James Bogle

• Business and commercial: Litigation and advice arising out of commercial contract disputes, commercial dispute resolution, banking & financial services (including letters of credit and derivatives), shipping & admiralty, international trade, commodity disputes and sale and carriage of goods, civil fraud & asset tracing, economic torts, insurance & reinsurance, conflict of laws/private international law, information technology, confidential information & data protection, director’s duties, shareholder disputes, partnerships & LLPs, offshore litigation, arbitration  & related court applications,  mediation, injunctions & interim relief, regulatory law & investigations, agency disputes, consumer law and debt, personal and corporate insolvency, commercial property litigation, restitutionary claims, restrictive covenants and professional negligence claims.
• Property: Litigation and advice arising out of property ownership, including commercial tenancies, mortgages, co-ownership and trusts, restitutionary claims, nuisance, family financial provision, family property and inheritance, professional negligence, personal injury and judicial review claims.
• Health: Litigation and advice arising out of international nuisance and dumping claims, claims for and against the NHS and pharmaceutical companies, in the Court of Protection, inquests, clinical negligence, personal injury and in health-related public law claims including begining- and end-of-life cases.

Chiefly in health-related areas (GMC, NMC, GOC etc). James is a legal adviser to the General Optical Council.

• Law and Medical Ethics (with Dr Philip Howard)

• Territorial Decoration (TD) (for reserve military service)
• Volunteer Reserves Service Medal (VRSM)

• Chancery Bar Association
• COMBAR (Commercial Bar Association)
• Professional Negligence Bar Association
• Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association
• Human Rights Lawyers Assocation
• Administrative Law Bar Assocation
• Family Law Bar Assocation
• Associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

• French
• German (conversational)
• Italian (conversational)

Cricket, skiing, shooting, fishing. Former Colonel in the Army Reserve.

• King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v XY (by her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) and XZ, 17 December 2024, Court of Appeal (Baker LJ). Leading for the applicant family member XZ. Reporting restrictions orders. Previous orders  of Peel J dated 11 November 2024 and of the Court of Appeal (Baker LJ and Phillips LJ) dated 26 November 2024, were, upon applications by XZ to lift restrictions on identifying XY or her family members, and by the Trust to vary the Court of Appeal order, varied and discharged, respectively, in accordance with a fresh order of Baker LJ. XZ’s application was remitted to a judge of the High Court unless a further transparency order was agreed by consent or XY died. In the event, XY died obviating any further restrictions on publication of her identity.
• King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v XY (by her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) and XZ, Court of Appeal (Peter Jackson LJ), 13 December 2024. Leading for the applicant-appellant family member XZ. End of life decisions. Prolonged disorder of consciousness. Best interests. Applicability of issue estoppel. Official Solicitor. Withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. Procedure. XZ appealed on the grounds that: (1) The deputy judge erred in law on the applicable test for revisiting earlier best interests’ findings. He (a) overlooked the difference between civil litigation and best interests proceedings, where a different test applied, and (b) wrongly applied the principle of finality in litigation, and (c) misdirected himself that the rule of issue estoppel applied in best interests proceedings – An NHS Trust v AF and SJ [2020] EWCOP 55 referred to. The issues raised were not suitable for summary determination. (2) The deputy judge misdirected himself on the correct construction of the order of Arbuthnot J which, it was argued, provided for further discussions on issues surrounding the withdrawal, that it should be interpreted as being consistent with best palliative practice, and that these were not merely matters of detail. (3) The decision to refuse the application was inconsistent with medical guidance and/or incompatible with XY’s Convention Rights under Article 3 in the light of the provisional expert medical opinion on the removal of nutrition and hydration. Permission to appeal was nevertheless refused.
• King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v XY (by her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) and XZ, Court of Protection (John McKendrick KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), 12 December 2024. Leading for the applicant family member XZ. End of life decisions. Prolonged disorder of consciousness. Best interests. Official Solicitor. Withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. Procedure. XY suffered cardiac arrest and was in PDOC since May 2024. Proceedings brought by the Trust for approval of discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment were issued in September 2024 and heard by Arbuthnot J in November 2024. By her order of 11 November, she approved withdrawal of treatment as from 22 November 2024, specifically extubation and withdrawal of a naso-gastric tube with appropriate palliative care to follow. XZ, as a family member applicant, sought permission to appeal and her appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 26 November 2024 which, nevertheless, extended time for withdrawal of treatment until 6 December 2024. An application for interim relief was refused by the ECtHR. On 12 December, XZ applied to the deputy judge for a temporary stay, directions for expert evidence in palliative care, amendments to the Arbuthnot J order and a variation to the transparency order of 27 September 2024 of Peel J. Permission was sought to file a provisional report of a professor of palliative medicine dated 11 December 2024 which pointed to contradictions between the withdrawal order and the order for appropriate palliative care. The deputy judge allowed the evidence of the palliative expert but refused the remainder of the application, finding that the issue of end-of-life care had been fully determined by Arbuthnot J and that the expert report either challenged that determination or else concerned points of detail that could be dealt with by the clinical team. He extended the time for withdrawal of treatment to allow for an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Soophia Khan, Sophie Khan & Co Ltd, Just for Public Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 531, [2024] 1 WLR 4212, Court of Appeal (Newey LJ, Arnold LJ and Nugee LJ). Acting for the Respondent. Committal for contempt. Fitness to plead. Fresh evidence. Persons lacking capacity. Psychiatric evidence. Right to fair trial. Rules of court. Solicitors. A judge had not erred in finding that a former solicitor had capacity to defend proceedings for contempt of court. He was right that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 required both that she was to be assumed to have capacity unless the contrary was established, and that that had to be decided on the balance of probabilities. He was entitled to conclude that a psychiatric report did not persuade him on the balance of probabilities that she lacked capacity.
