Patrick Lawrence QC

Patrick’s practice ranges widely over all forms of commercial law. He has extensive experience of all forms of arbitral process and is very familiar with the ICC Rules of Arbitration. He has acted in many construction cases, and has advanced so-called ‘black hole’ arguments as to no loss on both sides of that debate. He first argued issues of that type in the construction field, where the 19th century jurisprudence (the Albazero case, etc) has been developed in cases such as Alfred McAlpine v Panatown. He acted for the successful appellant in Titan v Colliers, a securitisation case involving ‘black hole / no loss’ arguments arising out of a complex web of assignments and trust arrangements. The Court of Appeal judgment contains the most recent appellate guidance in this area of the law. He is currently engaged in an appeal to the Privy Council from the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal which will require an extensive review of jurisdiction authorities, and may involve critical reconsideration of the law relating to acceptance of jurisdiction.

Patrick has appeared in a wide range of commercial contract cases, both in court and before arbitrators. He has extensive experience of the obtaining of interim remedies in the commercial context: eg. Orb ARL v Fiddler [2016] EWHC 361, in which Popplewell J, set aside freezing and search orders on the ground of non-disclosure.

Cases

Patrick is frequently instructed in cases involving issues in the Chancery field; tax, trusts, company law and real property. Present and recent cases include:

• Multi-jurisdiction litigation involving Israeli will and $800m assets held in multiple offshore trusts; continuing
• Shah v Forsters [2018] PNLR 8; trusts, joint tenancies, administration of estates.
• A long-running matter (Lexi Holdings PLC v Pannone) before Briggs J., arising out of the frauds of Shaid Luqman. Issues arising included difficult points as to the implied actual authority and apparent authority of a director to give unconventional instructions on behalf of a company.
• Smith v Contact Holdings Ltd; scope of managing director’s authority to instruct lawyers in connection with shareholder dispute.
• Litigation arising out of the Tax Tribunal’s decision in relation to an Eclipse film finance scheme that the participants in the scheme were not trading.
• Litigation arising out of the failure of other film finance and container leasing tax avoidance schemes.
• Former Queen of Malaysia v Lattey & Dawe; trial before Hodge J. concerning tax advice given in connection with the late King of Malaysia’s holdings in the UK and abroad.
• Dore v Leicestershire CC; 2 week trial before Sales J; issues as to trust law; charities; local government.
• £5m claim arising out of allegedly defective advice concerning rights to light.
• Probate litigation concerning allegations of undue influence in relation to a will.
• Litigation concerning delay in commercial conveyancing.
• Directors disqualification proceedings.
• Christofi v Schubert Murphy; claims arising out of the setting up of a bogus solicitor’s practice; issues as to scope of solicitors’ undertakings; jurisdiction of Compensation Fund.
• Turpin v Brabners Chaffe Street; allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and conflicts of interest in relation to the sale of a substantial company.
• Pennyfeathers v Pennyfeathers Property Co Limited [2013] EWHC 3530; acquiescence; breach of fiduciary duty; directors’ obligations.

Cases

Patrick’s familiarity with (i) claims arising out of failed litigation and (ii) insurance law has led to the development of a practice in the field of costs law. Costs cases include: IOMA Insurance v Wake Smith – failure of multiparty industrial illness litigation supported by CFA/ATE packages; 3 week trial in Mercantile Court of costs/ATE issues arising therefrom; (ii) Automotive Latch Systems v Honeywell Inc. – advising on ATE cover following failure of >$100m commercial claim giving rise to >$15m costs liabilities; (iii) Hunt v Harlock – successful appeal against a ruling that a clerical error in an ATE policy vitiated the cover and meant that the premium was irrecoverable; (iv) Astaldi SPA v [a firm of solicitors] claim by Italian construction company in respect of disbursements relating to litigation in Algeria; (v) Bamrah v Gempride – leading case on the power to disallow costs on the ground of misconduct in assessment proceedings; now a landmark judgment on appeal [2018 EWCA 1367; (vi) Warren v Hill Dickinson [2019] EWHC B1 (Costs) – a decision of Master Leonard, considering s.70(1) Solicitors Act; and ambiguities and lacunae in CPR provisions concerning interim costs certificates; (vii) Willers v Joyce [2019] EWHC 2183 – an important decision by Rose J. on an application for a non-party costs order against the lawyers acting for the unsuccessful claimant, brought on the ground that the lawyers had a direct pecuniary interest in the recovery of the main head of damage, and should accordingly be regarded as “real parties” to the litigation who were within the scope of the court’s costs jurisdiction.

