Practice

Joseph has a litigation-focussed commercial chancery practice, which includes advice, drafting and representation in matters across 4 Stone Buildings’ core practice areas. He is instructed both on his own and (in high profile and high-value cases) led by senior barristers both in and out of Chambers, appearing in both the Commercial Court and the Chancery Division as well as the County Courts.

He is ranked as a leading junior in both the 2016 and 2017 editions of Chambers & Partners, being described in the 2016 edition as a “… well-regarded junior who is building a wide-ranging and impressive practice”, and “… one that the market should keep its eye on due to his ability to work hard, take on responsibility and deliver when under pressure” and, in the 2017 edition, as a “[p]romising junior with experience of handling insolvency and general commercial litigation in the Chancery Division…” who “…has an excellent grasp of the issues and is a pleasure to work with.”

Practice areas

Chancery: commercial

Ranked as a leading commercial chancery junior in both the 2016 and 2017 editions of Chambers & Partners, Joseph has considerable experience in commercial/chancery litigation and advice including fraud and asset recovery. Joseph acts in a broad range of litigation and advisory work in this field, appearing in both the Commercial Court and the Chancery Division as well as the County Courts.Recent work includes:

  • protection of minority shareholders’ interests through s. 994 petitions, derivative claims, just and equitable winding-up petitions and (for offshore jurisdictions) oppression claims;
  • claims for breaches of fiduciary duties against directors;
  • construction of commercial contracts; and
  • the effect of equitable and legal assignments.

Examples of Joseph’s current instructions and recent experience of note in this area include:

  • C v A (Ch): acting (with Alan Maclean QC) for the applicant companies on their claim (including on the applicants’ urgent application for injunctive relief before Snowden J over 3 days) for a declaration that the respondent, who had entered unilateral notices against the applicants’ properties (worth in excess of £2 billion) causing a substantial damage to the applicants, had breached s. 77 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and for consequential damages.
  • Crown Prosecution Service, Proceeds of Crime Unit: instructed as specialist chancery/insolvency counsel (with Jonathan Hall QC) to advise in relation to an investigation into suspected fraud and money laundering of over £1 billion as to the impact upon a worldwide Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 restraint order of the appointment of administrators over the suspect’s companies which are subject to the restraint order and various trust / concealment / evasion / corporate veil issues.
  • Butler v Butler [2016] EWHC 1793 (Ch); [2016] 4 W.L.R. 133: instructed (with John Brisby QC) on the 8-day trial of this substantial claim pursuant to s. 188 Law of Property Act 1925 to divide a valuable collection of Chinese porcelain held as tenants in common – issues included the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction under s. 188, in particular whether the Court can make an order whereby one co-owner purchases another party’s share in the co-owned property.
  • Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2015] EWHC 2232 (Ch): representing (with David Cavender QC and Conn MacEvilly) the defendant at a five-week quantum enquiry into an account of profits arising out of a breach of fiduciary duty related to the alleged commercialisation of ultrasound technology for application to oilfields before Asplin J.
  • Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2012] EWHC 3703 (Ch): representing (with Stephen Atherton QC and Andrew Clutterbuck) the defendant in a 12-day trial before Vos J concerning the imposition of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the claimant.

 

Insolvency & restructuring

Described in the 2016 edition of Chambers and Partners as having “taken significant instructions in the areas of insolvency”, much of Joseph’s practice contains an element of insolvency law. He appears regularly (on his own and led) in the High Court and the County Courts in relation to both corporate insolvency and bankruptcy, advising and acting for petitioners, insolvency practitioners and debtors in winding-up and bankruptcy proceedings. Recent instructions in this area include:

  • applications for injunctions to restrain presentation or advertisement of winding-up petitions;
  • applications to set aside statutory demands;
  • applications for validation orders;
  • applications for rescission/annulment;
  • advising creditors in connection with potential claims against former directors under the IA 1986, including phoenix provisions; and
  • advising debtors in connection with alternatives to compulsory liquidation or bankruptcy, including CVLs, MVLs, CVAs.

