Former Chambers & Partners Professional Negligence QC of the year, Patrick has appeared in many leading cases at appellate level.

He defended expert witness immunity in the Supreme Court in Jones v Kaney. If you believe the Directories: “a wonderful advocate”, “”extremely bright and very personable – a formidable opponent” [Chambers]. “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] A Rolls-Royce silk … able and approachable in equal measure, one of the most in demand professional indemnity barristers … first port of call, particularly when it comes to large surveyors’ and valuers’ claims … a towering courtroom presence .. superb in complex heavyweight cases, known for razor-sharp mind and ability to take a witness apart.” [Chambers] “very charismatic and good with clients; he is able and approachable in equal measure” [Chambers]. “He is a brilliant lawyer with a real appreciation of the ‘human’ side of cases”, “a superb advocate, who always manages to engage the court and present arguments in a compelling fashion”, “highly persuasive” and “can make complicated arguments understandable” [Legal 500]. “He has a fantastic manner and outstanding judgement”, “Inspires great confidence and tackles problem with the minimum of stress” [Legal 500].

Many of his recent professional negligence cases have been in the commercial and company law sectors. This work fits well with his expertise in auditors’ negligence and his involvement in claims against investment/pensions advisers, tax advisers, and other financial services professionals. He is numerate (as barristers go). He is retained in cases where effective cross-examination is considered critical. Many of his cases involve allegations of fraud or other impropriety in the commercial world, and he is prepared to read closely large amounts of material in order to find out what really went on, and then – if necessary – to go to court to prove it.

There is an obvious connection between his professional liability work and disciplinary proceedings involving professionals, and he has acted for complainants and respondents in relation to conduct issues concerning solicitors, barristers, accountants and surveyors. He has conducted a number of substantial hearings involving allegations of misconduct against auditors on behalf of the JDS, the AADB and now the FRC, the bodies responsible for investigating complaints against auditors in cases raising issues of public interest.

He is frequently retained to advise on coverage issues, particularly in the field of professional indemnity insurance.

He studies chance and probability, not only in the legal context, and has readily adapted to the brave new world in which lawyers are required to gamble on the success of their own cases.

Patrick operates also in the field of public law, specialising in A1P1 cases. He appeared in the Supreme Court in UKIP v Electoral Commission, and in Court of Appeal in the A1P1 solar panel claims against DECC; Breyer v DECC.

He is a co-author of the chapter on solicitors’ negligence in the Lloyds looseleaf on Professional Negligence.

Privacy Policy

Click here for a Privacy Policy for Patrick Lawrence QC.

Areas of Expertise

Professional Liability

Download

“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.

Cases

Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor

[2013] EWCA Civ 1466 CofA; [2013] EWHC 25 Arnold J.
[2013] EWCA Civ 1466 CofA; [2013] EWHC 25 Arnold J.
Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor
Brill v. Penn

[1997] 1 WLR 1356 ; [1997] 3 All ER 470 ; [1997] 74 P&Cr; 210 ; LTL 16/4/97
[1997] 1 WLR 1356 ; [1997] 3 All ER 470 ; [1997] 74 P&Cr; 210 ; LTL 16/4/97
Brill v. Penn
Accountants, Auditors & Actuaries

Patrick has acted in a number of claims against accountants that have gone to trial and to appeal. The cases have concerned tax advice; investment advice; general financial advice to private individuals and family; and a wide range of advice to corporate clients. A representative case is Little v George Little Sebire which involved defective advice on Corporation Tax and related tax avoidance issues.  He appeared in Haines Watts v Thornhill, a multi party case arising out of a container leasing tax avoidance scheme involving solicitors, accountants and tax counsel. He acted in the fall-out from the failed Cabvision litigation, which itself concerned another over-ambitious tax avoidance scheme.

Auditors’ negligence is a separate area of expertise. He has conducted three lengthy contested cases, Resort Hotels, Wiggins and Mayflower (each involving much pre-hearing investigation and drafting, and each going to a contested hearing before the tribunal) on behalf of the Joint Disciplinary Scheme, the AADB or now the FRC. He has extensive knowledge of auditing and accounting standards; and in particular of the issues that arise where auditors suspect fraud on the part of management, or where auditors are asked by management to recognise revenue/profit prematurely or inappropriately. He acted on auditor and director complaints arising out of the largest ever fraud on the AIM, Langbar International PLC – 2011-12) and arising out of the Farepak collapse (the Christmas hampers case) – 2013.

He is currently acting in a $200m auditors negligence claim arising out of the collapse of an insurance conglomerate in the Eastern Caribbean.

