Steven Reed

Steven is a specialist commercial barrister and as such his experience is extensive. A selection of his commercial experience includes:

• Starting Point Recruitment Ltd v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2024] EWHC 982 (Comm): Counsel for the claimant in a multi-million-pound claim against Walsall Council for breach of contract by causing temporary workers supplied by the claimant to be supplied by another provider.
• Betta Oceanway Company v SC Tomini Trading SRL [2024] EWHC 1736 (Comm): Counsel for the claimant in a complex, multi-jurisdictional contract dispute worth in the region of USD $50million arising from scrap metal shipping contracts. The Court rejected an application of a minority shareholder of the defendant to be joined to the proceedings as an “intervenor” or as a party to enable allegations of fraud and illegality to be advanced against the claimant.
• Ebury Partners Belgium NV/SA v Grossiste Francochine SARL [2023] EWHC 3396 (Comm); [2024] I.L.Pr. 14: Counsel for the claimant in successfully obtaining an anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings in France brought by the defendant that was seeking to nullify its contract, which was governed by English law and contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.
• Management Information Centre Limited v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 3497 (Ch): Counsel for the defendant in a claim brought in respect of an alleged breach of a framework agreement for the provision of IT services alleged to have arisen either orally or by implication and was subject to an implied obligation of good faith.
• Betta Oceanway Company v SC Tomini Trading SRL [2023] EWHC 2707 (Comm): Counsel for the claimant in a challenge made pursuant to section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 of an arbitration award.
• Zymurgorium Ltd v Hammonds of Knutsford Plc [2023] EWCA Civ 52: Counsel for the respondent successfully opposing an appeal of a decision following trial that there was no overarching master wholesale agreement, that there could be variation of an existing contract arising from an assumed state of affairs where there is otherwise no evidence of an intention to vary the contract and that the alleged agreement was not ‘relational’.
• Zymurgorium Ltd v Hammonds of Knutsford Plc [2021] EWHC 2295 (Ch): Counsel for the claimant in a 9-day liability trial concerning a claim for breach of an alleged overarching master agreement in the sum of £4.8m. The trial considered the existence of an overarching agreement, whether there could be implied variation of an agreement and whether the alleged agreement was ‘relational’.
• PPG Architectural Coatings Ltd v Young: Counsel for the Claimant in a claim brought pursuant to s.25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 in respect of fraud proceedings brought in Scotland in the Court of Session. The claimant sought and obtained (i) an urgent, ex parte freezing order over bank accounts in England which had been fraudulently credited, (i) an order for service out of the jurisdiction and (iii) Norwich Pharmacal orders against various banks.
• Solihull MBC v One51 ES Plastics Ltd: Counsel for the Defendant in a £2m breach of contract 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.
• Fundo Soberano de Angola v Jose Filomeno dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm): 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 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): 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.
• West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Unadkat [2018] EWHC 469 (Comm): Junior Counsel for the lender in the trial of a claim brought on eight guarantees provided to the claimant by the defendant in relation to the indebtedness of a number of companies in which he was interested. The indebtedness of the various companies ran into millions of pounds and, following trial, the defendant was found liable on all guarantees.
• Keyfresh IT Ltd v Itech Information Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1337 (Ch): Counsel for the defendant opposing an injunction and hard drive mirroring order for alleged breach of confidence, copyright infringement and passing off.
• 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: Counsel for the defendant successfully opposing an application for an injunction to compel the defendant, a supplier of goods to the claimant, to reinstate its supply and a services agreement for an extended period of six to nine months.
• Alliance Surgical Plc v Tran & Primus Medical Indemnity Ltd: 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: 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 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.