His experience ranges from high-value cases, such as acting (with Andrew Clutterbuck QC) for the debtor in Aabar Block SARL v Maud, which, were the petitioners to succeed on all issues, would be the second biggest bankruptcy in English legal history, behind Kevin Maxwell’s £406 million order, to representing and advising creditors, debtors and insolvency practitioners in relation to both corporate insolvency and bankruptcy matters, work that he typically handles on his own and includes:

  • Aabar SARL v Maud [2018] EWHC 1414 (Ch): appeared (with Andrew Clutterbuck QC) before Snowden J on the adjourned hearing of the bankruptcy petition. Held that existence of a collateral purpose which diminished the value of a debtor’s assets was a matter to be considered in the context of class interests and that where joint petitioners subsequently disagreed on seeking a bankruptcy order, the power of the court to act on a claim by only one of the petitioners was dependent upon him showing that the other was acting in breach of trust.
  • Hussein v Hussein; Re Haus of Vanity Limited [2017] EWHC 2615 (Ch): acting as sole counsel for the petitioning creditor/contributory on a winding-up petition heard over two days before Chief Registrar Briggs, in which the Court had to consider whether a winding-up order could be made on a creditor’s petition on the just and equitable ground without determining the petitioner’s locus as a creditor, a question upon which the law was not settled.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2016] EWHC 2175 (Ch) [2016] Bus. L.R. 1243; [2016] B.P.I.R. 1486: appearing (with Andrew Clutterbuck QC) before Snowden J on the debtor’s successful appeal over two days against a bankruptcy order – issues included whether, once it had been determined that a bankruptcy petition was not an abuse of process, the motives or objectives of the petitioning creditor in seeking a bankruptcy order had any relevance to the Court’s consideration of whether to make a bankruptcy order.
  • Crown Prosecution Service, Proceeds of Crime Unit: instructed as specialist chancery/insolvency counsel (with Jonathan Hall QC) to advise in relation to an investigation into suspected fraud and money laundering of over £1 billion as to the impact upon a worldwide Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 restraint order of the appointment of administrators over the suspect’s companies which are subject to the restraint order and various trust / concealment / evasion / corporate veil issues.
  • Slater & Gordon LLP v Darbyshire (High Court Appeal Centre Manchester): appearing (as sole counsel) for the respondent firm in the High Court Appeal Centre Manchester on the full-day hearing of the debtor’s appeal against the dismissal of his application to set aside a statutory demand on grounds that he was not obliged to have brought his alleged counterclaim as part of earlier proceedings pursuant to the principle of Henderson v Henderson res judicata.
  • Reynolds Porter Chamberlain v Senator Khan [2017] I.L.Pr. 13; [2016] B.P.I.R. 722: appearing (as sole counsel) for the petitioning firm of solicitors before Chief Registrar Baister on the hearing of a bankruptcy petition, at which the principal issue in dispute on which there was cross-examination was whether the debtor, who was a citizen of Pakistan, had been ordinarily resident, or had had a place of residence, in England and Wales.
  • An FCA-regulated stockbroker v P: instructed (as sole counsel) in relation to the debtor’s application to set aside a statutory demand presented by the stockbroker on the basis of breach of a settlement deed – key issues included whether the settlement agreement had been entered into under duress.
  • Malik v Johal: acting (as sole counsel) for the trustee in bankruptcy opposing the bankrupt’s application to challenge the trustee’s remuneration and expenses pursuant to rule 18.35 Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016.
  • Re W UK Limited (in Liquidation) & Re Mr WM (in bankruptcy): instructed (as sole counsel) by the wife of the bankrupt former director of a company in liquidation in opposing claims against her in multiple proceedings: firstly a claim by the liquidator that payments to her by the company of over £245,000 were preferences pursuant to s. 239 IA 1986; and secondly a claim by her husband’s trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to ss. 339 and 423 IA 1986 that the transfer to her of her husband’s interest in the matrimonial property was a transaction at an undervalue and/or a transaction to defraud creditors.
  • Edwards v Panesar [2016] EWHC 1944 (Ch): instructed (as sole counsel) by trustees in bankruptcy in relation to application for possession and sale, appearing before Henderson J on an application to set aside an order of Nugee J by which the trustees’ appeal against a refusal of relief from sanction had been struck out.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2016] EWHC 1319 (Ch): appearing (with Andrew Clutterbuck QC) before Snowden J on the debtor’s successful urgent application for a stay of a bankruptcy order pending appeal – principal issues included whether the stay would cause any prejudice to the petitioning creditors and whether the debtor was likely to suffer irreparable harm.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2015] EWHC 3681 (Ch); [2016] B.P.I.R. 227: appearing for the debtor (with Peter Arden QC and Herman Boeddinghaus) on the hearing of a bankruptcy petition – issues included whether the petitioners had an ulterior motive.
  • Re A Company (in liquidation) v B: instructed (as sole counsel) by liquidators of the company re claims against B pursuant to s. 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and in unjust enrichment and knowing receipt.

