Practice

Joseph has a litigation-focussed commercial chancery practice, which includes advice, drafting and representation in matters across the full range of commercial law. He is equally at home being instructed on his own or as a junior in a wider counsel-team. In addition to appearing regularly in the Chancery Division and the Commercial Court, Joseph appears before the courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre.

He is ranked as a leading junior in the legal directories. He is described in the most recent edition of Chambers and Partners as “[c]lever, thorough and very easy to work with”, “very responsive, tactically very sound, and both user-friendly and time-friendly” and “an excellent advocate, who is a very calm presence.”

In the 2022 Global edition of Chambers and Partners, he is described as “[e]xtremely able and excellent on paper“, having “an extremely impressive command of the law” and “a devastating advocate”.

In previous editions of the legal directories he has been described as “excellent”, “very sensible”, “a great junior barrister who is user-friendly, impressive on the law and robust on his feet”, “impress[ing] with his thorough approach”, “very responsive”, “[v]ery accessible, user-friendly and excellent in court”,  “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 a barrister who “…has an excellent grasp of the issues and is a pleasure to work with.”

Practice areas

Chancery: commercial

First ranked as a leading commercial chancery junior in the 2016 edition of Chambers and Partners and described in a subsequent edition as a “…talented junior who is building a considerable reputation among the Commercial Chancery Bar…”, Joseph has extensive 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 courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre, including in relation to:

  • The 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;
  • The 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:

  • Acting as sole counsel for the potential claimant in protecting his interests as a minority shareholder in a Delaware-incorporated company and its wholly owned English subsidiary.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimant purchaser of a commodity trading business on its claim arising out of a share sale and purchase agreement.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the respondent in opposing a charge-holder’s application to release monies held in escrow to compensate relevant parties in respect of any interests, charges or claims in various properties following the closure of the titles thereto.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the petitioning contributory on her petition to wind up a deadlocked company on the just and equitable ground.
  • Acting (with Alan Maclean KC) for the applicant real estate companies on their application for urgent injunctive relief and their claim for consequential damages in respect of the entry of unilateral notices against their £2 billion property portfolio.
  • Advising (with Jonathan Hall KC) the Crown Prosecution Service, Proceeds of Crime Unit, in relation to an investigation into suspected fraud and money laundering of over £1 billion as to various trust / concealment / evasion / corporate veil issues.
  • Acting (with John Brisby KC) for the defendants in opposing a substantial claim pursuant to s. 188 Law of Property Act 1925 to divide a highly valuable collection of Chinese porcelain held as tenants in common.
  • Acting (with David Cavender KC and Conn MacEvilly) for the defendant in relation to a quantum enquiry into an account of profits arising out of a breach of fiduciary duty related to the alleged commercialisation of ultrasound oilfield technology.
  • Acting (with Stephen Atherton KC and Andrew Clutterbuck) for the defendant in opposing the imposition of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the claimant as part of a joint venture.
Insolvency & restructuring

Joseph is ranked as a leading junior for insolvency in the Legal 500, having been described in Chambers and Partners as “…extremely knowledgeable in relation to the technicalities of insolvency law…” and having “…notable capabilities in contentious 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, creditors and debtors, including in relation to:

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

His experience ranges from high-value cases, such as acting for the joint administrators in Re Petropavlovsk plc (in administration) or for the debtor in Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) Sarl v Maud, potentially one of the biggest bankruptcies in English legal history, 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. Examples of Joseph’s current instructions and recent experience of note in this area include:

