Commercial Dispute Resolution | UK Bar

Brick Court lays claim to some of the leading practitioners in the market. Its barristers are regularly involved in the most high-value and high-profile matters. Recent highlights for members have included: Municipio de Mariana and others v BHP Group (UK) Ltd and another, a large group action seeking compensation for losses caused by the Fundão damcollapse; IBM UK v LzLabs, a breach of contract dispute; and Le Patourel v BT, a £1.2 billion class action concerning overcharges for BT telephone landlines. One source comments: “The set has an outstanding depth and breadth of expertise for all types of commercial disputes and barristers with all levels of experience.”

Essex Court Chambers is regularly involved in some of the most high-value domestic and international commercial disputes. Recent highlights include: The Czech Republic v Diag Human and Josef Stava; Gorbachev v Guriev;and BAT v PwC, amongst numerous other high-profile cases. The set has a deep pool of experts capable of handling commercial cases arising from many different legal areas, such as banking, civil fraud, energy and shipping, to name but a few. An interviewee notes: “The team at Essex Court is peopled with barristers who are quick thinking and able to cut through complicated issues in order to find solutions”.

Fountain Court houses talented commercial litigators at all levels of seniority. Its barristers are regulars in the most high-value and eye-catching cases of the day, routinely appearing in the Commercial Court, Financial List and Chancery Division. Although best known for their skill in banking and finance cases, they undertake a truly broad sweep of work and have involvement in major matters across the commercial spectrum. Recent examples of significant cases handled include: Athena Capital & Others v Secretariat of State of Holy See, a conspiracy and corruption claim arising out of the sale of prime London real estate;Moon & Others v Link Fund Solutions, a group action arising out of the suspension and liquidation of a fund; and the Russian Aircraft insurance claims. Commentators state: “The barristers at Fountain Court can handle the most complex disputes with great skill.” Another source remarks: “Fountain Court has excellent depth and breadth across both senior and junior counsel.”

A set with profound commercial expertise that counts a number of the most well-known litigation barristers in the market within its ranks. Solicitors select One Essex Court for the choicest disputes. Members have been involved in some of the most highly publicised cases of recent times, including: Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Steven Wright, a defamation claim against various bitcoin developers; The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments, a dispute concerning the validity and enforcement of an arbitration award; andQatar v Airbus, a USD2 billion contractual dispute. One commentator reports: “One Essex Court boasts some of the very best barristers at the Commercial Bar, who provide top-quality service and advice you can trust.” Another source remarks: “One Essex Court has an unrivalled depth of commercially experienced counsel.”

3 Verulam Buildings' market-leading reputation arises out of its involvement in headline-grabbing commercial cases. It is well regarded in the fields of banking and finance, financial services and fraud. Recent highlights include major cases: Skatteforvaltningen (The Danish Customs and Tax Administration) v Solo Capital Partners LLP (in special administration) and others, a £2 billion Commercial Court fraud claim bought by the Danish Tax Authority; Various claimants v Serco Group, a securities group action brought under Section 90A of FSMA; and The Eclipse litigation, which concerned a failed filmtaxrelief scheme. One source comments: “They really are the go-to set for banking and finance disputes.” Another adds: “From top to bottom, the set features responsive, commercial and, most importantly, highly talented barristers.”

A strong set with pronounced litigation experience across the commercial market that boasts widely recognised barristers capable of handling complex pieces of litigation. The lawyers here display particular acumen for cases involving shipping and insurance. Recent examples include: London International Exhibition Centre v Allianz Insurance PLC & Others, a claim arising out of business interruption losses caused by COVID-19; and SC BTA Bank v Various, proceedings in the BVI concerning a USD231 million fraud. The set also has a huge contingent of members advising on the Russian aircraft claims. One source comments: “This is a sophisticated set with a deep bench of talent.”

Blackstone Chambers' barristers are au fait with all manner of commercial cases, and are also particularly noted for their acumen in the fraud, financial services, sports law and competition worlds. They regularly get their teeth into the major cases of the day, such as: Munícipio de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Limited & Anor, the largest opt-in group action before the English courts; IMG Data Limited v Perform Content Services Limited, a breach of contract and conspiracy claim; and The Eclipse litigation, claims brought in relation to a failed investment scheme. One source praises the set as “undoubtedly one of the leading firms in the commercial litigation sphere”. Another interviewee notes that the set is “brilliant at handling the most complex and technical international disputes”.

