in a dispute with international property investors arising from the designation of land as a World Heritage Site. At the time of his appointment as AG, he was advising and leading the counsel team in a major investment arbitration for an international construction company. He has represented a Liverpool football player in disputes with several newspapers and a well-known inventor of forecourt games in his action against a major multi-national oil company for breach of confidence. Disciplinary proceedings and Inquiries Sir Geoffrey also advises and appears in inquiries and disciplinary proceedings for solicitors, for individuals and firms in FCA proceedings and investigations and in the sports arena where he has represented a British Olympic and Commonwealth Games athlete in proceedings for drug abuse and a well-known jockey before the disciplinary panel of the BHA.
Stephanie Wookey
Stephanie Wookey
Commercial: Stephanie is regularly instructed in trials and applications in the County Courts, High Court and Companies Court. She has advised and represented parties to a number of long running, high-value cases, involving complex issues of contract, standards of reasonable care and skill, agency, professional negligence, commercial tenancies, company law, insolvency, gifts, trusts, restitution and consumer credit (including PPI claims). Stephanie has a particular interest in commercial fraud. Stephanie welcomes instructions in areas she has a Masters in Commercial Law in, namely International Commercial Litigation, Restitution and Intellectual Property. Selected cases: • RC v CR (2022): Currently instructed in a complex restrictive covenant dispute, between competing contemporary choir groups. • M v AD & ors (2022): Currently instructed by two of three defendants to a claim, alleging breach of statutory duty under FSMA 2000; breach of contract; negligence; negligence misstatement; and allegedly undisclosed commissions, in respect of investments made in an allegedly fraudulent, unregulated, off-shore property scheme. • A v O (2022): Currently instructed by the Claimant in a claim for a repayment of a loan, which raises novel fiduciary duties points. • J v M (2021): Currently instructed in an equitable accounting claim, regarding properties owned by a previously cohabiting couple. • O v (1) C (2) B Ltd (2020): Led by Robert Deacon, represented the Defendants/Respondents to a claim, in which the Claimant asserts that she is entitled to 50% of a large number of properties acquired during the Claimant’s 20-year relationship with the First Defendant; and an unfair prejudice petition.The case concerned questions of constructive trusts, partnership and proprietary estoppel between unmarried couples https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/couple-argue-over-4m-share-of-property-portfolio-promised-from-a-prison-cell-m7fvjqvml • C (2020): Advised an ex-director on his potential liabilities for false company accounts, upon which his signature was forged. • K v N (2020): Instructed in a number of contractual disputes arising from two property development projects. • S Ltd v B Ltd (2019): Represented the Defendant in a dispute between companies as to the construction of a number of Joint Venture agreements entered into between them and the validity and enforceability of a default interest provision. • Collins v Simonsen v (1) KNFH Ltd (2) Hill [2019] EWHC 2214 (QB): Represented Mr Collins (the donee), at trial and on appeal, in respect of an application for a ‘gift’ of £42,000 to be returned to Ms Simonsen (the donor). The matter in issue was whether the gift had been ‘perfected’, when it was paid to the letting agents handling Mr Collin’s lease, before Ms Simonsen changed her mind. The case demanded an in-depth analysis of the law on gifts and trusts; and required the court to balance competing equitable maxims. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/2214.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-took-my-lover-to-court-to-get-back-42-000-rjgwkvdjg • T v C (2019):Advised the Claimant company in potential claims against a previous director for lost profits, including breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract, breach of confidence and causing loss by unlawful means.The claim settled pre-issue. • Hepworth v D v Lockington (2019): Represented the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant to a claim for breach of contract, in respect of allegedly unpaid commissions totalling c.£92,000. The parties reached agreement, at the door of the court, in which the Claimant’s claim against the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant was dismissed, with costs paid to the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant in full. • Ward & Others v Savill & Others (2018): Instructed by one of over 20 potential defendants in respect of a complex civil fraud claim, brought by over 100 investors, worth over £35,000,000, regarding allegedly fraudulent tax avoidance film schemes, where the total fraud alleged exceeded £100,000,000. The joinder application was opposed on limitation issues and the merits; and has been stayed pending the claimants’ tracing exercise. • E & Others v W Ltd (2018): Represented a group of actors against a production company, for terminating their contracts without notice or payment in lieu. https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/production-news/producer-of-collapsed-wonderland-tour-faces-claim-it-owes-thousands-in-unpaid-fees • CETAS Shipping (2017): Advised the Claimant company on a complicated case