  • Acting (with Peter Arden KC) for the joint administrators of an English holding company that owned a group of gold mining and exploration companies operating in eastern Russia in respect of (1) the company’s application for an administration order; (2) the joint administrators’ applications for directions pursuant to para 63 of Schedule B1 to the IA 1986 providing them with liberty to proceed with the sale of the company’s business to a Russian company (3) the company’s application for the convening of creditor meetings in respect of, and the sanction of, a scheme of arrangement; and (4) the ongoing administration.
  • Acting (initially with Michael Fealy KC and then leading Lara Hassell-Hart) for Irish businessman, Derek Quinlan, both (1) in his claim for an injunction restraining Edgeworth, a company associated with Robert Tchenguiz, from pursuing a bankruptcy petition on a petition debt of approximately €119 million, and (2) in opposing the petition itself.
  • Acting (with Peter Arden KC) for the respondent debtor, Glenn Maud, in opposing a bankruptcy petition on an alleged debt of £51 million presented by joint petitioners, an investment company financed by the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund and, Edgeworth.
  • Acting as sole counsel for liquidators in relation to potential claims against former directors in respect of various transactions in the total sum of over £4 million, including on their successful application for orders for production of documents and information and examination pursuant to ss. 235 & 236, IA 1986.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimant law firm in its attempts to recover substantial unpaid fees through applications under s.423, IA 1986.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the respondent former liquidators in opposing the current liquidators’ claim for misfeasance and the repayment of various fees and disbursements which they allege were paid without the consent of the floating charge-holder in breach of rr. 4.218A-E, IR 1986.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the respondent company, a special purpose vehicle for the construction of an anaerobic digestion facility, on its application to restrain advertisement of, and strike out, a winding-up petition.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the defendant former director and shareholder of an insolvent company, in relation to a claim by an invoice-discounting provider for repayment of sums advanced to the company on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation and as to a possible claim pursuant to s. 212, IA 1986.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the respondent trustee in bankruptcy in relation to the bankrupt’s application to challenge the trustee’s remuneration and expenses pursuant to r. 18.35, IR 2016.
  • Advising (with Jonathan Hall KC) the Crown Prosecution Service, Proceeds of Crime Unit, as to the impact upon a worldwide restraint order of the appointment of administrators over the suspect’s companies.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the petitioning law firm on its bankruptcy petition against a former client who was a citizen of Pakistan and was disputing the English court’s jurisdiction.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the wife of the bankrupt former director of a company in liquidation in opposing claims against her in multiple proceedings pursuant to ss. 239, 339 and 423, IA 1986.
Commercial dispute resolution

Joseph is ranked as a leading junior for commercial work in The Legal 500 Middle East English Bar 2022, having been described in Chambers and Partners as having “notable capabilities in … commercial litigation…” and as being “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 include:

  • Acting as sole counsel for the defendant PLC in opposing the claimants’ claim in respect of £4 million earnout payments allegedly due under a share sale and purchase agreement.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the defendant Canadian technology and professional services provider in opposing the claimant’s US$9 million claim for damages for alleged breach of contract in failing to provide various services related to the delivery of billing and customer care solutions.
  • Acting (with George Bompas KC) on the claimant’s US$8 million claim for unpaid fees under an agency agreement for the development of business importing liquified natural gas into Egypt.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimant provider of business services on its claim for damages on account of the defendant solicitors’ firm repudiatory breach of a 36-month £250,000 contract to upgrade its scanning capabilities.
  • Acting as sole counsel for a former shareholder in a company which operated an internet flights comparison website on its claim for deferred consideration in excess of £12 million following the reorganisation and sale of the company for £30 million.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimant on this substantial claim arising out of a share sale and purchase agreement to purchase the entire shareholding of a commodity trading business in Dubai.
  • Advising as sole counsel the proposed claimant in relation to its potential claim against its investment manager for damages in excess of US$2 million on account of losses suffered on its investment portfolio.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimant, which had been 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.
  • Acting (with John Brisby KC) for a former shareholder in a company in relation to its claim for deferred consideration in excess of £4 million pursuant to a share sale and purchase agreement.
  • Acting (with Jonathan Crow KC 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.
  • Acting (with Anthony de Garr Robinson KC and Andrew Clutterbuck) for the claimant, various Aberdeen investment funds, on their claim for damages in deceit against Satyam arising out of a fraud (described as ‘India’s Enron’), including on Satyam’s application for a stay of proceedings on forum conveniensgrounds – while judgment was pending, the parties agreed to settle the claim for US$68 million.
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:

  • Acting as sole counsel for the potential petitioner in respect of his claim for unfair prejudice in respect of a valuable property development group of companies, including substantial claims for compensation against third parties.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the potential respondents to a claim for unfair prejudice in respect of a substantial group of companies which own and operate care homes.
  • Acting (with Andrew de Mestre KC) for the defendant PLC, which owns £4 billion of London real estate, in opposing a claim by shareholder, Hong Kong billionaire, Samuel Tak Lee, that a non pre-emptive placing by which Shaftesbury raised £265 million, was carried out for an improper purpose.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the potential claimant in protecting his interests as a minority shareholder in a Delaware-incorporated company and its wholly owned English subsidiary.
  • Advising a shareholder in an insurance brokers on a potential s. 994 petition on account of the majority shareholders’ actions in restructuring the business.
  • Advising a company on potential breaches of ss. 691-694 CA 2006 in purchasing its own shares.
  • Advising a director and 50% shareholder of a company as to how to protect his interests following the death of the only other director and 50% shareholder.
  • Acting as sole counsel for a 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.
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:

  • Acting (with Sharif Shivji KC) in proceedings in the DIFC, in relation to an AED 1.7 billion syndicated loan facility, which raised issues of duress, misrepresentation, and Sharia finance.
  • Acting (with Richard Hill KC) for the proposed claimant in relation to his claim against a DFSA-regulated bank for over US$4.5 million in damages on account of the bank’s misrepresentations and/or breaches of contractual/tortious/fiduciary duties as part of the banker-customer relationship.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the proposed claimant 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.
  • Advising as sole counsel an internet television provider, the defendant to a claim by an FCA-registered lender for repayment of monies lent, as to available defences and potential counterclaims including for damages on account of the lender’s alleged breach of contract in refusing to advance further monies.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimant stockbroker in its 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.
  • Acting as sole counsel representing 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.
  • Being 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.
  • Assisting Sharif Shivji in a two-week trial before Gloster J in the Commercial Court acting for a hedge fund in a test case about the duties owed by a bank in closing out a customer’s portfolio following a missed margin call.
Fraud – civil

In circumstances where fraud does not lend itself to strict categorisation in particular practice areas or divisions, many of the matters on which Joseph is instructed, whether in the Chancery Division, the Commercial Court or in offshore jurisdictions, contain serious allegations of civil fraud and dishonesty. Examples of Joseph’s experience involving such allegations include:

  • Acting (with John Brisby KC) for the additional defendants in their application in the DIFC 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.
  • Acting (with Anthony de Garr Robinson KC and Andrew Clutterbuck) for the Aberdeen claimants who claimed damages in deceit against Indian company, 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 – the claim was ultimately settled for US$68 million.
  • Advising (with Jonathan Hall KC) the Crown Prosecution Service, Proceeds of Crime Unit in relation to an investigation into suspected fraud and money laundering of over £1 billion.
  • Acting 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.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the sixth defendant on the defendants’ application to strike out a 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.
Arbitration

Joseph has experience of acting in significant institutional international arbitrations. Examples of current and recent instructions in this area, which is by its nature confidential, include:

  • Advising and acting (with George Bompas KC) on the claimant’s US$8 million claim under LCIA Arbitration Rules for unpaid fees under an agency agreement.
  • Advising as sole counsel and acting 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 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.
  • Being 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 KC and Piers Stansfield).
Offshore litigation

Ranked as a leading junior in both the Global edition of Chambers and Partners and the 2023 Middle East edition of The Legal 500, 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 appears regularly in the DIFC courts, being a registered advocate with rights of audience in that jurisdiction. Examples of current and recent instructions in relation to such matters include:

  • Acting (with Sharif Shivji KC) in proceedings in the DIFC, in relation to an AED1.7 billion syndicated loan facility, which raised issues of duress, misrepresentation, and Sharia finance.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimants on their substantial claim in the DIFC arising out of a share sale and purchase agreement to purchase the entire shareholding of a commodity trading business.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the applicant company on its application to set aside an immediate judgment order enforcing a Singapore judgment in the DIFC.
  • Acting (with Richard Hill KC) for the proposed claimant in relation to his potential claim in the DIFC for over US$4.5 million in damages on account of a DFSA-regulated bank’s misrepresentations and/or breaches of contractual and/or tortious and/or fiduciary duties as part of the banker-customer relationship.
  • Acting (with Orlando Fraser KC) on behalf of the protector of two Nevis trusts on the trustee’s application for directions.
  • Acting (with John Brisby KC) for the additional defendants in their application in the DIFC 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.
  • Advising as sole counsel the proposed claimant BVI company in relation to its proposed claim against its investment manager, a Cayman company, for damages in excess of US$2 million on account of losses suffered on its investment portfolio.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the defendant Canadian company in relation to the claimant Maldives company’s £8 million claim for damages on account of the defendant’s alleged breach and/or anticipatory breach and/or repudiatory breach of contract.
  • Acting (with John Brisby KC) for a former shareholder in a BVI company in relation to its claim for deferred consideration in excess of £4 million pursuant to a share sale and purchase agreement.
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimant, who was engaged as the defendant BVI company’s agent on its claim for damages on account of the defendants’ failure to pay commission in breach of an agency agreement.

