James regularly appears in the County Court representing defendant airlines in relation to claims made by passengers under EU Regulation 261/2004 and the Montreal Convention.

During pupillage, James’s experience included a claim in which the purchaser of a part-share in an aircraft sought US$4m on the grounds of non-delivery, breach of contract, and conversion.

During pupillage, James gained experience across a range of banking and financial services matters, including:

• Mis-selling claims in relation to the sale of mortgages, pensions, savings products, and interest-rate swap products.
• A judicial review of a final decision made by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• A claim involving the brokering of contracts for difference with a fraudulent and insolvent hedge fund.

During pupillage, James gained a broad experience of claims for personal and proprietary remedies in cases involving allegations of fraud and dishonesty, including:

• A claim brought by an airline for deceit, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy against seven defendants.
• Proceedings for the fraudulent introduction of an insolvent hedge fund to a global brokerage firm.
• A claim brought by an art dealer seeking the return of artworks which had been consigned on the basis of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations.
• An application made by a company seeking rescission of the fraudulent establishment of a Limited Partnership.
• An alleged oil trading fraud involving claims for unlawful means conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contractual duty, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt.
• A claim against a former employee alleged to have been stealing company money throughout her employment.

Throughout his pupillage, James worked with his supervisors on a wide range of commercial matters. Alongside developing his drafting skills in relation to advice, pleadings, skeleton arguments and other documents, he gained experience of issues concerning the conflict of laws and applications for interim relief (including freezing and proprietary injunctions). Cases James worked on included:

• Assisting Edward Cumming QC in Yukos International UK BV & Ors v Merinson [2018] EWHC 335 (Comm) concerning the interpretation and scope of Article 23 of the Brussels Recast Judgments Regulation.
• A claim by an investment banking advisor for unpaid success fees in relation to the introduction of a Chinese investor to a defendant property development company.
• A claim brought against three pharmaceuticals companies for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty.
• A claim for allegedly due commission payments following the sale of a business, engaging issues under the Estate Agents Act 1979.
• A claim for breach of contract brought by a company acting as an intermediary in the egg production market against a couple running a free-range egg farm, involving arguments concerning contractual interpretation and penalty clauses subsequent to Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67.
• A claim for damages for breach of contract, conversion, and restitution for unjust enrichment concerning unpaid sums pursuant to a contract for the provision of telecommunications and security equipment and services.

During pupillage, James gained experience of a range of company law matters, including:

• claims alleging breaches of directors’ duties;
• winding-up petitions; and
• unfair prejudice petitions pursuant to section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

James also assisted Edward Cumming QC in the mediation of a dispute involving the exclusion of a director and shareholder from the management of a large family business.

During pupillage, James:

• Drafted a Defence and Counterclaim for a couple facing a claim for unpaid invoices having withheld payments to a builder due to defective work.
• Assisted Hugh Miall in Harvil Roofing Limited v Lakehouse Contracts Limited (2017), a trial in the Technology and Construction Court of a claim against a building contractor for alleged breaches of an oral contract relating to the exclusivity of future work

James regularly appears in the High Court winding up list on behalf of petitioners, other creditors, and debtor companies. During pupillage, James assisted his supervisors – and was himself instructed as counsel – in a range of matters concerning both corporate insolvency and personal bankruptcy including:

• winding-up and bankruptcy petitions;
• acting for the respondent to an application for an injunction restraining the presentation of a winding up petition;
• applications for the setting aside of a statutory demand; and
• claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for transactions at an undervalue.

James also assisted Oliver Assersohn in Barons Finance Ltd v Barons Bridging Finance 1 Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 496 (Ch), a claim brought for a declaration that an assignment was void under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and that it should be set aside under sections 238 and 423 of the Act.

During pupillage, James assisted Hugh Miall in advising members of LLPs as to their liability under various partnership agreements to make contributions upon the LLPs’ insolvency.

During pupillage, James gained a broad experience of chambers’ work across trusts and probate litigation, assisting his supervisors and drafting advice, pleadings, and other documents in relation to a wide range of cases including:

• Claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
• Claims for the removal of trustees.
• Applications for the disclosure of trust documents.
• A claim for the rescission of a trust on the basis of mistake or misrepresentation.
• A contentious probate claim for a declaration that a will was not validly executed on the basis of (i) lack of testamentary capacity and (ii) lack of knowledge and approval of the contents and effect of the will.
• A claim for the rectification of a will under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

James also assisted Edward Cumming QC in Lehtimäki v The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) and others [2018] EWCA Civ 1605, concerning the scope of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise charitable companies.