of alleged breaches of restrictive covenants, which cost the company over £100,000 in profits. • BH Ltd v M (2016): Successfully represented the Appellant/Defendant on appeal, whose defence had been struck out at trial, in which the company had represented itself. HHJ Vevrecka found that there had been serious procedural irregularities and that very basic safeguards for any party, particularly a litigant in person, had not been observed. • NN v (1) BH (2) Rajesh Singh Pathania (3) Rajeswary Ramasamy (2016): Counsel for the First Defendant in a long-running case, where the Claimant alleged fraud against the Second and Third Defendants, in that they issued or continued proceedings in her name against the First Defendant, without her authority, leading to the First defendant having ‘her’ judgment against him set aside, ‘her’ claim struck out, costs awarded against her and a charging order on her property. The case involved complex issues of fraud, invoking the court’s summary jurisdiction for breach of warranty of authority and third party funding. The Claimant was successful and, without issuing separate proceedings against the Second and Third defendants, the First Defendant was awarded the entirety of his costs incurred since 2011, on an indemnity basis, against the Second and Third Defendants. • BZR Partnership (A Firm) & MC v Gcrypt Ltd (A Firm) & MA, High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (2014): Drafting junior in a high-value commercial claim for outstanding invoices, dating back to 2002, in which the many intricacies were amplified as a result of all the parties and witnesses being related to each other. • Frailing v A Firm, (2013): Represented the Claimant in a complex professional negligence claim, involving issues of agency, fiduciary duties, trusts, gifts and due diligence. Civil: Stephanie is regularly instructed in personal injury, road traffic cases and credit hire matters; and has considerable experience of property disputes. contempt of court matters, insurance matters, insolvency, alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act, in Transport For London licensing appeals and contested probate proceedings. In particular, Stephanie has been frequently instructed to advise and represent actors, models and other artists in respect of breach of statutory duties and breach of contract claims against their agencies and/or hirers. Selected cases: • K v B (2021): Represented the Defendant to protracted proceedings to remove him as executor and trustee of a will. • N (2020): Advised a professional golfer in relation to potential a personal injury claim against the PGA European Tour. • E Ltd v RC (2019): Represented the Respondent at the First and Upper Tier Tribunals (Property Chamber) in relation to breaches of covenants as a result of substantial works carried out to a ground floor flat. • Z v M (2018): Advised the Respondent to an application for an order for sale of a property made by the Respondent’s previous partner, who asserted that she had a beneficial interest in an investment property the Respondent had purchased with a third party. • Dr Efe (2018): Represented the Respondent company to applications for restrictions on its main asset, a property from which the company’s business was operated. The applications were made by the brother of the company’s previous sole director, on his death. The Applicant alleged that he had contributed to the purchase price of the company’s main asset and was, therefore, entitled to a beneficial interest in the same (by way of an implied trust). Successfully made submissions for the applications to be summarily dismissed, with costs to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent, on the morning of the first day of the trial. • K (2017): Advised a man facing contempt of court proceedings for exaggerating injuries he sustained in a car accident and dishonestly attempting to recover £1,000,000 in damages from the other driver.• C v TFL (2015): Represented the claimant, who slipped on water on steps at Kings Cross underground and suffered scarring to her face.   Inquests, Inquiries, Actions Against the Police and Public Authorities and Human Rights: Stephanie was awarded a First Class Honours in the Human Rights module of her Masters in Law. Stephanie is currently assisting with disclosure in relation to a high-profile inquiry in London. She often advises on potential actions against the police and public authorities and has considerable experience of independent prison adjudications and judicial reviews. Stephanie will consider pro-bono instructions in inquests on a case-by-case basis. • P (2022): Represented the family at an inquest into the unexpected death of a man, with mental health issues, shortly after being arrested and attending hospital. • C (2020): Led by Mathew Sherratt QC, instructed pro bono by an ex-serviceman, in respect of complaints and potential civil proceedings against the police and a prison. • AK (2018): Advised a woman on her potential causes of action against the police, as a result of injuries sustained during an arrest and strip-search, which she did not consent to, by using force to restrain and undress her and part her buttocks (arguably amounting to an unlawful intimate search). AK received compensation from the police. • S (2017): Advised a man who wished to sue the police for trespass, conversion, assault and battery, when they turned up at his property with S’s ex-partner and accompanied her while she collected her belongings, allegedly to prevent a breach of the peace. S believed that