Additional info

Cases of Interest
  • Re Petropavlovsk plc (in administration) [2023] EWHC 264 (Ch) (insolvency & restructuring; scheme of arrangement) – appeared (with Peter Arden KC) before Michael Green J for the company acting by its joint administrators on its application for the sanction of proposed schemes of arrangement under Part 26 of CA 2006.
  • Re Petropavlovsk plc (in administration) [2022] EWHC 3448 (Ch) (insolvency & restructuring; scheme of arrangement) – appeared (with Peter Arden KC) before Michael Green J for the company acting by its joint administrators on its application for orders convening a meeting of creditors to consider a scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of CA 2006.
  • Re Petropavlovsk plc (in administration) [2022] EWHC 2097 (Ch) (insolvency & restructuring; administration) – appeared (with Peter Arden KC) before Jonathan Hilliard KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) for the joint administrators on their application for directions, including liberty to proceed with the sale of the company’s assets to a Russian company, pursuant to para 63 of Schedule B1 to the IA 1986. The decision provides useful guidance as to the approach to be taken by the court when considering issues relating to sanctions (including the risk that the transaction in question may breach sanctions) in the context of such an application (see in particular paras 9, 76 to 84).
  • Asher & Others v Jaywing plc [2022] EWHC 893 (Ch) (commercial dispute resolution) – acted, leading Josh O’Neill, for the successful Defendant PLC in a two-week trial before Robin Vos (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) – a claim for earn-out payments allegedly due under an SPA, under an allegedly freestanding oral agreement notwithstanding a ‘No Oral Modification Clause’, or alternatively by reason of estoppel.
  • Maud, Re [2020] EWHC 1469 (Ch); [2020] B.P.I.R. 903 (insolvency; bankruptcy petitions; costs): acted as sole counsel for the debtor at a consequential hearing before Snowden J – issues included whether, where there were two bankruptcy petitions and a bankruptcy order was made on the first but not the second, the costs of the second should be paid as a bankruptcy expense.
  • Maud, Re [2020] EWHC 974 (Ch); [2020] B.P.I.R. 903 (insolvency; bankruptcy petitions; abuse of process; class interest): acted as sole counsel for the debtor at 5-day adjourned hearing before Snowden J of a bankruptcy petition presented in 2015 by the petitioner (a company associated with Robert Tchenguiz) on an undisputed debt of over €50 million – issues included (i) whether the petition should be struck out as an abuse of process; and (ii) what order was in the interests of creditors owed in excess of €250 million.
  • Saboowala v (1) Nair (2) Veluthedath (3) RAG Foodstuff Trading LLC (CFI 037/2017; 17 April 2019) (commercial dispute resolution; offshore – DIFC; jurisdiction) – acted as sole counsel for the applicant on full-day hearing of contested amendment application which raised complex issues of jurisdiction.
  • Reliance Wholesale Ltd v AM2PM Feltham Ltd [2019] EWHC 1079 (Ch) (insolvency; appeal; costs): appeared as sole counsel for the appellant/petitioner before Morgan J on successful appeal against decision not to award costs on dismissal of winding-up petition upon payment in full.
  • Maud, Re [2019] EWHC 398 (Ch) (insolvency; disclosure): appeared before Snowden J for the applicant on successful application for specific disclosure in insolvency proceedings.
  • Deansgate 123 LLP v Workman [2019] EWHC 2 (Ch); [2019] B.P.I.R. 341 (insolvency; Henderson v Henderson abuse of process): appeared as sole counsel for the claimant before HHJ Eyre KC in opposing the defendants’ applications to strike out the claimant’s applications under s.423, IA 1986.
  • Passport Special Opportunities Fund, LP v ARY Communications Ltd et al (CFI 039/2016; 29 October 2018) (offshore – DIFC; enforcement; jurisdiction): appeared as sole counsel for the applicant on application to set aside immediate judgment order enforcing a Singapore judgment.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2018] EWHC 1414 (Ch) (insolvency; bankruptcy petitions; collateral purpose; class interest; joint petitioners): appeared (with Andrew Clutterbuck KC) before Snowden J on the adjourned hearing of the bankruptcy petition. Held that a collateral purpose which diminished the value of a debtor’s assets should be considered on class question and that, where joint petitioners 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) (commercial chancery; insolvency; winding-up petitions; just & equitable ground): appeared as sole counsel for the petitioning creditor/contributory on a winding-up petition on the just & equitable ground heard over two days before Chief Registrar Briggs.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2016] EWHC 2175 (Ch) [2016] Bus. L.R. 1243; [2016] B.P.I.R. 1486 (insolvency; bankruptcy petition; appeal; collateral purpose; class interest): appeared (with Andrew Clutterbuck KC) 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 petition was not an abuse of process, the motives of the petitioner in seeking a bankruptcy order had any relevance.
  • Aabar Block SARL v Maud [2016] EWHC 1319 (Ch) (insolvency; bankruptcy petition; stay pending appeal): appeared (with Andrew Clutterbuck KC) before Snowden J on the debtor’s successful urgent application for a stay of a bankruptcy order pending appeal.
  • Reynolds Porter Chamberlain v Senator Khan [2017] I.L.Pr. 13; [2016] B.P.I.R. 722 (insolvency; bankruptcy petition; jurisdiction; residency): appeared as sole counsel for the petitioning firm of solicitors – the principal issue in dispute on which there was cross-examination was whether the debtor, a citizen of Pakistan, had been ordinarily resident, or had had a place of residence, in the jurisdiction.
  • Edwards v Panesar [2016] EWHC 1944 (Ch) (insolvency; application for possession and sale; application to set aside; appeal): instructed by bankruptcy trustees in relation to possession and sale application and appeared before Henderson J on 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 (commercial chancery; tenants in common): instructed (with John Brisby KC) on the 8-day trial before HHJ Simon Barker KC 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) (commercial chancery; account of profits; breach of fiduciary duty; oilfield technology): represented (with David Cavender KC 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. 2271486 (insolvency; bankruptcy petition; collateral purpose; class interest): appeared (with Peter Arden KC 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 (21 April 2014) (commercial dispute resolution; civil fraud; offshore – DIFC): appeared (with John Brisby KC) in DIFC for the Part 21 defendants in their application 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) (commercial chancery; breach of fiduciary duty; joint venture; oilfield technology): representing (with Stephen Atherton KC and Andrew Clutterbuck) the defendant in a 12-day trial before Vos J concerning the imposition of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the claimant as part of a joint venture.
  • Aberdeen Global v Satyam Computer Services Ltd (Comm) (commercial dispute resolution; banking & finance; civil fraud; jurisdiction): acted (with Anthony de Garr Robinson KC and Andrew Clutterbuck) for the Aberdeen claimants who claimed damages in deceit against Satyam on grounds 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 UK Bar 2023 – Chancery: Commercial, Band 4 & Chambers Global 2022 – Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery, Band 4:
Strengths: “Clever, thorough and very easy to work with.” “He is very responsive, tactically very sound, and both user-friendly and time-friendly.” “He is an excellent advocate, who is a very calm presence.”