 

 

Commercial dispute resolution

Described in the 2016 edition of Chambers and Partners as “good at commercial disputes generally”, Joseph advises and acts in a broad range of disputes in this area. Examples of Joseph’s current instructions and recent experience of note in this area include:

  • S (a BVI company) v A (a Cayman company): instructed by the proposed claimant to advise in relation to its proposed claim against its investment manager for damages in excess of US$2 million on account of losses suffered on its investment portfolio.
  • Q Limited v B Limited (a BVI company): instructed (as sole counsel) by the claimant company, who was engaged as the defendants’ agent on the sale of a property for in excess of £19 million, on its claim for damages on account of the defendants’ failure to pay commission following sale in breach of the agency agreement.
  • D (a Maldives company) v E (a Canadian company) (Comm): acting (as sole counsel) for the defendant, E, in relation to the claimant’s £8 million claim for damages on account of E’s alleged breach of a contract to provide various services related to the delivery to the claimant of billing and customer care solutions.
  • T (a BVI company) v H (a BVI company): acting (with John Brisby QC) for a former shareholder in a company which provided an internet flights comparison website in relation to its claim for deferred consideration in excess of £4 million.
  • Butler v Butler [2016] EWHC 1793 (Ch); [2016] 4 W.L.R. 133; [2016] W.T.L.R. 1519: instructed (with John Brisby QC) on the 8-day trial before HHJ Simon Barker QC of this substantial claim pursuant to s. 188 Law of Property Act 1925 to divide a valuable collection of Chinese porcelain held as tenants in common.
  • Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2015] EWHC 2232 (Ch):  representing (with David Cavender QC and Conn MacEvilly) the defendant at a five-week quantum enquiry into an account of profits arising out of a breach of fiduciary duty related to the alleged commercialisation of ultrasound technology for application to oilfields before Asplin J.
  • Corinth Pipeworks S.A. v Barclays Bank PLC v (1) Afras Limited (2) Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar [2010] DIFC CFI 024: appearing (with John Brisby QC) in the Dubai International Financial Centre for the Part 21 defendants in their application before Justice Sir David Steel to strike out Barclays’ claim for a contribution in respect of the Claimant’s claim against it in deceit and/or negligence and/or unlawful conspiracy for damages of over US$24 million.
  • Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2012] EWHC 3703 (Ch): representing (with Stephen Atherton QC and Andrew Clutterbuck) the defendant in a 12-day trial before Vos J concerning the imposition of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the claimant.
  • Orb a.r.l. & Ors v Ruhan (Comm): acting (with Jonathan Crow QC and Sam Neaman) for the defendant in a £250 million claim for damages, equitable compensation and an account of profits arising out of the sale of the Thistle Hotel Group.
  • Aberdeen Global v Satyam Computer Services Ltd (Comm): acting (with Anthony de Garr Robinson QC and Andrew Clutterbuck) for the Aberdeen claimants who claimed damages in deceit against Satyam on the basis that they had been fraudulently induced (by means of a fraud described as ‘India’s Enron’) to purchase shares in Satyam in India, including on Satyam’s application for a stay of proceedings on forum conveniens grounds heard over four days in the Commercial Court before Gloster J. While judgment was pending, the parties agreed to settle the claim for US$68 million.