his ex-partner stole some of his possessions in the process of removing her own from the property, with the assistance of the police. • C (2017): Instructed to represent the family in an inquest regarding the cause of death of a woman suffering with undiagnosed Nocardia and Aspergillosis. Employment: Stephanie undertakes claimant and respondent employment work. Stephanie has advised and represented recruitment agencies, employers and employees in matters involving wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal (including constructive dismissal); sex, age and race and disability discrimination; redundancy disputes; whistle-blowing and protected disclosures; and contractual and discretionary bonus schemes. As a ‘Direct Access’ barrister, Stephanie welcomes instructions in compromise agreements. Stephanie has held seminars on wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal, the changing definition of ‘worker’ over time and redundancy. Selected cases: • DN (2021): Advised on a complicated case of disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments and unlawful deductions of wages, in the context of the COVID19 pandemic. • N v JHH (2020): Represented the Respondent against claims for race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The claims were struck out at a preliminary hearing. • T v JP Morgan (2019): Represented the Claimant in her claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination and victimisation. • B v (1) FF Ltd (2) MM: Successfully represented the Respondents at a Full Merits Hearing, in relation to claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages. • MC v MI & Others (2018): Instructed by a Respondent to a multi-partied case, who is a foreign bank (“the bank”). Allegations included unfair dismissal, detrimental treatment due to ‘whistle blowing’, age discrimination and breaches of the Equality Act 2010. The case was discontinued when the Claimant reached agreement with the other Respondents, prior to a preliminary hearing, in which the bank sought to dismiss the case against it on the basis that it was not the Claimant’s employer, the Equality Act 2010 claims were insufficiently particularised and on forum conveniens arguments. • W v MOW (2017): Successfully represented the Respondent in a document heavy unfair dismissal claim by a director, involving serious allegations of mismanaging company finances. • W v CG Ltd (2016): Successfully represented the Claimant in an unfair (constructive) dismissal claim, in which he resigned due to a unilateral change made to his contract, affecting his bonus payments. The EJ was satisfied that, for the period of time he remained in work after the new scheme was implemented, he was working under protest and had not accepted the variation to his contract. • FF v TB Ltd (2015): Successfully represented the Claimant in a long unfair (constructive) dismissal claim, in which he walked out after a breakdown in relations with his superiors and they reneged on their promise of a raise. • Rahman v Lion Re:Sources Ltd & Kaizen Search Ltd (2012): Persuaded an Employment Judge that the Second Respondent did not make an offer of employment and that no employment contract was agreed with the Claimant, after cross-examining the Claimant and making legal representations at a pre-hearing review. The claim was struck out. Family: Stephanie is regularly instructed in private and public Children Act proceedings, financial dispute resolution and international family law matters. Selected cases: • G v G (2019): Represented the wife in financial dispute resolution proceedings for a long marriage, in which there was an inordinately long period of separation (c.20 years) prior to either party obtaining a divorce and applying for financial remedies - the result being that the wife had paid almost 100% of the former matrimonial home (the parties’ principal asset). • S v C (2016): Successfully opposed the wife’s application for permission to bring proceedings for financial relief in England, due to there being parallel proceeding in the US and in Pakistan. • H v G (2016): Represented the mother, who was granted residence of the child. The social worker had recommended the child live with the father due to the mother’s mental health issues. • W v W (2016): Successfully opposed a dismissal argument in relation to the wife’s application for interest on a lump sum, which was paid almost a year later than envisaged in the order. The husband had also failed to maintain interim monthly payments. Argued that the husband’s failure to continue monthly payments, his intention to retain the properties and his delay in putting them on the market deprived the wife of benefits to his advantage, effectively undermining the whole order for a lump sum, which met the wife’s needs in 2014 but no longer met her needs in 2016. The DDJ was persuaded that these were strong arguments and made directions for a full and final hearing, which put the wife in a strong position with regards to settlement. • Re K (2015): Successfully secured supervised contact for a father who had a lengthy criminal record and had been in prison for serious offences for a number of years. Other historic reported or noteworthy cases: • R v Lababidi (2016): Represented a Defendant club promoter who crashed a hired £130,000 Lamborghini. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/west-end-club-promoter-who-wrecked-hire-lamborghini-in-60-seconds-couldnt-handle-it-a3171786.html • R v Martin Lally [2014] EWCA Crim 1090: Successfully appealed the length of a custodial sentenced imposed for an offence of possession of a bladed article in a public place and breach of a suspended sentence for ABH, without leave of the single judge. Articles/Publicatons: • “Family and Civil Remote Hearings During COVID-19" - https://thomasmore.co.uk/family-remote-hearings.pdf • “COVID-19 and Redundancy” (May 2020) - https://thomasmore.co.uk/Notes%20for%20redundancy%20seminar.pdfhttps://thomasmore.co.uk/tmc-webinar-vlc.mp4 • “Covid19 and Default Judgments - To Request Default Judgment or Not, That is the Question. . .” (April 2020) - https://thomasmore.co.uk/covid-19-and-default-judgements.pdf • “Gifts: When to perfect the imperfect”, Trusts & Estates Law & Tax Journal, December (2019) - https://www.lawjournals.co.uk/trusts-estates-law-and-tax-journal/gifts-when-to-perfect-the-imperfect/ • "Applying Equality and Non-Discrimination Law to Advance Socio-Economic Rights", Cambridge Pro Bono Project’s Submission to the Equal Rights Trust (13 January 2013) • "Making Contact Work: Is the Children and Adoption Act 2006 Enough for Resident Parents and Children?" (2008) 38 Fam. Law 1237 • "What is adultery?" [2008] CUSLJ 41  
Tara McCarthy
Tara McCarthy
She has been instructed as a junior in a number of high-profile murder cases: • Restaurant stabbing (Oxford Crown Court 2002) • Domestic violence (Oxford Crown Court 2002) • Insulin overdose (Central Criminal Court 2005) • Strangulation (Central Criminal Court 2006) • Stabbing (St Albans Crown Court 2006) Tara is on the Crown Prosecution Service rape list and has been instructed to both prosecute and defend in numerous rape and sexual abuse cases. These have included: • Gang rape (as junior at Wood Green Crown Court 2007) • Historic rape allegations (Norwich Crown Court 2006, Woolwich Crown Court 2007) • Incest and sex with animals (Snaresbrook Crown Court 2007) • Child pornography (Sanresbrook Crown Court 2007) • Child cruelty (Wood Green Crown Court 2006, Snaresbrook Crown Court (2008)) • Tara is also regularly instructed to both prosecute and defend in large-scale drug cases. These have been proactive investigations which have included complex disclosure issues. These have included several cases of conspiracy to supply class A drugs across the South Eastern Circuit (Aylesbury Crown Court 2003/2004, Reading Crown Court 2005, Snaresbrook Crown Court 2008). She has also been involved in significant confiscation proceedings. Additional instructions have included a number of large-scale conspiracies and organised crime cases (involving robberies, high-value thefts and handling stolen goods), perjury (Nottingham Crown Court 2007) and violent assaults involving juveniles.  
Tracy Bird
Tracy Bird
Tracy is an experienced junior, with a broad practice in property, landlord and tenant, civil, commercial and family disputes. In addition to her practice as a barrister, Tracy is a qualified civil and commercial mediator. Property and Landlord & Tenant: Tracy regularly advises landlords, tenants and owner occupiers in possession proceedings. Tracy has extensive experience of advising large landlords and housing organisations, including providing advice and training. Tracy has considerable expertise of the following types of disputes: Landlord and tenant (including possession, disrepair and dilapidation claims) Trespass claims Property guardianship claims Leasehold forfeiture (both residential and commercial) TOLATA claims (whether arising from domestic co-ownership or commercial partnership/ventures) Trusts and equitable disputes arising out of property Mortgages and secured loans Injunctions and other interlocutory relief arising out of property disputes Lease interpretation, rent review and service charges Claims before the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Civil/Commercial: Tracy undertakes both Claimant and Defendant work in a wide range of civil and commercial disputes, including: Road traffic claims (including personal injury and credit hire claims arising from such claims) Inheritance claims, including Inheritance Act claims, interpretation, and validity of wills Building and construction disputes Contractual claims (including business to business, and consumer contracts) Regulatory disputes (in particular disputes relating to sports, and disciplinary proceedings bought by governing bodies). Tracy is also happy to provide civil and commercial mediation to parties in disputes. Family: Tracy is experienced in a range of family matters, including public and private law children, divorce and family finance matters. Public Law Children Tracy has extensive experience of public law children cases, however is experienced in dealing with less common cases such as non-accidental injury, sexual abuse, and cases involving cross border, or international elements. Tracy is also experienced in cases involving applications made by NHS trusts for the purposes of medical treatment, and applications for deprivation of liberty. Private Law Children Within her private law children practice Tracy has experience of the usual types of child arrangements disputes, however has experience of less common applications such as: Applications under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) Declarations of Parentage following international surrogacy arrangements (including contested cases) International relocation cases Child Abduction (Hague and Non-Hague Convention cases) Finance Tracy has represented numerous clients in applications for financial remedies. Tracy’s experience includes cases involving overseas property, trusts, company assets and shareholdings.