The Legal 500 UK Bar 2022 – Insolvency, Tier 5

The Legal 500 Middle East English Bar 2022 – Commercial, Tier 2

Chambers UK Bar 2022 – Chancery: Commercial, Band 4 & Chambers Global 2022 – Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery, Band 4:

“Strengths: “Extremely able and excellent on paper.” “He has an extremely impressive command of the law and is a devastating advocate.”
Recent work: Instructed as sole counsel in Saboowala v Nair; Veluthedath; RAG Foodstuffs, a claim brought in the Dubai International Financial Centre arising out of a share sale and purchase agreement to purchase the entire shareholding of a commodity trading business.”

The Legal 500 UK Bar 2022 – Insolvency, Tier 5:
“Joseph has excellent judgment and knows which points to fight and which points to drop.”

The Legal 500 Middle East English Bar 2022 – Commercial, Tier 2:
“He is excellent. Strong legal skills while at the same time user-friendly and very sensible. He understands the demands of his clients and manages them well.”

Chambers UK Bar 2021 – Chancery: Commercial, Band 4 & Chambers Global 2021 – Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery, Band 4:
“He impresses with his thorough approach. He is very responsive and willing to add well-considered comments on points of real detail, keeping in mind the overall objectives of the client in the case. He handles exceptionally complex and extensive pleadings with conviction and is a very valuable member of the team.” “Very accessible, user-friendly and excellent in court.”

Chambers UK Bar 2020 – Chancery: Commercial, Band 4, & Chambers Global 2020 – Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery, Band 4:
“A talented junior who is building a considerable reputation among the Commercial Chancery Bar. He is regularly instructed on a wide array of matters, including notable capabilities in contentious insolvency and commercial litigation.”

“Joe is a great junior barrister who is user-friendly, impressive on the law and robust on his feet.”

“He’s thorough, tenacious and extremely knowledgeable in relation to the technicalities of insolvency law.”

Chambers UK Bar 2017 – Chancery: Commercial, Up and Coming:
“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 UK Bar 2016 – Chancery: Commercial, Up and Coming:
“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
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)