• St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey, Court of Appeal, [2023] EWCA Civ 1092, Court of Appeal (Peter Jackson LJ, Asplin LJ). Leading for the 3rd and 4th Family Respondents as 2nd and 3rd Applicants-Appellants. Brainstem death. End-of-life decisions. Official Solicitor. Withdrawal. Procedure. Permission to appeal refused for the reasons set out in the judgment of Peter Jackson LJ.
• St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey, Family Division [2023] EWHC 2244 (Fam)(MacDonald J). Leading for the 3rd and 4th Family Respondents. Brainstem death. End-of-life decisions. Official Solicitor. Withdrawal. Procedure. Once a court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, on the proper application of the 2008 Code of Practice for the Diagnosis of Death by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, brain stem death had occurred, there was no basis for a best interests analysis. The task of the court, where a dispute arose, was to confirm that the subject of the application was dead, declare that they had died at a particular time on a particular date and declare that the withdrawal of medical intervention was lawful. The family objected to the diagnosis, to the refusal of their application to file expert medical evidence, and to the procedure whereby the patient, declared brain-stem dead by a witness clinician, rather than a court, could, together with the family, thus be deprived of the right properly to challenge such a diagnosis. The family accordingly sought permission to  appeal to the Court of Appeal (vide supra).
• Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Soophia Khan, Sophie Khan & Co Limited, Just for Public Limited [2023] EWHC 525 (Ch) (Leech J). Acting for the Respondent. Committal for contempt. Contempt of court. Finality. Mitigation. Non-compliance. Protected parties. Reopening cases. Solicitors. A former solicitor, who was a protected party, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court following her continued breaches of orders to deliver up files after the Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened in her practice. She had failed to co-operate and made deliberate attempts to mislead the court into accepting that she had complied with orders whilst continuing to breach them, notwithstanding her earlier committal for contempt.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v Soophia Khan, Sophie Khan & Co Limited, Just for Public Limited [2023] EWHC 302 (Ch) (Leech J). Acting for the Respondent. Civil contempt of court. Breach. Committal for contempt. Delivery up. Intervention in solicitors’ practice. Judgments and orders. Knowledge. Solicitors. The Solicitors Act 1974 Sch.1 Pt I para.1 conferred a power on the Solicitors Regulation Authority to intervene in a solicitor’s practice where there were reasons to suspect dishonesty, and Sch.1 Pt I para.9 permitted the SRA to apply to the court to obtain an order against the solicitor for delivery up of both hard copy and electronic documents, or to obtain an order against a third party where there was reason to suspect that the relevant documents had come into their possession or under their control. A solicitor was held to be in contempt of court for breach of such an order, where the court was satisfied to the criminal standard that her conduct in failing to deliver up certain client and office account ledgers, bank statements, and client files amounted to breaches of paragraph 1 of the order. The court was also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the solicitor’s admissions that she had in her possession and control, at the date of the order, certain items which were listed in the order and that she had committed a breach by failing to make and serve a witness statement by the date specified, explaining what steps she had taken to comply with the order and why she was unable to do so. Despite medical evidence to contrary, it was held that the solicitor appreciated that her failure amounted to a breach of the order and the application for committal was granted but suspended for 42 days allowing the Respondent time to appeal.
• Mex Clearing Ltd V (1) Mex Securities Sarl (2) Multibank FX International Corporation (3) Von Der Heydt Invest SA BVIHC (Com) 2020/0215, 2021/0003 and 2021/0073 [2022] Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (BVI) (Commercial Division), Jack J [Ag], 17 January 2022. Leading for the Claimant assisted by a BVI QC. Financial services. Conspiracy to defraud. Fraud. Jurisdiction. Forum non conveniens. Service out. Judgment on forum and service out. There were 3 applications before the court: (a) the application of VDHI to serve Mex Clearing out of the jurisdiction (b) the application of Mex Clearing pursuant to CPR 9.7(1), 9.7A(1) and 9.7(6)(a) to challenge the court’s jurisdiction over it, and (c) MBFX’s application also challenging the court’s jurisdiction. Mex Clearing, the Claimant, was incorporated in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, whilst MBFX was incorporated in the BVI. MBFX was therefore served as of right with the various proceedings. Each of their applications for a stay of the action were based on the BVI territory being a forum non conveniens. Both Mex Clearing and MBFX said that the ordinary courts of the United Arab Emirates in Dubai were available and a better venue. MBFX on its application bore the burden of showing that UAE was a more suitable venue. The Claimant and MBFX said that the main centre of the case was Dubai where the conspiracy was allegedly hatched. The court held that no relevant documents seem to have been written in Arabic and only 2 of the parties lived in Dubai whilst others were resident in London and Luxemburg. The VDHI and VDH AG witnesses had no connection with Dubai. VDHI said that the correct characterisation of the case was of a conspiracy involving Luxemburg, the UAE and the BVI to defraud a Luxemburg company by making untrue claims in the BVI. A letter before action in the BVI led to the Tomlin order purportedly settling the Mex Clearing action as soon as it began and the Tomlin order was only justiciable in the BVI. The court agreed and held that the “natural forum” was the BVI. There was no issue of double actionability under Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356. Even if there were some UAE claim, there would be a risk of irreconcilable decisions, since only the BVI court can set aside the Tomlin order. The court thus dismissed Mex Clearing’s application. The Claimant later appealed.