 

 

 

Banking & finance

Joseph has advised on and appeared in relation to numerous disputes relating to banking and financial services, including the mis-selling of investment products (particularly complex derivative products) to individuals and SMEs and large-scale litigation involving multi-national investment banks. Recent experience in this area includes:

  • S (a BVI company) v A (a Cayman company): instructed by the proposed claimant, S, to advise in relation to its proposed claim against its investment manager, A, for damages in excess of US$2 million on account of losses suffered on its investment portfolio.
  • N v A DFSA regulated bank : instructed (with Richard Hill QC) by the proposed claimant in relation to his claim for over US$4.5 million in damages on account of the DFSA regulated bank’s misrepresentations and or breaches of contractual and/or tortious and/or fiduciary duties as part of the banker-customer relationship.
  • An FCA-registered lender v An internet television provider: instructed (as sole counsel) to advise as to available defences and potential counterclaims available to the potential defendants including as to a potential counterclaim for damages on account of the lender’s alleged breach of contract in refusing to advance further monies.
  • An FCA-regulated stockbroker v P: instructed (as sole counsel) in relation to the stockbroker’s attempts to recover trading debts from the defendant investor – key issues included whether the defendant was an ‘execution only’ client, whether trading was authorised and whether there had been an unauthorised extension of credit to the defendant.
  • An FCA-regulated stockbroker v M:       representing (as sole counsel) the defendant trustee of a pension fund in relation to a claim brought by the fund’s stockbroker arising from a missed margin call in respect of put options in Northern Rock.
  • Interest rate hedging products: seconded to a major international bank to assist with its review of its sales of interest rate hedging products, including structured collars, swaps, simple collars and cap products, to unsophisticated customers.
  • Aberdeen Global v Satyam Computer Services Ltd (Comm): acted for (with Anthony de Garr Robinson QC and Andrew Clutterbuck) the Aberdeen claimants who claimed damages in deceit against Satyam on the basis that they had been fraudulently induced (by means of a fraud described as ‘India’s Enron’) to purchase shares in Satyam in India, including on Satyam’s application for a stay of proceedings on forum conveniens grounds heard over four days in the Commercial Court before Gloster J. While judgment was pending, the parties agreed to settle the claim for US$68 million.
  • Euroption Strategic Fund v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB [2012] EHWC 584 (Comm): assisted Sharif Shivji in a two-week trial before Gloster J in the Commercial Court acting for a hedge fund in this test case about the duties owed by a bank in closing out a customer’s portfolio following a missed margin call.

 

 

 

Fraud – civil

Many of the matters on which Joseph is instructed contain allegations of civil fraud and dishonesty. Examples of Joseph’s recent experience involving such allegations include:

  • Corinth Pipeworks S.A. v Barclays Bank PLC v (1) Afras Limited (2) Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar [2010] DIFC CFI 024: appeared (with John Brisby QC) in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Court of First Instance, for the Part 21 defendants in their application before Justice Sir David Steel to strike out Barclays’ claim for a contribution in respect of the Claimant’s claim against Barclays in deceit and/or negligence and/or unlawful conspiracy for damages of over US$24 million.
  • Aberdeen Global v Satyam Computer Services Ltd (Comm): acted (with Anthony de Garr Robinson QC and Andrew Clutterbuck) for the Aberdeen claimants who claimed damages in deceit against Satyam on the basis that they had been fraudulently induced (by means of a fraud described as ‘India’s Enron’) to purchase shares in Satyam in India, including on Satyam’s application for a stay of proceedings on forum conveniens grounds heard over four days in the Commercial Court before Gloster J. While judgment was pending, the parties agreed to settle the claim for US$68 million.
  • Crown Prosecution Service, Proceeds of Crime Unit: instructed as specialist chancery/insolvency counsel (with Jonathan Hall QC) to advise in relation to an investigation into suspected fraud and money laundering of over £1 billion as to the impact upon a worldwide Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 restraint order of the appointment of administrators over the suspect’s companies which are subject to the restraint order and various trust / concealment / evasion / corporate veil issues.
  • N v P: acted (as sole counsel) for N, a Russian national, on his claim in unjust enrichment and for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the alleged actions of P, another Russian national, in taking a secret commission and in fraudulently diverting sums from N’s personal bank account in respect of a number of property transactions.
  • Karim v Charkham [2014] EWHC 497 (Admin): appeared (as sole counsel) for the Sixth Defendant on a successful application to strike out the claim, which alleged fraudulent acts or omissions on the part of each of the defendants including substantive acts of dishonesty and/or fraud and the misappropriation of funds, and for an extended civil restraint order.
Company law

Joseph has a strong company law practice, with particular experience in shareholder disputes, unfair prejudice petitions (s.994 petitions), just and equitable winding-up and substantial claims against directors and shareholders (for example questions of breach of duty, of directors’ authority (actual or apparent), and of return of dividends). Current and recent instructions include:

  • Re A Company: instructed (as sole counsel) by a shareholder in an insurance brokers to advise on a potential s. 994 petition on account of the majority shareholders’ actions in restructuring the business.
  • Re A Company: instructed (as sole counsel) by a company to advise on potential breaches of ss. 691-694 Companies Act 2006 in purchasing its own shares.
  • Re A Company: instructed (as sole counsel) by a director and 50% shareholder of a company varying on business as a logistics provider on how to protect his interests following the death of the only other director and 50% shareholder.
  • L Limited v P: instructed (as sole counsel) by the company in relation to its claim against a former director and shareholder for breach of director’s duties and breach of non-compete provisions contained in a shareholders agreement.
  • Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2012] EWHC 3703 (Ch): representing (with Stephen Atherton QC and Andrew Clutterbuck) the defendant in a 12-day trial before Vos J concerning the imposition of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the claimant.
Alternative dispute resolution

Joseph also has experience of commercial arbitration and mediation. His work in this area, which is by its nature confidential, includes:

  • advising and acting (as sole counsel) for the potential claimant in connection with arbitration proceedings under CIETAC rules in Beijing, arising out of a contractual dispute;
  • advising and acting (as sole counsel) for the claimant BVI investment vehicle on its claim in arbitration proceedings under ICC rules in London against its Cayman Islands investment manager for damages on account of breaches of its tortious and contractual duties;
  • advising and acting (as sole counsel) for the defendant in connection with arbitration proceedings under ICC rules in London arising out of a contractual dispute.
  • representing (as sole counsel) the defendant trustee of a pension fund in a mediation in relation to a claim brought by the fund’s stockbroker arising from a missed margin call in respect of put options in Northern Rock;
  • representing (as sole counsel) in a mediation the claimant agent in a mediation on its claim on its claim for damages on account of the defendants’ failure to pay commission on the sale of a property for in excess of £19 million;
  • instructed by the Ministry of Defence as part of the counsel team in a multi-million pound arbitration in London relating to marine and terrestrial construction disputes (with Sarah Hannaford QC and Piers Stansfield).

 

Offshore litigation

A large proportion of the cases on which Joseph is instructed have an offshore element, in particular litigation involving offshore trust and corporate structures. In addition to acting and advising in relation to such matters, Joseph has appeared in the courts of the DIFC, Dubai, being a registered advocate with rights of audience in that jurisdiction.