Twenty Essex has excellent commercial litigation capability and barristers who are experienced in arguing matters in all of the highest courts. Barristers here have skill in a number of areas, including intellectual property, insurance, shipping, international arbitration and energy, and are particularly noted for their expertise in private international law. Recent examples of the set's work include: the Russian airline claims (insurance and reinsurance claims following Russia's invasion of Ukraine); Diag Human v Czech Republic, an international commercial court action; and Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc, a cross-border banking dispute. One solicitor remarks: “Twenty Essex is one of the best commercial sets. It has significant depth and breadth across the spectrum of commercial issues and sectors.”

4 New Square Chambers is highlighted by solicitors as “a quality set with talent right across the board, that is strong both in commercial litigation generally and in professional negligence in particular”. The set's barristers are well acquainted with high-value, domestic commercial cases, and also gain recognition for their involvement in high-profile cross-border litigation. Recent examples of the set's impressive work include: Magomedov & Others v TPG & Others, a USD14 billion conspiracy claim; ClientEarth v Shell, a claim that Shell's directors had failed to put in policies reasonably capable of achieving its stated objective to become a net zero business; and Eclipse v HSBC PLC, a £240 million deceit and conspiracy claim.

4 Stone Buildings marshals considerable litigation experience and has long experience of appearing in landmark disputes. Recent examples include Dargamo Holdings Limited v Avonwick Holdings Limited, an appeal arising from a dispute involving allegations of deceit and issues of causation, as well as the high-profile Carillion director disqualification proceedings. Its members also continued to appear in Autonomy Corporation v Michael Lynch, a very large-scale fraud case. A commentator notes: “4 Stone Buildings has brilliant barristers at every level of call and can field an excellent team for even the most complex matters.”

Maitland Chambers is a set whose members are well versed in a wide range of areas of commercial litigation, and who are especially well known for handling company and insolvency-related disputes and cases involving allegations of civil fraud. Members are regularly involved in international cases, and are routinely selected to appear in the most complex of trials. Recent work includes: Barton v Morris, an unjust enrichment claim in the Supreme Court; UC Rusal Plc v Crispian Investments Ltd, a mismanagement and breach of shareholders agreement dispute; and Various Claimants v Glencore, a group action bought under Sections 90 and 90A of FSMA. An interviewee comments that Maitland Chambers houses “barristers with brilliant and highly strategic minds, who apply themselves exceptionally to seeking the best result for the client”.

Members of Quadrant Chambers maintain busy commercial dispute practices and regularly receive an abundance of both domestic and international instructions. Recent matters include: Veranova Bidco Inc v Johnson Matthey PLC, a dispute concerning a share sale and purchase agreement; DAZN v IMG, a dispute concerning football broadcasting rights; and Bahia & Others v Sidhu & others, a £23 million partnership dispute. The set's barristers are highlighted for their insight on complex matters. A commentator praisesthe set as having “a number of very commercial, hands-on barristers who are able to drill into the most complex of claims effortlessly”.

A regular presence in the Commercial Court and Chancery Division, Serle Court is a set noted for its work on extremelyhigh-value commercial disputes, particularly those involving civil fraud. Individuals at the set regularly guide clients through the most stressful and complex cases in the market, many of which are international in scope. Recent cases include: The Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Rajaan, a high-value fraud claim; and Commercial Bank of Kuwait v Butti, a fraud claim arising out of the collapse of NMC Healthcare. Its members also continue to play a role in the Diesel Emissions group litigation. A source commented that “Serle Court has serious talent throughout its ranks”.

Wilberforce Chambers has at its disposal a strong bench of commercial barristers, with particularly impressive capability at silk level. Its members are capable of handling a wide spectrum of commercial matters, including cases arising out of company law, insolvency and civil fraud. The set's barristers are well known for their ability to represent clients in international disputes and regularly appear in a range of jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Recently, its members have appeared in Bourlakova & Others v Bourlakov & Others, a USD3 billion family dispute concerning alleged fraud, and Invest Bank v El-Husseini, a claim seeking relief under Section 423 of the Insolvency Act. Its members also continue to act on Tulip LLP v Bitcoin Association, a very high-profile case from the crypto sector. One interviewee commented: “Wilberforce Chambers is a leading set with some very bright minds who are very capable of taking on the most complicated and sophisticated litigation.”

4 Pump Court exhibits marked capability in the commercial litigation market and has expertise spanning a wide range of disciplines, such as construction, energy, insurance and shipping. Its barristers adroitly tackle international mandates, steering clients through cases across the globe, including in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Members have been involved in a number of high-profile mandates this year, including TATA v DBS, a claim concerning failed IT procurement, and Kolomoisky v AlixPartners, a case concerning breach of fiduciary duty.

South Square operates a thriving commercial dispute practice, and houses a strong bench of leading silks and juniors. Its practitioners are active in sophisticated litigation, with recent cases handled by the team including Primeo Fund v HSBC, a high-value dispute concerning fraud and negligence, and Emtel Ltd v Cellplus Mobile Telecommunications Ltd, an appeal in the Privy Council concerning alleged unlawful cross-subsidies. The set is the clear market leader for commercial cases arising out of insolvency, and is noted for being home to some “exceptional individuals”.

XXIV Old Buildings possesses significant talent in the commercial litigation sphere at both silk and junior level, and has barristers who are praised by interviewees fortheir “expertise in a wide range of commercial areas”. It is regularly involved in key cases across the sector. By way of example, recent matters handled by the tenants include Igiehon v Okunbo and others, a dispute concerning allegations of misappropriation of shares and real property assets. The set has also continued its involvement in Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse, a claim by a Georgian billionaire against a subsidiary of a Swiss bank arising out of allegedly fraudulent acts. Barristers here are not only experienced in handling disputes in the UK, but also frequently act in cases overseas, and have noteworthy experience in jurisdictions in the Middle East and the Caribbean, among many others.

Erskine Chambers stands out for its considerable strength in litigation, and has an experienced silk bench capable of handling multi-jurisdictional disputes. Its barristers have a strong track record in the market, with continued involvement in BAT Industries v PwC, a very high-value professional negligence case, as well as the litigation arising out of the collapse of Carillion. A source reports Erskine Chambers to be “an excellent, go-to set, especially for matters involving Company Act claims”.

Gatehouse Chambers is home to talented silks and juniors, who are regularly sought out for both domestic and cross-border matters, and have appeared in cases stretching as far afield as the Middle East and the Caribbean. Well known for their capabilities in dispute resolution, members at the set make regular appearances before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The barristers here continue to handle complex cases, such as Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners, a claim bought by the Danish Tax Authority relating to alleged tax fraud, and Lush Cosmetics Limited and Cosmetic Warriors Limited v Cosmic Circles Limited and others, a high-value Commercial Court dispute between the Lush UK parent company and its North American franchises. A commentator reports: “The Gatehouse Chambers barristers are consistently excellent, user-friendly and willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved in the case.”

Henderson Chambers is noted for its historic and ongoing group action expertise and “highly respected legal counsel”. Its members also demonstrate expertise in commercial disputes arising from economic torts and product defects. Examples of recent cases include: the Emissions Group Litigation; London Capital & Finance PLC (in Administration) v Thomson & others, a claim arising out of an alleged Ponzi scheme; and Qatar Airways v Airbus, a £2 billion commercial claim in relation to alleged defects of A350 aircraft.

Littleton Chambers has a highly creditable domestic and international commercial dispute resolution practice. Its barristers are recognised for their involvement in widely publicised cases, including those from different jurisdictions. Recent examples of the complex work handled by the barristers at Littleton Chambers include: Gorbachev v Guriev, a billion-dollar commercial fraud case; and Athena Capital Fund v Secretariat of the Holy See, an action seeking declaratory relief in respect of a high-value property transaction in Chelsea’s Sloane Avenue. With an impressive record across the market, its barristers are often called upon to represent clients before the highest courts. One source comments: “Littleton Chambers has an excellent choice of very skilled barristers who can handle complex and strategically important litigation well.”

Radcliffe Chambers houses experienced barristers across a broad variety of commercial disputes. It demonstrates particular expertise across company, pensions and insolvency disputes, with its members regularly featuring in the High Court and the Chancery Division. Recent cases include HSBC v Newocean (Shenzhen) Energy Investment Limited & Sound Hong Kong Limited, which concerned heavily contested applications for the appointment of liquidators over companies incorporated in British Virgin Islands. Members also acted in director disqualification proceedings arising out of the collapse of Carillion PLC.