• University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust v RS, Z, M, S and R [2021] EWCOP 6, [2021] 1 WLUK 255 (Cohen J). Acting for the birth family Respondents. Best interests. Vienna Convention 1963. Public international law and consuls. Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Medical examinations. Remote attendance. Following orders for the removal of life-sustaining treatment, and in response to an application by the Hospital Trust, the birth family, having previously failed to reverse such orders, sought (i) that the patient, a Polish citizen living in the UK and a Roman Catholic, and now given diplomatic status by the Polish goivernment, should be visited by the Polish Consul General in hospital, there being two Embassy staff already travelling to the hospital to facilitate the same, (ii) that a Polish medical specialist be permitted access to the medical records and to conduct a remote assessment on the patient (additional assessments in the UK having been refused), so that, (iii) furnished with that report, the Polish Government, could, if felt appropriate, approach the British Government to ensure protection of the patient’s rights, and (iv) that, to ensure that the patient was still alive when that approach was made, feeding and hydration be again reinstated. The Trust sought an order that this was not in the patient’s best interests and that medical records should not be disclosed for the purpose. The Official Solicitor supported the Trust’s application. It was argued for the family that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 required that consular officials be free to “communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them” and to safeguard the interests of “persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State”. The court held that such provisions extended to those in prison, custody or detention but not to those detained in hospital, that the patient, although unable to communicate any wishes, would “plainly” not wish to see the consular officials and that remote medical assessment, without speaking to the treating staff and without seeing the records, notes and scans (access to which was denied), would carry little weight. Accordingly, the hospital was acting in the patient’s best interests by denying the visit/assessment and the court was not impeding the Republic of Poland, or its Consul General, in the execution of rights/obligations under the Vienna Convention. The declarations sought by the family were refused, whereupon, not long after, the patient died.
• Z v RS [2021] EWCA Civ 22, [2021] 1 WLUK 52 (King LJ and Peter Jackson LJ). Acting for the birth family Applicants. Best interests. Brain damage. withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Medical evidence. Prolonged disorder of consciousness. Right to life. The birth family of a man who had sustained severe brain damage and appeared to be moving from a coma to a vegetative state were denied permission to appeal against a decision that it was not in his best interests to receive food and water by tube. The court refused permission to appeal and held that the decisions were rightly based upon the medical evidence, and that there was nothing in the contention that the withdrawal of food and water from someone who was possibly capable of suffering or feeling pain was incompatible with Article 2 (the right to life) of the Convention. The court did not expressly consider the contention that Article 3 (freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment) might be engaged. Per King LJ, the court would review an earlier best interests determination on the production of compelling new evidence, but not on partially informed or ill-informed opinion, and the evidence of the Polish doctor proposed, albeit incomplete, did not fall into that category. Appeal refused.
• Mex Securities SarL v Suncap Scoop SA and Ardilla Segur SA; Suncap Scoop SA and Ardilla Segur SA v Mex Australia Pty Ltd, NSW Supreme Court, Equity Division, Commercial List. Acting successfully for the Defendant, Mex Australia Pty Ltd. Financial services. Note issue and securitization. Asset Management. Trust funds. Interim freezing and prohibitory injunctions. Joint venture agreements. Dissipation of assets. The proceedings, conducted in the NSW Supreme Court and the courts of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, involving special purposes vehicles and note issue securitisation in Luxembourg, investment managers in Germany and investment of funds through assets managers in Australia and the BVI, were eventually settled successfully in all jurisdictions.
• Taher and ors v Cumberland and ors [2019] EWHC 2589 (QB) (Murray J). Acting successfully for the Claimants (together with Mark Heywood QC). Committal for contempt. Contempt of court. Foreign exchange. Financial services. Interim injunctions. The Claimants had the benefit of orders preventing, inter alia, disparagement and inter-meddling (vide infra). After a further directions order of Turner J on 6 March 2019, the matter, having been certified fit for expedition, came on in June but was adjourned for the 1st Defendant to obtain legal aid, and then, after being certified fit for vacation business, came on in August for a 6-day trial, the 1st Defendant maintaining his defence. Further orders were made which were also breached by the 1st Defendant. After presenting various amended position statements at trial, the 1st Defendant made admissions under pressure of cross-examination by counsel (James Bogle). Judgment was handed down on 4 October 2019, and an immediate 22-month custodial sentence was imposed with a substantial indemnity costs order. The judge found that there had been serious, indeed irreparable, harm with the prospect of yet more if not stopped. This was a successful outcome for the Claimants in litigation that had been on-going for over 2 years.
• Taher and ors v Cumberland and ors [2019] EWHC 524 (QB); [2019] 2 WLUK 553 (Heather Williams QC as a Deputy Judge of the High Court). Acting successfully for the Claimants. Committal for contempt. Contempt of court. Foreign exchange. Freedom of expression. Interim injunctions. Undertakings. Without notice injunctions. The Claimants obtained, without notice, a non-disparagement and non-interference injunction in terms enlarged from previous orders. The Claimants, a successful international financial services group specialising in foreign exchange, CFDs and derivatives, had the benefit of 2 pre-existing consent orders preventing, inter alia, disparagement and inter-meddling by the Defendants but now argued that these had been egregiously breached by the defendants. The judge, on the evidence before her, albeit without notice to the defendants, agreed, and made the orders sought, freedom of speech rights under s.12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and Art.10 of the ECHR, notwithstanding. The jorder also covered “persons unknown” associated with the offending web-sites and search engines, in order to protect the legitimate international business interests of the Claimants. The Claimants’ evidence indicated serious and repeated breaches of orders made in November 2016 and November 2017. Applying s.12(3) of the 1998 Act, the judge concluded that it was likely that the Claimants would establish those breaches at trial if the matter were contested. She held it was also likely that any interference with the Defendants’ rights to freedom of expression would be shown to be justified. There was potential for very serious, indeed irreparable, harm were the conduct in question not injuncted. Particular regard was had to the importance of reputation in the financial services arena in which the Claimants operated. This was a successful application in litigation that had been on-going for 2 years.
