Perry Brown
    Perry Brown
    Senior Practice Manager
    +44 (0)20 7419 6206
    Tommie Drury
    Tommie Drury
    Practice Manager
    +44 (0)20 7419 6203
    Matthew Evans
    Matthew Evans
    Assistant Practice Manager
    +44 (0)20 7691 2424
    Contact the Practice Managers

    Steven has a substantial, heavyweight commercial and chancery practice in line with Chambers specialist areas and regularly appears in the Business and Property Courts dealing with everything from procedural and interim applications, including freezing injunctions, search and seize orders, interim injunctions, strike outs and disclosure issues, to multi-day trials.

    Recent and on-going cases include:

    Commercial

    Zymurgorium Ltd v Hammonds of Knutsford Plc [2021] EWHC 2295 (Ch) HHJ Pearce

    Counsel for the Claimant in a 10-day liability trial concerning £680,000 of unpaid invoices and a counterclaim for breach of an alleged overarching master agreement in the sum of £4.8m. The Defendant has been given permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, inter alia, in relation to whether the agreement was “relational”.

    Solihull MBC v One51 ES Plastics Ltd (on-going)

    Counsel for the Defendant in a £2m breach of contract claim. The Defendant is a manufacturer of, inter alia, plastic bins, which the Claimant purchased for the residents of Solihull. The Claimant claims that the bins were defective and not supplied in accordance with the contract. The matter was listed for a 5-day trial in December 2021 but has been adjourned to 2022 with the new listing awaited.

    Fundo Soberano de Angola v Jose Filomeno dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm) Popplewell J

    Junior Counsel for the First Defendant, the son of the former president of Angola and former chairman of the sovereign wealth fund, in a $3bn civil fraud claim brought by the State of Angola. The Claimant had obtained a without notice freezing injunction, which was subsequently discharged as a result of failures in giving full and frank disclosure, and it was later held that the Courts of England and Wales did not have jurisdiction.

    Republic of Angola v Perfectbit Limited & 7 others [2018] EWHC 965 (Comm) Bryan J

    Junior Counsel for two of the Defendants in a $500m civil fraud claim brought by the State of Angola. The Claimant obtained a worldwide freezing injunction and proprietary injunction, which was subsequently continued following a contested hearing.

    A v B

    Counsel for the Claimant in a claim brought pursuant to section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982, in respect of proceedings brought in Scotland in the Court of Session seeking a freezing order over accounts which the Defendant, it was alleged, had fraudulently credited with monies belonging to the Claimant.

    Certas Energy UK Ltd v Gat Oil Ltd

    Counsel for the Claimant in two consolidated claims for breach of contract in relation to the supply of fuel to petrol stations pursuant to a “Retail Supply Agreement” and defended on the basis of, inter alia, frustration and economic duress.

    Vibrant Doors Ltd v Rohden UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 1761 – Rice-Collins J (sitting as DHCJ)

    Counsel for the Defendant in an application for an injunction to compel the supplier to reinstate its supply of goods and services agreement for a period of six to nine months. The nature and extent of the contract was in dispute and the Claimant accepted that by the time of trial it would not be seeking the continuation of the supply contract so that the remedy would be confined to damages. The injunction was refused on the basis that the Court should not compel two parties to continue working together when the relationship had already broken down.

    Alliance Surgical Plc v Tran & Primus Medical Indemnity Ltd (on-going)

    Counsel for the First Defendant in a claim for misuse of confidential information, breach of contract and database right infringement by a former employee, who was subsequently employed by the Second Defendant.

    Smith v Woolley (on-going)

    Counsel for the Defendant, who is the daughter of the Claimant, in a claim brought by her litigation friends, who are the Defendant’s brother and cousin. The claim is for the repayment of the sum of £795,000, which the litigation friends contend is a loan and the Defendant alleges is a gift. The litigation friends consequently seek a declaration that payment of the sum was procured by undue influence.

    Company

    Dodson and another v Shield and 7 others (on-going)

    Counsel for the Respondents in an unfair prejudice petition where it is alleged that the Respondents diverted a multi-million pound business opportunity into another company in which the Petitioners were not members.

    Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing & Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd (on-going)

    Counsel for the Petitioner in an unfair prejudice petition, in which it is alleged that the First Respondent unlawfully removed the Petitioner as a director of the company and terminated a corresponding consultancy agreement in order to invoke the bad leaver provisions and acquire the Petitioner’s shares at par value. The First Respondent seeks to rely upon a counterclaim brought in the Petition by the company in the sum of £1.15m.

    Humphrey & Humphrey v Bennett & Bennett (on-going)

    Counsel for the Respondents in a £5m derivative claim where it is alleged that the Respondents, as the directors and 51% shareholders, have breached their fiduciary duties by diverting money and opportunities to other companies in which they are shareholders and the Claimants are not involved.

    Witheridge v Maher (settled on final day of 5 day trial)

    Counsel for the Petitioner in an unfair prejudice petition, in which it was alleged that the Respondent, the Petitioner’s sister, had unlawfully forfeited the Petitioner’s shares pursuant to the exercise of a lien as a result of an alleged outstanding directors’ loan account.

    Media & Sport

    Aslani v Sobierajska [2021] EWHC 2127 Saini J

    Counsel for the Claimant, a plastic surgeon and pioneer of the “Brazilian butt lift”, in a libel claim against a social media ‘influencer’ in relation to various Instagram posts.

    Watkins v Mackle [2021] EWHC 1723 Murray J (meaning and opinion hearing)

    Counsel for the Claimant in a libel claim against a former shareholder and director of a company in which the Claimant was also a shareholder and director.

    British Gymnastics v UK Gymnastics Ltd [2020] EWHC 1678 (IPEC) HHJ Melissa Clark & [2021] EWCA Civ 425 Lewison, Bean and Arnold LJJ

    Counsel for the Defendant in a trademark infringement and passing off claim by British Gymnastics in which it was alleged that the Defendant’s “UK Gymnastics” sign was confusingly similar to the Claimant’s “British Gymnastics” mark and that British Gymnastics was the sole national governing body for the sport of gymnastics in the UK and that by the Defendant asserting to be an alternative governing body it was passing itself off as or associated with the Claimant.

    Instructed on behalf of joint liquidators to advise in relation to a proposed claim against a premier league football club following the onward sale of a footballer formerly registered with the company in liquidation.

    Steven is standing commercial Counsel for Birmingham City Football Club

    Areas of experience

    Checked sections will be included in the PDF download.

    Select: All | None

    • Commercial Litigation

      Recent and on-going cases include:

      Zymurgorium Ltd v Hammonds of Knutsford Plc [2021] EWHC 2295 (Ch) HHJ Pearce

      Counsel for the Claimant in a 10-day liability trial concerning £680,000 of unpaid invoices and a counterclaim for breach of an alleged overarching master agreement in the sum of £4.8m. The Defendant has been given permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, inter alia, in relation to whether the agreement was “relational”.

      Solihull MBC v One51 ES Plastics Ltd (on-going)

      Counsel for the Defendant in a £2m breach of contract claim. The Defendant is a manufacturer of, inter alia, plastic bins, which the Claimant purchased for the residents of Solihull. The Claimant claims that the bins were defective and not supplied in accordance with the contract. The matter was listed for a 5-day trial in December 2021 but has been adjourned to 2022 with the new listing awaited.

      Fundo Soberano de Angola v Jose Filomeno dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm) Popplewell J

      Junior Counsel for the First Defendant, the son of the former president of Angola and former chairman of the sovereign wealth fund, in a $3bn civil fraud claim brought by the State of Angola. The Claimant had obtained a without notice freezing injunction, which was subsequently discharged as a result of failures in giving full and frank disclosure, and it was later held that the Courts of England and Wales did not have jurisdiction.

      Republic of Angola v Perfectbit Limited & 7 others [2018] EWHC 965 (Comm) Bryan J

      Junior Counsel for two of the Defendants in a $500m civil fraud claim brought by the State of Angola. The Claimant obtained a worldwide freezing injunction and proprietary injunction, which was subsequently continued following a contested hearing.

      A v B

      Counsel for the Claimant in a claim brought pursuant to section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982, in respect of proceedings brought in Scotland in the Court of Session seeking a freezing order over accounts which the Defendant, it was alleged, had fraudulently credited with monies belonging to the Claimant.

      Certas Energy UK Ltd v Gat Oil Ltd

      Counsel for the Claimant in two consolidated claims for breach of contract in relation to the supply of fuel to petrol stations pursuant to a “Retail Supply Agreement” and defended on the basis of, inter alia, frustration and economic duress.

      Vibrant Doors Ltd v Rohden UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 1761 – Rice-Collins J (sitting as DHCJ)

      Counsel for the Defendant in an application for an injunction to compel the supplier to reinstate its supply of goods and services agreement for a period of six to nine months. The nature and extent of the contract was in dispute and the Claimant accepted that by the time of trial it would not be seeking the continuation of the supply contract so that the remedy would be confined to damages. The injunction was refused on the basis that the Court should not compel two parties to continue working together when the relationship had already broken down.

      Alliance Surgical Plc v Tran & Primus Medical Indemnity Ltd (on-going)

      Counsel for the First Defendant in a claim for misuse of confidential information, breach of contract and database right infringement by a former employee, who was subsequently employed by the Second Defendant.

      Smith v Woolley (on-going)

      Counsel for the Defendant, who is the daughter of the Claimant, in a claim brought by her litigation friends, who are the Defendant’s brother and cousin. The claim is for the repayment of the sum of £795,000, which the litigation friends contend is a loan and the Defendant alleges is a gift. The litigation friends consequently seek a declaration that payment of the sum was procured by undue influence.

    • Company

      Recent and on-going cases include:

      Dodson and another v Shield and 7 others (on-going)

      Counsel for the Respondents in an unfair prejudice petition where it is alleged that the Respondents diverted a multi-million pound business opportunity into another company in which the Petitioners were not members.

      Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing & Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd (on-going)

      Counsel for the Petitioner in an unfair prejudice petition, in which it is alleged that the First Respondent unlawfully removed the Petitioner as a director of the company and terminated a corresponding consultancy agreement in order to invoke the bad leaver provisions and acquire the Petitioner’s shares at par value. The First Respondent seeks to rely upon a counterclaim brought in the Petition by the company in the sum of £1.15m.

      Humphrey & Humphrey v Bennett & Bennett (on-going)

      Counsel for the Respondents in a £5m derivative claim where it is alleged that the Respondents, as the directors and 51% shareholders, have breached their fiduciary duties by diverting money and opportunities to other companies in which they are shareholders and the Claimants are not involved.

      Witheridge v Maher (settled on final day of 5 day trial)

      Counsel for the Petitioner in an unfair prejudice petition, in which it was alleged that the Respondent, the Petitioner’s sister, had unlawfully forfeited the Petitioner’s shares pursuant to the exercise of a lien as a result of an alleged outstanding directors’ loan account.

    • Media & Sport

      Recent and on-going cases include:

      Aslani v Sobierajska [2021] EWHC 2127 Saini J

      Counsel for the Claimant, a plastic surgeon and pioneer of the “Brazilian butt lift”, in a libel claim against a social media ‘influencer’ in relation to various Instagram posts.

      Watkins v Mackle [2021] EWHC 1723 Murray J (meaning and opinion hearing)

      Counsel for the Claimant in a libel claim against a former shareholder and director of a company in which the Claimant was also a shareholder and director.

      British Gymnastics v UK Gymnastics Ltd [2020] EWHC 1678 (IPEC) HHJ Melissa Clark & [2021] EWCA Civ 425 Lewison, Bean and Arnold LJJ

      Counsel for the Defendant in a trademark infringement and passing off claim by British Gymnastics in which it was alleged that the Defendant’s “UK Gymnastics” sign was confusingly similar to the Claimant’s “British Gymnastics” mark and that British Gymnastics was the sole national governing body for the sport of gymnastics in the UK and that by the Defendant asserting to be an alternative governing body it was passing itself off as or associated with the Claimant.

      Instructed on behalf of joint liquidators to advise in relation to a proposed claim against a premier league football club following the onward sale of a footballer formerly registered with the company in liquidation.

      Steven is standing commercial Counsel for Birmingham City Football Club

    Other information

    • Qualifications

      LLB English and German Law (1st Class) University of Kent and Philipps-Universitat, Marburg.

      LLM (Lond) (Queen Mary College).

      BVC – Inns of Court School of Law (Very Competent – Outstanding in Civil Procedure and Advocacy)

      Inner Temple scholar

    • Recommendations

      “Very personable, very easy to get on with and very technically able. He gives thought to the bigger picture.”

      Chambers UK 2022

      “He’s very good in court and very smooth – great with clients. He’s creative in his thinking and always has a good strategy in mind.” “Methodical and very practical with his advice. He is unshakeable and very persuasive – he doesn’t get rattled.”

      Chambers UK 2021

      “Combines a commercial approach with an ability to think outside the box and to read the judiciary when needed.”

      Legal 500 2021

      “He’s very approachable and speaks in plain English. He’s very good in conference and puts clients at ease.” “Very good at working as part of a team and developing strategic thinking around a case.”

      Chambers UK 2020

      “A very solid and accomplished advocate.”

      Legal 500 2020

      “Steven is a strong advocate who is always well prepared and excellent on his feet.” “He is excellent – very responsive and knows his practice area like the back of his hand.” “He is technically excellent with regard to his written work, excellent at cross-examination, very approachable and always finds the time for his clients.”

      Chambers UK 2019

      “An excellent thinker and strong advocate.”

      Legal 500 2019

      Legal Week cites one commentator as saying “He has a practice and following years ahead of his call but his relatively junior call is ignored by clients who see him as a personable, intelligent, commercially-savvy advocate with maturity beyond his years”

      “He goes above and beyond, he lives and breathes each case.” “Good with clients, solutions-driven, clever and commercially minded.” “Steven is a formidable advocate and one of those barristers who speaks the judge’s language.”

      Chambers UK 2017

      “He has superb tactical judgement, and is a dogged polished advocate, who wins judges round.”

      Legal 500 2016

      Appears in a wide range of commercial matters, including contractual, IP and tortious disputes. Reed has particular expertise in matters pertaining to the energy and utilities sectors. “Approachable and flexible, he provides good strategic advice.” “Good with clients, he’s solutions-driven, clever and commercially minded.” “He’s creative and spots points we don’t see.”

      Chambers UK 2016

      “Always understands the commercial dynamics to a case.”

      Legal 500 2015

      Covers a wide spectrum of commercial disputes. He is regularly instructed on contractual matters, as well as disputes with IP or media aspects. “He is accessible and flexible, has great business sense and provides sensible advice.”

      Chambers UK 2015

      “A commercial and solution-driven advocate who punches above his call year.”

      Legal 500 2014

      Well-respected commercial junior. His practice focuses on contractual disputes across a broad range of industry sectors. “He is approachable and flexible, and provides both strategic and analytical advice.”

      Chambers UK 2014

      Steven Reed is “extremely approachable and flexible in accommodating clients’ deadlines.” “Interviewees hail him as “a cool-headed advocate who has obtained excellent results and is always on hand to provide strategic, analytical advice.” His ability to “meet and exceed his client’s expectations” has made him a favourite with instructing solicitors. His “sharp legal mind” is often put to work on matters of defamation and IP, in which areas he is an expert.

      Chambers and Partners 2013

      Steven Reed was named as one of ten barristers in Legal Week’s ‘Stars at the Bar 2010’.

      Legal Week cites one commentator as saying “He has a practice and following years ahead of his call but his relatively junior call is ignored by clients who see him as a personable, intelligent, commercially-savvy advocate with maturity beyond his years”