William Frain-Bell KC
William Frain-Bell KC
Practice: International Law and Arbitration, Commercial Law, General Civil Law, Mediation. In addition to having a particular interest in international arbitration, William has a busy and wide ranging domestic practice at all levels in the fields of personal injury, professional negligence, employment and commercial law. Experience: International Arbitration: Described as ‘outstanding’ in Chambers UK 2013 William is regularly instructed as counsel in international arbitrations around the world and has an excellent knowledge of the various global arbitration bodies including the LCIA, ICC and the DIAC and has significant experience in advising clients on both jurisdictional and enforcement related issues. He is also a Chartered Arbitrator and accredited CEDR Mediator. He has extensive experience in international arbitration, particularly in the Middle East. The majority of his work relates to disputes in the construction, real-estate, finance and energy sectors, which have included disputes relating to a number of large scale infrastructure and development projects. Recent international arbitrations include: ICSID - Cambodia Power Company v Kingdom of Cambodia – Co-counsel for the Claimant in a $250m energy related dispute regarding the construction of a power station. DIAC - Counsel for the claimants in a non-payment dispute with the master developer, in a claim relating to the construction of a sporting arena. DIAC - Counsel for the claimant in an action for recovery of payments made in respect of a villa complex development, following the developer’s failure to meet project milestones. DIAC Arbitration - Counsel for the claimants in an unfair termination arbitration relating to the construction of a twin-tower block in Dubai. DIAC - Junior Counsel for the respondents in an arbitration involving the quality of the construction of the largest structure of its kind in the world. DIAC - Counsel for a developer claimant in respect of proceedings concerning the sale of plots of land in Dubai. Thereafter acted for the claimant in UK High Court enforcement proceedings. DIAC - Counsel for the claimants in a dispute against a developer in respect of a breach of contractual obligations leading to contract termination. ICC - Counsel for the respondent in respect of breach of warranty claims in relation to the non-delivery of aircraft. Offshore Dispute Resolution: William has in particular a significant amount of experience in off-shore dispute resolution. Since 2010 William has been instructed in many of the leading cases in the Dubai World Tribunal (DWT), which tribunal was established in 2009 to deal with claims against Dubai World and its subsidiaries. Recent DWT Cases include: Mohsin Investments Ltd v Limitless LLC (DWT 0001/2012) Junior Counsel (led by Geoffrey Cox QC) for the claimant in AED 18m claim relating to the return of deposits paid for a development site in Dubai. Ahmed Butti v The Palm Jumeirah Co LLC (DWT 0014/2011). Counsel for the successful claimant in AED 3m claim by the claimant for recognition of employee discount in respect of the purchase of two villas. Diamond Developers v Nakheel & Jumeirah Village LLC (DWT/0019/2010) Counsel for the successful claimant in landmark first full trial held before the Dubai World Tribunal. Ruling required Nakheel to finalise agreement to credit in excess of US$8m in down payments on two islands in The World Development to seven plots of land in Jumeirah Village. Nicholson v-Nakheel PJSC (DWT/0015/2011) Counsel for the successful claimant (the former General Counsel of Nakheel) in an employment dispute involving his former employer. O’Donnell v Nakheel PJSC (DWT/0035/2011) Junior Counsel for the successful claimant (the former CEO of the world’s one time largest property developer) in an employment dispute (claim value in excess of US$3.5m) involving his former employer. Dalal v The World LLC and Nakheel PJSC (DWT/0023/2010) Junior Counsel for the successful claimant in an AED50m dispute between a high net worth individual and the master developer of a development of man-made islands. He also has experience in other offshore jurisdictions, including the Cayman Islands where he is currently instructed in a large personal injury claim following an explosion at a plant on the island. Commercial Mediation: William is a CEDR Accredited Mediator and has also acted as counsel in a number of commercial mediations. He has considerable experience in the mediation process and also accepts appointments as mediator.