• Century Finance Holdings Ltd v Jamtoff Trading Ltd (QB) (Commercial Court) (Andrew Burrows QC) [2018] EWHC 3135 (Comm)  Leading for the Claimant. Fraudulent misrepresentation. Claim to set aside judgment obtained by fraud. Shipping. Letters of credit. Presentation of conforming documents. Delivery up of Bills of lading. Conversion. Fresh evidence. Striking out. Abuse of process. Henderson v Henderson. J had brought proceedings against 3 defendants, including Century, arising out of contracts for the sale of chemicals. J had delivered the chemicals to the buyer, but had not been paid under 2 letters of credit issued by Century. The original judge held that J had been the victim of 2 fraudulent misrepresentations: first, that Century was a bank when it was not, and secondly that the first letter of credit had been issued when it had not. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. Century then brought 2 fresh claims: first to set aside the judge’s order, and secondly for delivery up of the bills of lading for the second consignment of chemicals or for damages for conversion. J applied to strike out Century’s claims as an abuse of process and/or as having no real prospect of success. Century presented fresh evidence which it claimed showed that the original judge had been misled by the fraud of co-defendant P. The court considered that the new evidence made no difference and struck out both claims as abusive and having no prospects.
• R (Miller and anor) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, [2017] UKSC 5 (Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lords Mance, Kerr, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption, Reed, Carnwath , Hughes and Hodge), the UK Supreme Court. The “BREXIT case”. Acting for the 5th intervenor. Constitutional law. European Union. Administrative law. Treaty of the European Union Article 50. Brexit. Devolution. Ministers’ powers and duties. National Assembly for Wales. Northern Ireland Assembly. Parliament. Prerogative powers. Referendums. Scottish Parliament. Sewel convention; Withdrawal from the EU. The Government did not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to TEU art.50(2) for the UK to withdraw from the EU. An Act of Parliament was required. The secretary of state appealed against a decision that the Government could not give notice of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU pursuant to TEU art.50(2) without Parliamentary approval. Devolution questions were raised on a further appeal against a decision that the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland did not affect the Government’s power to give notice under art.50(2). Held: Appeals dismissed, devolution questions answered (Lords Reed, Carnwath and Hughes dissenting as to need for an Act of Parliament before giving notice under art.50(2) of the TEU).
• Ikon International (HK) Holdings Public Co Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd and ors. High Court (QB Commercial Ct) [2015] EWHC 3088 (Comm) (Andrew Smith J). Acting successfully for the Claimant. Civil procedure. Applications without notice. Arbitral proceedings. Dissipation of assets. Freezing injunctions. Joint venture agreements. Urgent applications. The claimant company applied without notice for worldwide freezing orders against the defendants and injunctive relief in support of arbitration proceedings. The Claimant was a joint venture company registered in Hong Kong. The joint venture was to earn profits from providing online services to customers trading from home on personal computers by accessing a trading programme over the internet through which the customers could take a position in stocks, currencies or commodities. The 2nd Defendant and companies in which he was interested had a 50% interest in the joint venture. The remaining 50% was held by another individual (T) and his companies. Trading took place through the 2nd Defendant’s companies and the joint venture agreement provided that he and his companies were to be jointly and severally liable to make and effect the payment of “trading profit”. Under the agreement the obligation to pay the trading profit was to be “absolute and unconditional, free standing and autonomous of all other rights and obligations whatsoever”. The joint venture agreement provided for English law and exclusive jurisdiction. The Claimant sought a worldwide freezing injunction up to £40 million and interim relief under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.44 in support of arbitration proceedings. In order to obtain a freezing injunction a claimant had to show a real risk that a judgment would go unsatisfied if the order was not made and that the order would mitigate that risk, and the claimant’s evidence was just sufficient to cross that threshold. Thereafter, the Defendants settled the underlying claim after lengthy negotiations.
• Edward Scriven v Lee Scriven & Ors, High Court (ChD) [2015] EWHC 1690 (Ch) (Barling J). Acting successfully for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. Breach of trust. Breach of fiduciary duty. Breach of contract. Restitution. Accountant’s duty of care. Breach of duty. Negligence. Agency. Company law. Rights and duties of directors. Shareholders’ rights. Causation of loss. Equitable compensation. Damages. Exemplary damages. Trial. The Claimant alleged that his sons, without his knowledge, wrongfully set out to deprive him of his interests in two businesses and sought substantial damages and other relief from them, his nephew and an accountancy company. Commenced by claim form on 3 April 2012, the trial took nearly six weeks, beginning January 2014 and thereafter continued in various stages until October 2014, with 20 witness of fact, 2 experts and 8 witnesses read, a bundle comprising 55 lever arch files and tens of thousands of documents. Counsel was instructed very late in proceedings (on direct access, for the first 3 Defendants, all of them unwell) to settle statements and for the final CMC, only 6 weeks before trial, other counsel having been instructed 2 years earlier. Counsel received the very large trial bundle only 3 ½ weeks before trial, requiring an extremely heavy and near-impossible workload and was first to cross-examine. The judge later found that “in the course of evidence and submissions, dozens, if not hundreds, of issues of fact emerged”. Nevertheless, the judge dismissed all claims against the first 3 Defendants, doubting the veracity of the Claimant’s case. The extensive claims against the 4th Defendant accountants also failed. Indemnity costs were awarded to all Defendants with substantial interim costs payments ordered.