Recent cases with offshore elements include:

  • Re Two Nevis Trusts – instructed (with Orlando Fraser QC) on behalf of the protector of two Nevis trusts on the trustee’s application for directions.
  • S (a BVI company) v A (a Cayman company): instructed (as sole counsel) by the proposed claimant, S, to advise in relation to its proposed claim against its investment manager, A, for damages in excess of US$2 million on account of losses suffered on its investment portfolio.
  • N v A DFSA regulated bank : instructed (with Richard Hill QC) by the proposed claimant in relation to his potential claim in the DIFC for over US$4.5 million in damages on account of the DFSA regulated bank’s misrepresentations and or breaches of contractual and/or tortious and/or fiduciary duties as part of the banker-customer relationship.
  • D (a Maldives company) v E (a Canadian company) (Comm): acting (as sole counsel) for the defendant, E, in relation to the claimant’s £8 million claim for damages on account of E’s alleged breach and/or anticipatory breach and/or repudiatory breach of a contract to provide various services related to the delivery to the claimant of billing and customer care solutions.
  • T (a BVI company) v H (a BVI company): acting (with John Brisby QC) for a former shareholder in a company which provided an internet flights comparison website in relation to its claim for deferred consideration in excess of £4 million.
  • Q Limited v B Limited (a BVI company): instructed (as sole counsel) by the claimant company, who was engaged as the defendants’ agent on the sale of a property for in excess of £19 million, on its claim for damages on account of the defendants’ failure to pay commission following sale in breach of the agency agreement.
  • Corinth Pipeworks S.A. v Barclays Bank PLC v (1) Afras Limited (2) Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar [2010] DIFC CFI 024: appearing (with John Brisby QC) in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Court of First Instance, for the Part 21 defendants in their application before Justice Sir David Steel to strike out Barclays’ claim for a contribution in respect of the Claimant’s claim against Barclays in deceit and/or negligence and/or unlawful conspiracy for damages of over US$24 million.

 

 