“An intelligent barrister who is willing to spend the time required to ensure that all nuances in a case are fully explored. Has the ability to identify the core points in a complex case which need to be addressed to win the case.” – Legal 500, 2022

“He’s extremely level-headed, and has gravitas but is personable and approachable.” – Chambers and Partners, 2022

Ranked as a Leading Silk, Patrick is described as “a class act who is very user-friendly”, “very good at carrying vulnerable clients through a difficult process. He explains regulatory requirements and how best to deal with issues”, “he’s a wonderful advocate and a very bright chap”, “very bright” with a “huge ability to take in massive amounts of detail in very complex cases and make them straightforward”, “his charming and rather urbane style always goes down well”.

He has appeared for solicitors and surveyors in front of their professional disciplinary bodies on numerous occasions.   In recent years he has been retained in disciplinary matters involving accountants/auditors, solicitors, barristers, a handwriting expert, a psychologist and a county councillor.  He has advised on judicial review remedies in this field and has been concerned in judicial review applications against the Bar Council and the ICAEW.  He is very familiar with issues arising where a complainant has delayed unreasonably before lodging the complaint.  He has been frequently been retained by the JDS/ AADB/FRC (the bodies charged with investigating public interest allegations against the auditors of public companies) to conduct substantial complaints against auditors and accountants in business.

He has acted in judicial review proceedings against the ICAEW concerning a complaint against a chartered accountant (Crookenden v ICAEW); and in the first matter to go before the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency Practitioners Association for a number of years.

In 2020 he appeared in Gubarev, a case in which partially remote proceedings were unlawfully live streamed. The court referred the matter to the Divisional Court, where this topical area was reviewed critically by the President of the QBD. Later in the year, Patrick appeared before the Court of Criminal Appeal in the ‘Postmasters’ appeal, on behalf of counsel in relation to a complaint that disclosed documents had been provided police and press.

In 2018-19 he acted in various matters before the SDT involving allegations of dishonesty and want of integrity.

In 2016-17 he was heavily engaged in Williams v SRA, a SDT case which went to the Divisional Court, a leading case on issues relating to proof of dishonesty; the distinction between dishonesty and want of integrity; and the consequences of an omission to cross-examine.

He is currently retained in a number of cases concerning the position of professionals who provide expert and other evidence while retained on some form of contingent fee agreement.

Cases

Patrick’s extensive practice in this area has focused on disputes between insurer and insured concerning questions of construction, and the avoidance of policies for non-disclosure, misrepresentation and fraud. He has appeared in a number of contested trials at which the honesty of the insured has been the subject of a direct challenge. He has frequently advised on the relationship between the solicitors’ policies now written by the commercial market and the run off insurance administered by SIF; and has acted as in arbitrator in that connection.  He has advised on coverage issues relating to claims arising out the Madoff fraud. In the last decade he appeared in numerous (>30) arbitrations in the field of PI cover, raising issues as to the operation and construction of the ‘Minimum Terms’; as to ‘Successor Practices’; as to the liability of insurers to indemnify in respect of issues arising out of disputes as to costs and fees; and (of course) as to notification and aggregation. He recently acted for the claimants at the trial of multi-party proceedings in the Commercial Court, involving both insurers and brokers, arising out of claims in respect of fire and business interruption cover.

“He is particularly impressive in the court room; completely unflappable.” – Legal 500, 2019

“Very charismatic and good with clients; he is able and approachable in equal measure” – Chambers & Partners, 2018

Patrick has a substantial offshore practice and has been instructed in cases in the Eastern Caribbean, Hong Kong, and Guernsey. He is currently acting in a $400m audit claim in Trinidad; commercial fraud and trusts litigation raising jurisdictional issues in the BVI, to be considered in the Privy Council; and is advising on jurisdictional issues concerned multi-party litigation in the Channel Islands. He is called to the Bar in the Eastern Caribbean.

Patrick is frequently retained in connection with claims arising out of the alleged mishandling of pension schemes; including, among others, claims concerned with defective amendments to the core scheme documents; failed equalisations; and mismanaged transfers into the PPF. He has acted both in relation to Part 8 proceedings aimed at remedying errors by means of rectification, estoppel and other equitable devices; and in the claims against advisers (pensions consultants and lawyers) that tend to follow less than wholly successful remedial action. He is very familiar with the issues that typically arise in this area; for instance, the difficulties in identifying the correct claimant and locating the real loss; long tail limitation issues involving s. 14B and the concept of a continuing duty; the capitalisation of losses founded on an outlay extending decades into the future, and the analogies that can be drawn with litigation in other areas concerning discount rates; claims for very substantial costs incurred in remedial proceedings; and the usual panoply of questions arising in relation to the tension between fairness-driven equitable principles and black letter construction of long term deeds.