• Edward Scriven v Lee Scriven & Ors, High Court (ChD) [2014] EWHC 186 (Ch) (Barling J). Acting for the Applicants. Fresh evidence. Specific disclosure. Opportunity for further cross-examination. Overriding objective. The Claimant sought to adduce further witness statement evidence. The Defendants objected. The court ruled that the statement be allowed because (1) a significant part of the material in the witness statement is probably justified as being in response to the 4th Defendant’s notice and the other Defendants’ requests for specific disclosure; (2) whilst there was certainly a quantity of material which was not so attributable – the last one-third or thereabouts of the witness statement – some of this was of a kind which could ordinarily have been introduced by way of supplementary questions in examination-in-chief; (3) the scale of this case was already considerable, the time estimate of 13 days was never realistic and, given the non-availability of experts, it was virtually inevitable that the case was going to be part- heard and the material would not add significantly to the overall length of the trial, nor create any significant disruption to a timetable nor unduly prejudice any party; (4) the exclusion of evidence, not on its face irrelevant or embarrassing, can create a strong sense of injustice, particularly in a family dispute such as this, a consideration of particular weight in the present case.
• Wingfield Financial Heritage Ltd v Ikeji, High Court (QB Appeals) [2014] EWHC 4761 (HHJ Seymour QC). Acting successfully for the Defendant-Respondent. Civil procedure. Costs. Late service. Witness statements. The Caimant-Appellant had been properly ordered to pay the costs incurred in dealing with evidence that it should have filed earlier, notwithstanding that the Defendant-Respondent had filed his own witness statement late. The Master had shown that there was no justification for the Claimant’s delay. When considering a costs order the appeal court was considering the exercise of a broad discretion by a judge who was best placed to make the decision. Appeal dismissed.
• Edward Scriven v Lee Scriven & Ors, High Court (ChD), [2013] EWHC 4223 (Ch) (Edward Murray QC). Acting for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. Civil Procedure. Adjournment. Case Management. Overriding objective. Trials. Application to vacate trial date. Factors relevant to exercise of power to adjourn. Imminent trial. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r.3.1(2)(b), Pt 3 r.3.1(2)(b), Pt 3(2)(b). The judge refusing to vacate trial dates to allow the first 3 defendants to obtain an expert’s report (among other matters), it being too late in the proceedings, a relatively severe example of the court’s reluctance to vacate fixed dates for trial although, as the judge stated, he had “not found this an easy application”, for that reason. The first 3 defendants were thus obliged to go into trial without an expert’s report.
• C F Asset Finance Ltd v Okonji and ors, Court of Appeal, [2014] EWCA Civ 870 (Lord Dyson MR, Sullivan LJ, Patten LJ). Acting successfully for the Defendants-Appellants. Contracts. Agency. Finance agreements. Revocation. Notice. Where a trading agreement between a retailer and a finance company gave the retailer authority to act as the finance company’s agent for the purpose of introducing customers and submitting proposals, it also gave the retailer at least ostensible authority to receive and communicate notice of the revocation of any such proposals. Appeal allowed.
• Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead v David Rawlins and ors, High Court (QB) (2011); Stratford upon Avnon DC v Coward and ors, Birmingham CC (2009); Wychavon DC v Birmingham and ors, High Court (QB) (2008); Stubley v Huntingdonshire DC v Gaskin and anor, High Court 9QB) (2007), Court of Appeal (2007); and numerous similar cases. Acting successfully for the Respondents. Public law. Planning. Setting aside. Regulations. Interpretation. Injunctions. A succession of cases involving the responsibility of local authorities to provide pitches for travellers and the scope and meaning of the guidance issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
• Aboubakare Mavin Ouattara and ors v Trafigura Ltd and Trafigura Beheer BV (2010), High Court, (QB). Acting successfully for the Claimants-Applicants. Group litigation. Nuisance. Illegal dumping of toxic waste. Personal injury. Limitation. Follow-on group action claims (with over 30,000 claimants) arising out of earlier group action claims (which were settled) following the alleged illegal fly-tipping of chemical waste at locations around Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, West Africa, in August 2006, and the subsequent damage suffered by a large number of victims. Publication of the existence of the litigation was initially prevented by “super-injunction”, later released following disclosure under privilege in Parliament. The follow-on litigation was successfully stayed in the English courts and then later successfully transferred to the courts in the Netherlands where the Defendant had been subject to criminal sanctions.
• Kalas v Farmer, Court of Appeal, [2010] EWCA Civ 108, [2010] HLR 2 (Jacob LJ, Lloyd LJ and Stanley Burnton LJ). Acting successfully for the Appellants. Landlord and tenant. Assured tenancies. Surrender. Unlawful eviction. Housing Act 1988. Appeal allowed.
• Re N (A Child) sub nom A v (1) G (2) N (By His Rule 9.5 Guardian); Re N (A Child) sub nom G v A, Aug 2008, High Court, (Fam) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam), [2008] 1 WLR 2743, [2008] 2 FLR 1899 (Munby J). Acting successfully for the Applicant. Civil Procedure. Family law. McKenzie friends. Rights of audience. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Children Act 1989. Novel issues raised in relation to the rights of McKenzie Friends were resolved by the court.
