Commercial Dispute Resolution
Clare’s practice includes a variety of commercial work. She has acted in a variety of contractual disputes as well as matters involving sale of goods litigation and mortgage related disputes. She also has experience of obtaining urgent injunctive relief having advised upon and obtained freezing injunctions and disclosure orders.
Notable instructions include:
- Acting for a loss adjustor in a case involving interlocking commercial agreements arising out of the handling of claims under the RTA portal.
- Acting for a financial services compliance company in a contractual dispute with a bank to whom it had providedservices.
- Acting for a glazing specialist in a contractual claim arising out of the supply of sealant for a construction project.
- A substantial dispute between a local authority and its services outsourcing provider. The case involved the interpretation of multiple interrelated contracts and contractual documents, and their application to a variety of local authority procurement needs (eg highways and residential care homes). Clare was Instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP and led by David Turner QC.
- A claim in fraud by a professional indemnity insurer and a leading firm of solicitors against their former employee: Travelers Insurance Co Ltd & Denton Wilde Sapte v Advani  EWHC 623. The case was concerned with whether the former employee had acted fraudulently and/or outside the scope of her employment so as to entitle the claimants to recover costs which they had expended in defending both the former employee and her then employer in a previous action. Clare was led by Justin Fenwick QC for the trial of the action but then acted alone on the subsequent freezing injunction applications.
- Clare was instructed by Holman, Fenwick & Willan in a 12 week trial in the Commercial Court: Abu Dhabi Investment Company v Clarkson  EWHC 1267 (Comm). The Claimants had invested in a joint venture container shipping line which was to be operated from Abu Dhabi: Abu Dhabi Container Lines (“ADCL”). ADCL purchased 10 container vessels to run on its line at a cost of about USD$400million. ADCL failed within months of its inception. Proceedings were brought against the ship brokers who had advised the Claimants, the joint venture partner who it was found had fraudulently misrepresented the earning capacity and viability of the vessels, and the bank who had provided funding for the venture.
- Acting for a flooring supplier which succeeded at trial in a claim relating to the payment for, and supply of, goods.