Current and recent cases include:

1. Acting for the claimant employer in the Gleeds litigation; a claim for £60m against multiple defendants (consultants, counsel, solicitors) for losses resulting from a failure to comply with statutory requirements as to the execution of deeds; see Briggs v Clay [2019] EWHC 102. The prior decision in the Part 8 proceedings is a leading case on the limited role of estoppel where the invalid execution of a deed is apparent on the face of the document. The case raised very complex issues as to capitalisation of future loss; limitation; and causation and contribution.
2. Acting for pension consultants defending a claim founded on an alleged failure to comply with the provision in the governing deed as to the exercise of the power to amend. The case raises difficult questions as to the fiduciary obligations of trustees; conflicts between different companies within one group; and limitation.
3. Acting for pension consultants defending a claim brought by the PPF on the basis of an alleged tortious duty of care, and a cause of action assigned by the insolvent employer. The case raised questions as to the identification and quantification of loss in the context of employer insolvency, and the PPF’s title to sue.
4. Advising generally as to issues in the pensions field relating to the causation and quantification of loss, the assignment of claims, and the application of the transferred loss doctrine; all in connection with title to sue and ‘wrong claimant’ points.

Patrick has considerable experience of applications for judicial review arising out of his work in the disciplinary/regulatory context. He has appeared in a number of reported cases concerning the construction of statutes pursuant to s.3 of the Human Rights Act – eg. Cachia v Faluyi. In the last few years this grounding has enabled Patrick to develop his public law practice, especially in the field of political activity and the funding of political parties. In 2010 he acted in the Supreme Court for the successful appellant in R (on application of Electoral Commission) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court; UKIP as interested party [2010] UKSC 40. He acted for claimants in the claim against DECC for damages under the Human Right Act which arose out of the attempt to make retrospective changes to solar heating tariffs, the subject of the decision of the Court of Appeal at DECC v Breyer [2015] EWHC (Civ) 408, now a leading case in the jurisprudence on claims for damages for infringement of A1P1 rights.

Cases

“He’s a fearsome courtroom performer with a Rolls-Royce mind. Someone you’d want to fight your corner in a hard case.” “If you ask him for an opinion to stand by he’ll give one, and he holds the attention of the court and intimidates the opposition with his gravitas.” “A brilliant advocate: he’s very clever, user-friendly and a good laugh. He’s a very rounded person as well as being incredibly able.” – Chambers & Partners, 2022

“Hugely intelligent and eloquent both in written and oral advocacy” – Legal 500, 2020

“His presentation style is fantastic and he’s very good at holding a room, while delivering the key message of his advice.” “He is extremely experienced and truly specialises in professional negligence. He can distil a case of a million papers down to size.” – Chambers & Partners, 2020

“He is fantastic on his feet and I have the utmost confidence in him.” “One of, if not THE best for professional negligence claims. He is calm, tactical and holds his nerve.” – Chambers & Partners, 2019

“He is particularly impressive in the court room; completely unflappable.” – Legal 500, 2019

Former Chambers & Partners Professional Negligence QC of the year (and nominated for a second time in 2017), Patrick has appeared in many leading cases at appellate level. He defended expert witness immunity in the Supreme Court in Jones v Kaney.

‘He has a fantastic manner and outstanding judgement’ – The Legal 500, 2015.

Patrick Lawrence comes from a racing family. He has conducted a number of hearings before the BHA’s Disciplinary Panel, and for a period sat on the Panel as one of its three legally qualified members. He has acted in many cases concerning sports spread betting, and has drafted the standard terms used by the members of the Sports Spread Betting Association. Cases include: (i) McGarel Groves v Glyn; action arising out of death of international dressage horse; (ii) BHA v Warwick Racecourse; 2day hearing arising out of abandonment of racing at Warwick; (iii) BHA v Wigham & MacKay; 2 day hearing into Rule 155/157 complaints.

He appeared for the successful defendant in Venturi v Coral Eurobet [2012] EWHC 2139, a claim brought by an internet gambler who alleged that he had turned 20 euros into 700,000 euros in 2 hours.

In 2011 he obtained an injunction on the morning of Derby day to restrain Kieren Fallon from riding in the Derby; Araci v Fallon [2011] EWCA Civ 668.

In 2017-19 he acted in a number of claims brought against gambling operators by parties who claimed that their money had been used, and lost, by a gambler who should not have been allowed to bet. The claims involved the development of equitable principles to circumvent the obstacles created by the decision in Calvert v William Hill.

Cases