• Lancashire Mortgage Corporation and anor v Ikoku v Onobrakpeya and anor, October 2007, High Court (ChD) (Blackburne J). Acting successfully for the 2nd Defendant. Freezing injunctions. Breach of trust. Breach of fiduciary duty. Solicitors. Partnerships. Restitution. Tracing. Constructive trusts. Declarations. A large sum remitted to a firm of solicitors for the completion of a real property sale having gone missing, the issue of the liability of the firm and its solicitor partners fell to be considered by the court, one partners claiming to have been the victim of a fraud and the other partner having no knowledge of the transaction at all.
• Swindale v Forder & Forder (Intervenor), Court of Appeal, [2007] EWCA Civ 29, (2007) 1 FLR 1905 (Ward LJ, Wilson LJ). Acting for the Intervenor. Civil Procedure. Administration of justice. Amendments and slip rule. Inference of judicial intention.
• Maximus IT Ltd v Bassi [2006], High Court, Queens Bench Division (QB) (Evans J). Acting successfully for the Claimant. Confidence. Breach of covenant. Injunction. Service of documents. The Defendant was held in breach of covenants of confidence and other covenants and interim injunctions were continued, later discharged by settlement.
• Marketmaker Beijing Co Ltd and ors v CMC Group plc and ors [2004] EWHC 2208 (QB), Oct 2004, High Court (QB), [2004] All ER(D) 99 (Stanley Burnton J). Acting for the Claimants-Applicants as junior counsel led by Catherine Newman QC. Contracts. Agency. Banking and finance. Injunctions. Agents. Implied terms. Introducing broker. Foreign exchange and financial derivatives. Chinese criminal and civil law. The Claimants applied to Fulford J, the interim applications judge, without notice to the Defendants, for immediate and wide-ranging relief. However, after a full hearing, the court concluded that the Claimants had no established any properly arguable legal right to justify the injunction and it was discharged. It was not for an English court to resolve differences in the understanding of Chinese law in order to determine a dispute between the parties that is properly before it, nor is it appropriate to the grant of injunctive relief, which would lead the court to determine on a quia timet basis an issue that would best be determined by a Chinese court. The agency injunction and other injunction orders were likewise not predicated upon a sufficient basis to justify them. Injunction discharged.
• Re: F (a bankrupt); F v F and ors (S intervening)(Financial Provision:Bankruptcy:Reviewable disposition) [2002] EWHC 2814 (Fam), [2003] 1 FLR 911, [2003] Fam Law 312, [2003] CLY 1588. Family Division (Coleridge J) and Court of Appeal, [2002] EWCA Civ 1527 (unreported). Acting for the Respondent, later Appellant. Bankruptcy. Reviewable dispositions. Family Law. Matrimonial property and provision. Civil Procedure. Children’s welfare. Disposition of property. Financial provision. Matrimonial property. Setting aside. The wife brought a petition seeking a judicial separation and applied for ancillary relief, seeking a transfer into her name of the matrimonial home together with a lump sum to enable her to discharge the mortgage on the property. The parties had four children under the age of 11. S, the intervenor, was the husband’s former business partner with whom the husband had had a close personal relationship. The husband and S had bought properties together. A charge had been registered against one of the properties in favour of S. A bankruptcy order against the husband had recently been obtained. The wife applied for an annulment of the bankruptcy order and the setting aside of the charge. S applied for a charging order over the matrimonial home, made in respect of a default judgment obtained against the husband for unpaid partnership profit and interest in the properties, to be made absolute.
• Looker v Capital Credit Ltd and City Mortgage Corporation Ltd, May 2002, Central London CC (Chancery List). Acting for the Claimant. Mortgages. Contract. Fraud. Misrepresentation. Mistake. Unfair terms. Exclusion clauses. Consumer and credit contract terms. Extortionate credit bargain. Penalty clauses. Restitution.
• Kent (Administratrix ad colligenda bona of Mabel Chapper) v M & L Management & Legal Limited, March 2002, High Court, [2001] 5 WLUK 334 (QB) (Aylen QC). Acting for the Defendant. Property. Consideration. Striking out. Transactions at an undervalue. Breach of fiduciary duty. Undue influence. Constructive trusts. Disclosure. Injunctions. The court, refusing the application, held that the Claimant had a reasonable prospect of proving that the transfer of a property to the Defendant had been for no consideration or at an undervalue, and a fair trial was still possible notwithstanding the death of the original claimant. The court declined to strike out the claim or to discharge the freezing injunction currently in place.
• R (Smeaton) v Sec of State for Health (Schering Ltd intervening) [2002] EWHC 610 (Admin); Costs [2002] EWHC 886; (Admin); [2002] 2 FLR 146, QBD (Admin)(Munby J). Acting for the Claimant led by Richard Gordon QC. Judicial review. Health. Administrative Law. Criminal law. Statutory Construction. Offences Against The Person Act 1861. Costs. S sought judicial review and a declaration that the prescription or supply of Levonelle (the “morning after” pill) under the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No. 3) Order 2000 was a criminal offence pursuant to the Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.58 and s.59, on the basis that, by operating to prevent the implantation of a fertilised egg, the product constituted an abortifacient rather than a contraceptive. The court held that it was inappropriate to seek to tie the meaning of the word “miscarriage” to the construction that it had borne in 1861 and the word had to be interpreted on the basis of the best scientific and medical knowledge available to the court. “Pregnancy” began once a blastocyst had implanted in the endometrium and “miscarriage” constituted the termination of such a post implantation pregnancy. Contraception which acted to prevent implantation therefore did not constitute the procuration of a miscarriage and accordingly fell outside the ambit of the 1861 Act.
