This website uses cookies. Set Up Cookie preferences or Accept cookies (and hide this message)


Contact Chambers

4 New Square
Lincoln's Inn
London, WC2A 3RJ

Tel: +44 20 7822 2000
DX: 1041 London Chancery Lane

Email us
View location map


Title Author Date
Anneliese Day QC and Michael Ryan successfully defend TCC claim against Engineers for professional negligence
On 24 June 2013, Mr Justice Akenhead handed down judgment in Igloo Regeneration v Powell Williams Partnership [2013] EWHC 1718 (TCC). Anneliese Day QC and Michael Ryan acted for the successful defendant.
Hamid Khanbhai
Elvanite Full Circle Limited v AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Limited [2013] EWHC 1191 (TCC)
On 24 May 2013 Mr Justice Coulson handed down judgment in Elvanite Full Circle Limited v AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Limited [2013] EWHC 1191 (TCC). Anneliese Day QC and Richard Liddell acted for the successful defendant.
Nicholas Broomfield
Costs budgets- revisions and indemnity costs
On 14 June 2013 in Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1643 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson handed down another important judgment on the application of the new costs management rules (in CPR r.3.15- r.3.18), albeit his decision relates to the Costs Management in Mercantile Courts and Technology and Construction Courts – Pilot Scheme (“PD 51G”).
George McDonald
Shurely shome mishtake?
The Supreme Court’s decision on mistake and the flawed exercise of discretion by trustees, and the impact of the decision on professional advisers and their insurers.
David Halpern QC
Obtaining Cost Orders Against Solicitors
This article first appeared on Lexis PSL on 14 May 2013. For a free trial of Lexis PSL, please visit
Stephen Innes
Lehman Brothers Litigation
Journal for International Banking and Financial Law
Daniel Saoul
Standard Life Assurance Ltd v ACE European Group & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1713: Insurance Law Monthly
Clare Dixon
The Legal Ombudsman Scheme: how it works and how firms can challenge its decisions, PNLA Beyond the Precipice Seminar
The LeO has extensive powers and the freedom to depart from the law. With the limit on its jurisdiction having recently risen from £30,000 to £50,000 and the prospect of further rises, professional indemnity lawyers and insurers need to understand how the LeO works and how they can challenge its decisions in the Administrative Court by way of judicial review. Can Yeginsu and Richard O’Brien explain how.
Richard O'Brien
Can Yeginsu
Marine insurance: losses, claims and defences: Clothing Management Technology Ltd v Beazley Solutions Ltd [2012] EWHC 727 (QB)
Tom Asquith
[2012] EWCA Civ 987
Paul Fisher


The information and any commentary on the law contained in the articles available below is provided free of charge for information purposes only. No responsibility for the accuracy and correctness of the information and commentary, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. The various articles were written at the dates shown for particular audiences and purposes and may not represent the law as it stands today. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. By agreeing to these terms you agree that you will not rely on the content of any article.

I have read and accept the disclaimer
I do not accept the disclaimer

Displaying 21-30 of 93