Commercial
James acts in high value disputes across the full range of commercial litigation; he has been recommended in the Legal 500 for commercial work since 2011 and is recommended in this area in the 2025 edition of Chambers and Partners.
James has particular experience of disputes revolving around the proper interpretation of parties’ contracts, including whether and to what extent standard terms form part of the contract; claims on security, in particular those relying on surety liabilities; acting in arbitrations and expert determinations both domestically and internationally, including under the LCIA and ICC rules and under bespoke rules; directors’ and shareholders’ rights and duties; the incidence of duties of care; substantial pre-action and interim applications such as freezing injunctions and other relief; and limitation.
Commercial Cases:
- Two day ICC arbitration hearing in London. Represented a consultant claiming fees arising from its procurement on behalf of a multinational aerospace company of contracts with the Mauritian government. The respondent resisted payment in reliance on alleged ‘red flags’ suggesting possible fraud on the part of the consultant. The consultant was awarded its fees in full.
- Defence, with David Mohyuddin KC, of a £4.5m claim to a beneficial interest in company shares transferred by one side of a two-family company to the other, based upon a recording of the Defendant in conversation with the now-deceased transferor director.
- Acting for a multinational dairy company in a dispute about the conversion of its milk trollies.
- Acting for a Formula 2 and 3 racing team to obtain Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers’ Trust relief following a push payment fraud.
- Claim by the governing body of a sport to recover grant monies paid for a facility not satisfactorily constructed. Issues of interpretation of the grant contract and when and whether an entitlement to reclaim the grant had accrued.
- Acting for a multinational oil company in a dispute with the owner of a number of petrol stations following the termination of the parties’ relationship.
- Appeal against judgment for £850,000 on claim under a bridging loan. The court accepted the argument in the grounds and skeleton James drafted, that the loan interest provisions constituted a penalty and were unenforceable, and granted the appeal, without any attendance on behalf of the appellant (who then acted in person but was too ill to attend the hearing) and despite the respondent being represented by counsel. Seculink Limited v Eren Salih [2023] EWHC 1706 (KB)
- Acting for a government agency in a deceit and conspiracy claim for the recovery of monies against a former temporary worker, including obtaining a freezing order.
- Resisting an application to set aside statutory demands and obtaining bankruptcy orders on guarantee debts of c.£29m owed by two well-known hotel operators.
- Long running dispute regarding the retirement of three of seven partners from a farming partnership with several million pounds of assets. Dispute revolved around the proper interpretation of the partnership deed and whether and when the retiring partners’ half share fell due. Liddle v. Liddle [2019] EWCA Civ 346, [2019] B.P.I.R. 947; [2017] EWHC 2261 (Ch), [2017] B.P.I.R. 1538.
- Successfully resisted conjoined appeals to Freedman J. against the court’s refusal to permit the claimant to change experts, despite the expert’s refusal to continue acting and it being common ground that without new expert evidence the claims would fail. Doyle v. HDI Global Specialty SE [2023] EWHC 2722 (KB)
- Obtaining summary judgment in a £1.1m guarantee claim.
- Three day TCC trial regarding the interpretation of parties’ contract in which an engineer agreed to design ‘sewers’ and whether that obliged it to specify the type of package sewage treatment plant to be used in the care home the claimant was constructing. Limitation issues revolving around when the Defendant’s right to a contractual indemnity accrued under the terms of the contract. Baylham Care Centre Ltd v. Mixbrow Ltd [2019] EWHC 2645 (TCC).
- Appeal to Marcus Smith J. regarding the set-aside of a compromise agreement for mistake of law. Raised issues as to whether it is possible to set aside compromise agreements in circumstances where the matter about which the parties were mistaken was not the subject matter of the compromise between them, but was the premise of the agreement, and as to what constitutes a mistake versus a misprediction. Elston v. King [2020] EWHC 55 (Ch), [2020] B.P.I.R. 501; [2018] B.P.I.R. 1281.
- Appeal to Court of Appeal (David Richards, Newey LJJ.) regarding judge’s refusal to award indemnity costs of enforcing judgment. Judgment makes clear that conduct need not be ‘unusual’, only ‘out of the norm’ (ie. unacceptable) to attract indemnity costs. Whaleys (Bradford) Ltd v Bennett [2017] 6 Costs L.R. 1241.
- Representing the Defendants to an action on a guarantee which raised questions of private international law, the EU Insolvency Regulation and the impact of Irish insolvency law on the enforceability of a guarantee which was subject to English law but given over the indebtedness of an Irish company.
- Successfully represented the Respondent in first Court of Appeal case on interpretation of s.1032 Companies Act 2006: whether restoration of a company to the Register was retroactive so as to validate proceedings issued against it while struck off. Peaktone Ltd v. Jodrell [2013] 1 WLR 784, [2013] 1 All ER 13.
- Representing debtors at first instance and on appeal in test cases against banks under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Teasdale v. HSBC [2010] 4 All ER 630 and Brookes v. HSBC [2011] EWCA Civ 354.