• R (Pretty) v DPP and Sec of State for Health, October 2001, High Court (Div Co), [2001] EWHC (Admin) 788; November 2001, House of Lords, UKHL 61, [2002] 1 AC, [2001] 3 WLR 1598, [2002] 1 FLR 268, HL; April 2002, European Court of Human Rights, [2002] 2 FLR 45, ECHR.  Acting successfully for the 1st intervenor led by Richard Gordon QC. Judicial review. Human rights. Administrative law. Criminal law. Suicide Act 1961. Human Rights Act 1998. European Convention on Human Rights. Aiding and abetting. Right to life. Suicide. P, who was terminally ill with motor neurone disease, applied for judicial review of the DPP’s refusal to give an undertaking not to prosecute her husband under the Suicide Act 1961 s.2(1) were he to assist in her death. P maintained that the DPP had infringed her rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.2, Art.3, Art.8, Art.9 or Art.14. The court held that the DPP did not have the power to decide not to prosecute where the acts constituting the offence had yet to be committed, Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Phillip [1995] 1 AC 396 followed. Moreover, an undertaking not to enforce a statutory provision could only be made with the consent of Parliament, R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Ex p Blackburn (No.1) [1968] 2 Q.B. 118 and R v DPP Ex p Chaudhary [1995] 1 Cr App R 136 followed. The right to life under Art.2 and Art.3 of the Convention did not confer a right to die with dignity. Furthermore, the protection of human life was a legitimate social aim which justified interference with the rights to respect for private life and freedom of thought and conscience under Art.8 and Art.9. It followed that the claim of discrimination under Art. 14 must also fail. Application refused.
• Dawodu (a bankrupt) v American Express Bank [2001] BPIR 983, [2002] CLY 2673 (ChD) (Etherton J). Acting successfully for the Defendant. Bankruptcy. Consumer credit. Breach of contract. Loan agreements. Set off. Wrongful deductions. Fraud. Collusion. Miscarriage of justice. It was not appropriate for the court to inquire into a judgment debt upon which a bankruptcy petition was based in a case where the criticisms made were unsustainable in law and merely speculative. Appeal dismissed.
• Naser Taher, Safa Limited and International Investment Foundation v Paul Towey, Paul Group International (Insurance Brokers) Limited and Paul Group Limited, 12 October 2000, High Court (QB) (Pitchford J). Acting successfully for the Plaintiffs. Judgment debtors. Consent order. Setting aside. Penalties. Ex parte orders. Delay. The Defendants, as judgment debtors, applied to set aside a consent order made some 2 years earlier. Counsel, Richard Spearman QC, argued against the consent order on the grounds that: (1) it was a penalty; (2) the order to pay out under the consent order was an ex parte order and thus amenable to review by the court without the need to bring a fresh action; (3) the amounts ordered to be paid by Thomas J were not intended to be cumulative and Klevan J should not have given judgment for the sums cumulatively, in addition to the transfer of all of the assets of the judgement debtors; and (4) only Safa Ltd was entitled to judgment and not all of the Plaintiffs. Counsel for the Plaintiffs (James Bogle) argued that it was now far too late to set aside the order and that the judgment was not cumulataive if properly understood and that all of the Plaintiffs were beneficiaries under the order. The court agreed and declined to set aside the consent order.
• Re S (A child) (Costs), April 2000, Court of Appeal, [2000] 4 WLUK 728, LTL 10/4/2000 (Thorpe LJ, Mance LJ). Acting successfully for the Appellant. Civil Procedure. Family law. Costs. Exceptional circumstances. Judge’s independent discretion. Reporting maliciously. Social Services.
• Gulf International Bank v Balkanbank and ors, High Court (QB) (1999) (Popplewell J). Acting successfully for the 2nd Defendant. Insolvency. Liquidation. Stakeholders. Claims in the fund. Notices. Settlements. Release of funds. The parties to a settlement, and other creditors, sought to litigate various claims in the remaining funds, in litigation between the principal parties and an enquiry as to damages following the release of a worldwide freezing injunction against a defendant. Thereafter proceedings were settled on terms and the fund divided accordingly.
• Safa Ltd v Banque du Caire SAE, [1999] 10 WLUK 673, High Court (QB), October 1999 (Timothy Walker J) ; Jul 2000, Court of Appeal, [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 567, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 600, [2000] 7 WLUK 538, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 323, [2000] CLC 1556, [2000] CLY 285(2000) Ll Rep (Bank) 323 (Schiemann LJ, Waller LJ, Hale LJ). Acting for the Claimant (led by Stanley Brodie QC) and later for the Appellant. Banks. Defences. Fraud. Letters of credit. Letters of Credit/performance. Summary judgments. Bonds. Claim by assignees. Breach of duty. Misrepresentations. Set off. Shipping. Banking. Bills of Exchange. Insurance. Fraud. Civil procedure. S, claiming as assignees of a beneficiary under letters of credit, appealed a decision to refuse an application for summary judgment. S contended that the judge had failed to apply the principle that letters of credit were treated as cash and that they were entitled as of right to the whole of the proceeds under the letters of credit. The court held that it was not an appropriate case for summary judgment in view of the insurance and brokerage situation and the fact that there were potential issues of fraud arising as between the insurance brokers and the bank. Appeal dismissed.
• Naser Taher, Safa Limited and International Investment Foundation v Paul Towey, Paul Group International (Insurance Brokers) Limited and Paul Group Limited, 1 December 1998, High Court (QB) (Steel J). Acting successfully for the Plaintiffs. Charter party. Joint venture. Vessels delayed in Gibraltar. Breach of contract. Urgent application. Insufficiency of damages. Interlocutory mandatory injunction to pay money. Mareva injunction. Jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs applied for an interlocutory mandatory injunction for payment of sums due under contract forthwith. The Admiralty Marshal in Gibraltar was due sums in respect of the purchase of a vessel, in respect of certain guarantees connected therewith and also for expenses, including those of the ship’s crew for so long as the vessel remained in Gibraltar. Clare Ambrose for the Defendants argued against jurisdiction on the ground that the matter was subject to the Irish courts. The Plaintiffs argued that the agreements were within the jurisdiction. The court ruled it had jurisdiction, that the matter was urgent and suitable for the Judge in Chambers. There were a series of contracts and agreements between the First and Second Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The court held it was clear that the Defendant(s) variously, or through the corporate bodies indicated as long ago as 2 October a willingness to pay under a joint venture agreement and this was repeated but no payment was forthcoming and two guarantees were not honoured. A critical juncture had been reached as within 24 hours the Admiralty Marshal was going to withdraw his offer. Counsel for the Plaintiffs (James Bogle) argued that that if the sums were not paid forthwith, not only would the sale collapse but if the ship were not purchased the damages would be substantial, whereas if the ship were purchased the damages claim would be limited and the venture (with another vessel) would have a very good chance of success. The court was satisfied that the order should be made, without prejudice to trial, albeit it was highly exceptional. In addition the existing Mareva injunction was to remain in place if the sums were not paid. Thereafter, committal and sequestration proceedings were threatened but the Defendants settled under the terms of a comprehensive consent order, later agreed and ordered by Thomas J.
• Ardley v LB Wandsworth, September 1999, Central London CC (Chancery List). Acting successfully for the Claimant. Real property. Construction of leases. Unusual covenants.
• Fox v Davies Arnold Cooper (a firm), March 1999, High Court (QB). Acting for the Claimant. Solicitors’ retainer. Professional negligence. Solicitors’ negligence.
• International Investment Foundation and ors v PGI Ltd and ors, December 1998, High Court (QB); Re: PGI (in liquidation), March 1999, High Court (ChD). Acting successfully for the Claimants. Shipping. Carriage of goods by sea. Charter parties. Banking. Bills of Exchange. Letters of Credit. Assignment. Insurance. Lloyd’s register. Admiralty marshal. Breach of contract. Insolvency.
• Allied Irish Bank Ltd v Lewis and anor, October 1997, Central London CC (Chancery List). Acting for the Defendant led by Judith Jackson QC. Banking. Guarantees. Bills of Exchange. Choses in action. Breach of contract. Misrepresentation.
• Taylor v British Telecom, Sir Iain Vallance and ors, October 1997, High Court (QBD). Acting for the Claimant. Interference with contractual relations. Procuring breach of contract. Conspiracy. Intimidation. Restraint of trade. Competition. Breach of contract. Economic torts.
• Hole v Hopkins (t/a Chelsea Luxury Charters), July 1997, High Court (QBD). Acting successfully for the Claimant. Loan. Debt. Execution writs. Scope of powers of HC enforcement officer.
• Chauhan v The Federation of Communication Services Ltd, December 1996, High Court (QBD). Acting successfully for the Claimant. Interference with contractual relations. Procuring breach of contract. Conspiracy. Restraint of trade. Competition. Economic torts.
• Caspian Company Ltd v Derakshandeh, October 1996.  Acting for the Claimant. Long trial. International trade. Contract. Sale and carriage of goods. Shipping. Bills of Exchange. Private international law. Iranian law. Case unresolved as the Legal Aid Board revoked the Defendant’s certificate which the Defendant appealled.
• Bass Holdings Ltd v O’Brien, Sep 1996, High Court (QBD). Acting for the Defendant. Property. Leases. Forfeiture. Unusual Covenants. Judicial discretion.
• Moore and anor v Chaffin-Laird and ors, Jan 1994, High Court (ChD) (Andrew Morritt J). Acting for the Claimant. Freezing injunctions. Shipping. Charter party. Banking. Bills of Sale. Letters of Credit.
• Re: H (Minors)(Abduction:Custody right)(Legal Aid and Costs)(No.2), June 1992, House of Lords, [1992] 2 AC 303; [1992] 3 WLR 198; [1992] 3 All ER 380; [1992] 2 FCR 421; [1993] Fam Law 68 (Lord Griffiths, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle). For the Defendant, as pupil. Costs. Jurisdiction to award.Defendant initially unassisted. Subsequent grant of legal aid. Plaintiff aided throughout. Order for unassisted costs to be paid out of legal aid fund. Order suspended to allow objection. Whether jurisdiction to make order “forthwith”. The Legal Aid Board objected to an order made by the House of Lords that the costs incurred by a defendant in the High Court before the issue of a legal aid certificate should be paid out of the Legal Aid Fund. The Defendant initially bore his own costs but was legally aided from before the conclusion of the proceedings at first instance until the disposal of the appeal by the House of Lords. It was contended for the Board that, under the true construction of s.18 of the 1988 Act, power to make an order for payment of costs by the Board was only exercisable in favour of a person who was an unassisted party at the time the relevant proceedings were finally decided. The Board’s objections were not sustained.