Zoe Gibbon
Zoe Gibbon
Initially qualifying as a solicitor in 2006, Zoë worked at Nabarro LLP before being called to the Bar in 2009. With this background, Zoë brings an understanding of clients' objectives and a client-focused approach to her practice at the Bar, and it allows her to provide a supportive service to those instructing her. Property: Zoë Gibbon is an enthusiastic property lawyer with considerable experience in a breadth of practice areas. While real property forms the core of her practice, Zoë applies her expertise to all aspects of property law. Zoë’s practice covers the following core areas: • Real Property: all types of constructive and resulting trusts; proprietary estoppel claims; easements; rights of way; boundaries; adverse possession • Business Tenancies: including termination and renewal; break clauses; service charge disputes; rent and rent review, and disrepair and dilapidations claims • Residential and Housing: including forfeiture and possession; breach of covenant and rent claims • Agricultural Law: agricultural holdings; farm business tenancies Probate & Inheritance: Zoë has been awarded Associate Membership of the Association of Contentious Trust & Probate Specialists (ACTAPS) after successfully completing the Association’s three-year membership course. The purpose of membership of ACTAPS is to act as a quality kite mark to demonstrate a lawyer’s experience in this specialist area of the law. Zoë’s practice covers the following core areas: • Contentious Probate: dealing with, upholding or challenging the validity of will Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 • Administration of Estates: covering all issues relating to the administration of estates, including the construction of wills, identity of beneficiaries, deductibility of expenses or debts, and ascertainment of assets, whether contentious or non-contentious • Trusts: Construction of trust deeds, powers and duties of trustees. This further includes trusts of land (including proprietary estoppel claims) Commercial: Zoë has a busy commercial practice, appearing regularly in the County Court and High Court, dealing with preliminary and interlocutory hearings as well as disposal hearings and trials. She is frequently instructed in fast track and multi track trials. Within her paper practice she is regularly instructed to advise and draft pleadings. Zoë often advises in conference, on both the merits of potential claims and tactical options in the on-going management of litigation. Zoë also has experience of providing representation in mediation. Acutely aware of the economic realities of litigation, Zoë aims to seek resolution by negotiation where appropriate, and provides sound and reliable tactical support when a fight is necessary. Family: Acutely aware of costs to clients, financial and emotional, which flow from disputes within the family setting Zoë is committed to conducting cases in a manner designed to achieve the best possible result whilst reflecting individual needs. Whether through careful negotiation or contested trials Zoë teams meticulous preparation and excellent advocacy with a friendly approachable manner with clients. Zoë’s practice covers the following core areas: • Financial Provision: in both divorce & cohabitation cases • Property Disputes • Care and Adoption proceedings: acting for local authorities, parents & children • Residence/Contact Insolvency: Zoë advises on all aspects of corporate and personal insolvency and combines her expertise in this area with a commercial and practical approach. She has acted on behalf of clients including debtors, creditors, companies and directors in both contentious and non-contentious matters. She regularly appears in the High Court including the Companies Court and the Bankruptcy Division and in County Courts across the country. Zoë has experience of the whole host of matters that are encountered with insolvency litigation, whether that be applications being made within insolvency proceedings or other matters such as applications for an administration order, to set aside statutory demands, to dismiss winding up petitions or to restrain advertisement of petitions. She also has experience in transaction avoidance work (e.g. transactions defrauding creditors, preferences & transactions at undervalue). Fraud & Financial Crime: Zoë has successfully represented a number of professional clients accused of false accounting, theft from client accounts. She is very experienced at managing large quantities of documents, disclosure databases and expert forensic evidence. She recently was defence junior counsel in the prosecution of a money service bureau manager who used business to launder criminal proceeds of over £10m at the Central Criminal Court. Direct Public Access: Zoë accepts instructions from members of the public as well as traditional referrals from solicitors.

© 2024 Legalease Ltd. All rights reserved

Registered company in England & Wales No. 2423756 VAT 324572722

Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG