Jamie Smith

Education

M.A. (Cantab.)

Tel: 020 7822 2079
Email: j.smith@4newsquare.com
Email Clerk: d.peck@4newsquare.com

Year of Call: 1995

Profile

During his time in Chambers, Jamie has built up a practice embracing professional liability work, insurance matters and commercial dispute resolution. In all that he does, Jamie brings a meticulous eye for detail and a complete commitment to the cause.

In recent years, Jamie has been involved in several high-profile lawyers’ liability cases, which have taken him to the House of Lords (Moy v. Pettman Smith), to football stadia (Football League v. edge ellison) and to a different world (The TAG litigation).

Jamie’s achievements have long been recognised by the Directories. Described as “devastatingly intelligent” and as having “a phenomenal work rate, and the rare skill of being able to pinpoint the heart of a case very quickly”, Jamie has been in the top category of professional negligence juniors since 2008. He received the Chambers & Partners’ ‘Professional Negligence Junior of the Year’ award in 2011, and is in the ‘Star’ category for professional negligence.

Jamie is a committee member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association and a member of the Chancery Bar Association and the London Common Law & Commercial Bar Association.

Commercial Dispute Resolution

Jamie’s commercial dispute resolution experience includes freezing and proprietary injunctions (see, for example, Cherney v. Neuman [2009] EWHC 1743), pre-action disclosure applications and foreign jurisdiction issues. He also appears in arbitrations.

In particular, Jamie has:

Acted for Courtaulds Textiles in sale of goods case concerning supply of fabric.
Represented a watch manufacturer in a claim for breach of licensing agreements brought by Warner Bros.
Advised in respect of exclusion clauses in commercial storage agreements following the destruction of modern art in a warehouse fire in Hackney (in which Tracy Emin lost her tent)!
Acted for a commercial property agent in a cross-border dispute arising out of sale of German property portfolio.

A sizeable element of Jamie’s work is in the Commercial Court. His current workload includes a claim against a major City investment bank in respect of credit derivative swap transactions and a £40m claim against an aerospace company for an alleged failure adequately to insure MOD stock and equipment.

Jamie recently successfully defended MF Global against allegations of negligent advice in respect of derivatives transactions – Wilson v. MF Global [2011] EWHC 138.

Insurance & Reinsurance

Jamie’s first exposure to insurance issues arose as part of his professional liability work. Insurance has since grown to become a key area of Jamie’s practice and one in which he is both deeply interested and deeply committed: in Court, in arbitration, as an arbitrator and in delivering talks and seminars.

On the professional indemnity side, Jamie has very extensive experience of market policies. He has a particular specialism in the Minimum Terms and Conditions (MTCs), as applying to primary layer solicitors’ policies. He is regularly appointed to arbitrate issues arising under the MTCs and he lectures on the topic.

The wide incidence of mortgage fraud has led market insurers to pay close attention to aggregation and dishonesty clauses in their policies and Jamie has repeatedly been engaged to advise on these matters. This includes:

Dishonesty conferences
Notification issues (particularly Rothschild ‘blanket’ notifications)
Arbitrations where the market insurer is seeking a declaration that it is entitled to rely on the dishonesty exception in the MTCs

Away from the professional indemnity insurance arena, Jamie advises on a very wide range of topics, from warranties in domestic household policies to exotic ‘prize’ insurance in the on-line gaming industry. As to the latter, Jamie is currently representing the insured in a €25m claim against insurers arising from a ‘Jackpot’ win on the German Lotto. He is also advising on EL insurance issues in respect of mesothelioma claims (following Fairchild v. Glenhaven and the Compensation Act 2006).

Examples of Jamie’s practice include:

Interpretation of permanent health insurance and critical illness cover: Haghiran v. Allied Dunbar [2001] All ER (Comm) 97 (CA).
Consideration of the merit of ‘fraudulent claims and devices’ defence in the context of domestic contents policy.
Fine art insurance.
ATE Insurance (and attendant claims to the FOS).
Fire claims: Sugar Hut v. Great Lakes Insurance [2010] EWHC 2636 (Burton J)

Professional Liability

Jamie was only 4 years call when he was first recognised in the Directories for his professional liability work and since 2008 he has been in the top category in Chambers & Partners for professional negligence juniors. He has for the last 3 years been nominated as professional negligence junior of the year.

The Directories describe Jamie as “totally unflappable and brilliant on his feet”, “devastatingly intelligent” and as having “a phenomenal work rate, and the rare skill of being able to pinpoint the heart of a case very quickly”. Jamie prides himself on his total commitment to his clients’ cause and on his meticulousness.

Jamie’s interest in this field is not just confined to the cases he conducts and defends. He is a voracious reader on the topic, gives talks whenever he has time and is a committee member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association.

Accountants, Auditors & Actuaries

Jamie acts both for and against accountants and auditors. Examples of his wide experience in this area include:

Claims against auditors for failure to identify director's fraud/defalcations.
Tax planning/offshore trust claims where trust does not have the envisaged tax sheltering effect.
Inheritance tax planning claims.
Company takeover/share-swap schemes.
Representing a leading firm of accountants in relation to allegations of incorrect treatment of negative goodwill.
Financial advice given by a firm of accountants (Goldberg v. Miltiadous & Ors [2010] EWHC 450).

Jamie also represented the Learning and Skills Council in a £40m claim against Deloitte & Touche for alleged negligent auditing of a further education institution (with John Powell QC).

In recent years, Jamie has been heavily engaged in various pieces of litigation involving tax deferral and avoidance schemes involving film finance (for example, The Bedford Row Litigation) and Information and Communication Technology (The Innovator Litigation).

Construction Professionals

Jamie has a particular interest in cases involving complex scientific issues. He regularly acts for and against structural engineers in relation to domestic and commercial underpinning and ground stabilisation schemes. He has often been retained by the Royal & Sun Alliance (now RSA) in claims against construction professionals (to include loss adjusters) arising out of failed underpinning/fire repair projects.

By way of example of Jamie’s work in this field:

He was junior counsel in a £20 million dispute against project managers and computer consultants jointly advising on the construction of an automated distribution warehouse (Universal Music v. E.C. Harris).
He has acted for and against architects in design and build contracts (London Borough of Dagenham v. Terrapin, UIPL v. McAlpine (£40m claim in respect of commercial premises design and build contract)).

Financial Services Professionals

Jamie is regularly instructed in claims involving financial services professionals. This aspect of his professional liability practice has come to the fore in recent years with the rise of litigation involving tax deferment schemes – such as The Bedford Row Litigation and The Innovator Litigation.

Examples of Jamie’s recent work include:

The involvement of pension advisers in the equalisation of company pension scheme and as to the definition of pensionable salary in an employer’s scheme.
Whether direct-offer advertisements for SCARP products contravened FIMBRA/FSMA guidelines.
Claims relating to trading of FOREX derivatives and credit default swap derivatives.
FSMA client classification issues.

Jamie has just concluded his involvement in a large, multi-party dispute arising from a failed bank guarantee deposit scheme (where £10m of investors’ funds was lost). There were claims against several IFAs and financial intermediaries.

Insurance Brokers & Agents

Jamie’s specialism in claims involving insurance brokers and agents complements his insurance practice. Often, Jamie acts in multiparty disputes where both insurers and insurance intermediaries are defendants.

Jamie’s work in this area includes:

Advising an online gaming company on the broker’s role in the procurement of specialist ‘prize’ indemnity insurance (€40m claim).
Representing an IFA following incorrect notification of pensions mis-selling claims (in the light ofRothschild v. Goodyear).
Acting for a Jersey company as to the broking of a commercial insurance policy for a café.

He has a particular interest in cases examining the scope of an insurance broker’s duty to advise as to the meaning and effect of a policy. Thus, Jamie acted for a commercial manufacturer which alleged that its broker did not advise as to the most suitable type of business interruption cover.

Lawyers

In recent years, Jamie has spent much of his time acting in various high-profile lawyers’ liability cases – both solicitors and barristers. That work has entailed court and arbitration work for both claimants and defendants/respondents and has taken him to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The underlying subject matter of the dispute has been very diverse: from the purchase of football rights to the purchase of London property by a Russian Oligarch.

Jamie also undertakes wasted costs work, again for both solicitors and barristers.

The following is but a selection of Jamie’s work in this field:

Moy v. Pettman Smith [2005] UKHL 7; [2005] 1 WLR 581 (HL): House of Lords’ interpretation of the scope of the barrister’s duty to advise.
The TAG Litigation [2006] EWHC 839 (Comm): high-profile case examining solicitors’ responsibility toward ATE insurers in the wake of the collapse of ‘The Accident Group’ claims management scheme.
Football League v. edge ellison [2006] EWHC 1462 (Ch); [2007] PNLR 2: £150m claim brought by The Football League arising out of ONdigital’s purchase of TV licensing rights.
Marplace v. Chaffe Street [2006] EWHC 1919 (Ch): £80m claim brought by potential purchaser of subsidiary of Coats Viyella plc – purchase thwarted by inability to perform ‘whitewashing’ of financial assistance provided by subsidiary to purchaser.
Tamlura NV v. Cameron McKenna [2009] EWHC 538 (Ch); [2009] Lloyd’s Rep PN 71: £5m claim relating to a share sale agreement.
Cherney v. Neuman & Ors [2009] EWHC 1743 (Ch): £multi-million claim involving property purchases in London by a Russian Oligarch.
Pritchard Joyce & Hinds v. Batcup [2008] EWHC 20 (QB); [2008] PNLR 18 and [2009] EWCA Civ 369; [2009] PNLR 28 (CA): contribution claim between solicitors and barristers.

Jamie has also been advising of late on various issues relating to lenders’ claims against solicitors. These include:

Whether contributory negligence can be raised as a defence to claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust.
Syndication of a loan book.
Merrett v. Babb issues where the solicitors’ indemnity insurers have withdrawn cover.
Claims upon the Solicitors’ Compensation Fund.

Surveyors & Valuers

Jamie’s practice has for a long time included claims against surveyors and valuers. This is coming to prominence with the next wave of lending claims. Jamie is currently advising a number of lenders in respect of such claims, with a heavy emphasis upon actual or potential mortgage fraud. Similarly, he has been advising professional practices on the merits of various aspects of the lenders’ claims (to include syndication and contributory negligence issues).

Jamie has a full range of experience in:

Lenders' claims arising out of syndicated lending and portfolio valuations.
Claims resulting from inaccurate commercial valuations/yield calculations (to include valuations of hotels).
Structural surveying cases (residential and commercial), e.g., failures to detect visible defects, to follow the 'train of enquiry' and to indicate the need for further expert investigation.
Contaminated land litigation (e.g., acting for a surveyor in a claim brought by an agricultural supplies manufacturer who purchased a former petrol station).