Additional info

Cases of Interest
  • Aabar SARL v Maud [2018] EWHC 1414 (Ch): appeared (with Andrew Clutterbuck QC) before Snowden J on the adjourned hearing of the bankruptcy petition. Held that existence of a collateral purpose which diminished the value of a debtor’s assets was a matter to be considered in the context of class interests and that where joint petitioners subsequently disagreed on seeking a bankruptcy order, the power of the court to act on a claim by only one of the petitioners was dependent upon him showing that the other was acting in breach of trust.
  • Hussein v Hussein; Re Haus of Vanity Limited [2017] EWHC 2615 (Ch): appearing (as sole counsel) for the petitioning creditor/contributory on a winding-up petition heard over two days before Chief Registrar Briggs, in which the Court had to consider whether a winding-up order could be made on a creditor’s petition on the just and equitable ground without determining the petitioner’s locus as a creditor, a question upon which the law was not settled.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2016] EWHC 2175 (Ch) [2016] Bus. L.R. 1243; [2016] B.P.I.R. 1486: appeared (with Andrew Clutterbuck QC) for the debtor before Snowden J on his successful appeal over two days against a bankruptcy order – issues included whether, once it had been determined that a bankruptcy petition was not an abuse of process, the motives or objectives of the petitioning creditor in seeking a bankruptcy order had any relevance. Were the petitioners to succeed on all issues, would be the second biggest bankruptcy in English legal history, behind Kevin Maxwell’s £406 million order.
  • C v A (Ch): acted (with Alan Maclean QC) for the applicant companies on their claim (including appearing before Snowden J over 3 days on the applicants’ urgent application for injunctive relief) for a declaration that the respondent, who, on the basis of an alleged claim in matrimonial proceedings, had entered unilateral notices against the applicants’ properties (worth in excess of £2 billion) causing a pending sale of one such property to fall through with substantial consequential damage to the applicants, had breached s. 77 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and for consequential damages.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2016] EWHC 1319 (Ch): appearing (with Andrew Clutterbuck QC) before Snowden J on the debtor’s successful urgent application for a stay of a bankruptcy order pending appeal – principal issues included whether the stay would cause any prejudice to the petitioning creditors and whether the debtor was likely to suffer irreparable harm.
  • Reynolds Porter Chamberlain v Senator Khan [2017] I.L.Pr. 13; [2016] B.P.I.R. 722: appearing (as sole counsel) for the petitioning firm of solicitors as sole counsel before Chief Registrar Baister at the second hearing of a bankruptcy petition, at which the principal issue in dispute on which there was cross-examination was whether the debtor, who was a citizen of Pakistan, had been ordinarily resident, or had had a place of residence, in England and Wales.
  • Edwards v Panesar [2016] EWHC 1944 (Ch): instructed (as sole counsel) by trustees in bankruptcy in relation to application for possession and sale, appearing before Henderson J on an application to set aside an order of Nugee J by which the trustees’ appeal against a refusal of relief from sanction had been struck out.
  • Butler v Butler [2016] EWHC 1793 (Ch); [2016] 4 W.L.R. 133; [2016] W.T.L.R. 1519: instructed (with John Brisby QC) on the 8-day trial before HHJ Simon Barker QC of this substantial claim pursuant to s. 188 Law of Property Act 1925 to divide a valuable collection of Chinese porcelain held as tenants in common.
  • Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2015] EWHC 2232 (Ch): representing (with David Cavender QC and Conn MacEvilly) the defendant at a five-week quantum enquiry into an account of profits arising out of a breach of fiduciary duty related to the alleged commercialisation of ultrasound technology for application to oilfields before Asplin J.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2015] EWHC 3681 (Ch); [2016] B.P.I.R. 227: appearing (with Peter Arden QC and Herman Boeddinghaus) for the debtor on the hearing of a bankruptcy petition – issues included whether the petitioners had an ulterior motive.
  • Corinth Pipeworks S.A. v Barclays Bank PLC v (1) Afras Limited (2) Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar [2010] DIFC CFI 024: appearing (with John Brisby QC) in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Court of First Instance, for the Part 21 defendants in their application before Justice Sir David Steel to strike out Barclays’ claim for a contribution in respect of the Claimant’s claim against Barclays in deceit and/or negligence and/or unlawful conspiracy for damages of over US$24 million.
  • Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2012] EWHC 3703 (Ch): representing (with Stephen Atherton QC and Andrew Clutterbuck) the defendant in a 12-day trial before Vos J concerning the imposition of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the claimant.
  • Aberdeen Global v Satyam Computer Services Ltd (Comm): acting (with Anthony de Garr Robinson QC and Andrew Clutterbuck) for the Aberdeen claimants who claimed damages in deceit against Satyam on the basis that they had been fraudulently induced (by means of a fraud described as ‘India’s Enron’) to purchase shares in Satyam in India, including on Satyam’s application for a stay of proceedings on forum conveniens grounds heard over four days in the Commercial Court before Gloster J. While judgment was pending, the parties agreed to settle the claim for US$68 million.

 

What the directories and judges say

Chambers and Partners 2017:

“Promising junior with experience of handling insolvency and general commercial litigation in the Chancery Division. He represents clients in UK-based and international cases.”

“He has an excellent grasp of the issues and is a pleasure to work with.”

Chambers and Partners 2016:

“A well-regarded junior who is building a wide-ranging and impressive practice.”

 “He has taken significant instructions in the areas of insolvency and is good at commercial disputes generally.”

 “Certainly one that the market should keep its eye on due to his ability to work hard, take on responsibility and deliver when under pressure.”

Career & appointments

Member of the Commercial Bar Association

Member of the Chancery Bar Association

Associate Member of the Insolvency Lawyers’ Association

Registered advocate with rights of audience before the courts of the DIFC, Dubai

Education & awards

MA (Oxon)
GDL, City University, London

Middle Temple: Queen Mother’s Scholarship (2009); Lord Diplock Scholarship (2008)
Oriel College, Oxford: Academic Scholarship (2006)