Financial Services Professionals

His familiarity with claims against accountants fits well with claims arising out of bad investment advice. He is currently instructed on claims concerning the mis-selling of endowment mortgages; the marketing of ‘zeros’; the negligent management of a portfolio of equities (excessive weighting in technology and internet stocks); and many claims related to the aggressive marketing of supposedly tax-efficient schemes which have gone disastrously wrong.

Insurance Brokers & Agents

He has acted in many claims against insurance brokers. Not many have reached court, but that may partly be because such claims tend to be rather difficult to defend on liability issues. He appeared in Jones v Environcom [2011] EWCA 1152. Kirk v Aviva and others settled shortly before trial in 2017; a fire case involving claims against insurers and brokers, and allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of undisclosed close commercial connections between broker and insurer.

Lawyers

Patrick has very extensive experience of all forms of litigation arising out of claims against lawyers. In the 1990s he was frequently instructed by the Solicitors Indemnity Fund in cases involving errors made (allegedly) in a very wide range of areas of legal practice. He was instructed in the managed litigation involving claims brought by the Bristol & West Building Society, which went to a 12-week trial before Chadwick J. He was subsequently instructed in further managed litigation and mediation concerning claims brought by other lenders. His involvement in the protracted duel between lenders and those who insure solicitors has left him with an understanding not only of most forms of mortgage fraud and incompetent conveyancing, but also of the increasing significance of equitable and proprietary claims in the context of professional liability and of the delicate handling required in cases containing allegations of impropriety. He acted for the defendant solicitors in Lexi v Pannone, a claim arising out of the £100m fraud perpetrated by the managing director of the claimant company which raises Stone & Rolls illegality issues; for the defendant solicitors in the case brought by Earl Spencer in relation to the conduct of divorce proceedings; and for the claimant in proceedings against the lawyers who acted in the unsuccessful Cabvision litigation. He successfully defended the Petrocapital claim, which concerned advice on convertible loan notes against the background of a bolier room scam. He acted in the managed claims concerning Right to Buy. He is currently acting in high value claims involving the conduct of big money divorce proceedings, and in multi-party pensions negligence litigation arising out of the Gleeds decision.

Patrick co-authors the section on solicitors’ negligence in the Lloyds Looseleaf on Professional Negligence

Cases

Ward Hadaway v DB UK Bank Limited

[2013] EWHC 4538
[2013] EWHC 4538
Ward Hadaway v DB UK Bank Limited
Petrocapital Resources PLC v Morrison & Foerster

[2013] EWHC 2682
[2013] EWHC 2682
Petrocapital Resources PLC v Morrison & Foerster
Lexi Holdings v Pannone & Partners

[2009] EWHC 2590 Briggs J
[2009] EWHC 2590 Briggs J
Lexi Holdings v Pannone & Partners
(1) William James Luke (2) Kingsley Smith & Co (A Firm) v (1) Wansbroughs (A Firm) (2) Caroline Addy
[2003] EWHC 3151 (QB) ; LTL 18/12/2003
[2003] EWHC 3151 (QB) ; LTL 18/12/2003
(1) William James Luke (2) Kingsley Smith & Co (A Firm) v (1) Wansbroughs (A Firm) (2) Caroline Addy
Bowie v. Southorns

[2002] EWHC 1389, Nelson J ; [2003] PNLR 7 ; LTL 9/7/02
[2002] EWHC 1389, Nelson J ; [2003] PNLR 7 ; LTL 9/7/02
Bowie v. Southorns
Martin William Cave v. Robinson Jarvis & Rolf (A Firm)

[2002] UKHL 18 ; [2003] 1 AC 385
[2002] UKHL 18 ; [2003] 1 AC 385
Martin William Cave v. Robinson Jarvis & Rolf (A Firm)
Parry v. Edwards Geldard

LTL 9/2/98
LTL 9/2/98
Parry v. Edwards Geldard
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v. Lewis Silkin & Anor : Same v. Marsha Shaire & Others
[2001] 3 WLR 639 ; [2001] 4 All ER 364 ; [2000] 1 FLR 973 ; [2000] 3 EGLR 131
[2001] 3 WLR 639 ; [2001] 4 All ER 364 ; [2000] 1 FLR 973 ; [2000] 3 EGLR 131
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v. Lewis Silkin & Anor : Same v. Marsha Shaire & Others
Maes Finance Ltd v. Sharp & Partners

[1999] 69 Con LR 46 ; LTL 3/8/99
[1999] 69 Con LR 46 ; LTL 3/8/99
Maes Finance Ltd v. Sharp & Partners
Bristol & West plc v. Bhadresa

LTL 13/11/98
LTL 13/11/98
Bristol & West plc v. Bhadresa
Halifax Mortgage Services Ltd v. S & S

[1998] PNLR 616 ; LTL 6/3/98
[1998] PNLR 616 ; LTL 6/3/98
Halifax Mortgage Services Ltd v. S & S
Parry v. Edwards Geldard

LTL 9/2/98
LTL 9/2/98
Parry v. Edwards Geldard
Bristol & West Building Society (Plaintiff) v. Fancy & Jackson (a firm) (Defendants) : Same (Plaintiff) v. Defendants in 1995 B 2165; 1995 B 2401; 1995 B 2468; 1995 B 2858; 1995 B 3197; 1996 B 0784
LTL 25/9/97 ; [1997] 4 All ER 582
LTL 25/9/97 ; [1997] 4 All ER 582
Bristol & West Building Society (Plaintiff) v. Fancy & Jackson (a firm) (Defendants) : Same (Plaintiff) v. Defendants in 1995 B 2165; 1995 B 2401; 1995 B 2468; 1995 B 2858; 1995 B 3197; 1996 B 0784
Bristol & West Building Society v. May, May & Merrimans (a firm) & between The Bristol & West Building Society & 13 Other Parties
LTL 18/4/96 ; [1996] 2 All ER 801 ; [1997] 29 HLR 282 ; [1997] 73 P & CR 158 ; [1996] EGCS 69 ; [1996] 146 NLJ 625
LTL 18/4/96 ; [1996] 2 All ER 801 ; [1997] 29 HLR 282 ; [1997] 73 P & CR 158 ; [1996] EGCS 69 ; [1996] 146 NLJ 625
Bristol & West Building Society v. May, May & Merrimans (a firm) & between The Bristol & West Building Society & 13 Other Parties
Shah v Forsters

[2018] PNLR 8
[2018] PNLR 8
Shah v Forsters
Pension Advisors

Patrick has been instructed in many cases involving allegations of negligence against those who advise pension schemes. They have concerned (among other things) failed post-Barber equalisations; variations to schemes which have been ineffective as a result of a lack of attention to the provisions governing amendment; issues as to the identity of those to whom the advisers owe duties; black hole damages points; damages issues arising in relation to entry of scheme into PPF. He is currently acting in multi-party litigation arising out of the decision of Newey J. in Gleeds Retirement Benefits Scheme [2014] EWHC 1178; and in litigation brought by the PPF both as assignee and in its own right. Each case is due to be tried in 2019.

Surveyors & Lawyers

Much of Patrick’s work in the 1990s related to allegedly over-optimistic valuations. He appeared in Platform Home Loans, the leading authority on the interaction in claims against valuers of the Saamco principle and contributory negligence on the part of claimant lenders. In 2009 he acted for the claimant in McKay v Savills – a claim arising out of dishonest collusion between buyer and property professionals.

Since the market collapse in 2008-09 he has been retained in a large number of high value claims against valuers, and is very familiar with the issues that arise where claims arise out of aggressive lending practices of 2000-2008. In 2010 he appeared for the successful defendant in K/S Lincoln v CBRE [2010] EWHC 1156, a claim concerning the valuation of a £40m portfolio of hotels. The case stands as the most up-to-date authority on the “margin of error defence”. Since then, Patrick has been looking to develop the reach of that defence in cases involving residual valuations of commercial developments, where a small and permissible variation in relation to one component of the valuation can lead to the final valuation figure being ‘out’ by a very significant margin. He has also been considering the issues that arise where an employee of the claimant lender may have acted improperly in relation to the making of the loan in question, and has been exploring the ways in which evidence of an individual’s impropriety may provide a valuer with a complete defence.  He is currently acting in claims involving a £1.2bn commercial portfolio valuation; a €300m portfolio of commercial properties in Benelux/Germany; a £250m commercial valuation in the Midlands; a £150m hotel portfolio valuation; among others.

He acted in Titan (Europe) 2006-3 plc v Colliers  [2015] EWCA Civ 1083; the first valuer’s claim to raise issues as to title to sue in the context of securitisation. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of Blair J (reported at [2014] EWHC 3106, (Comm)), that the defendant valuer had negligently overvalued a large commercial property in Germany, for the purpose of inclusion in a portfolio of loans to be securitised by Credit Suisse. For a more detailed note on this case, written by the instructed counsel, please click here.

Cases

TITAN EUROPE 2006-3 PLC v COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL UK PLC (In Liquidation) (2015)
[2016] PNLA 7; [2015] PNLA 1
[2016] PNLA 7; [2015] PNLA 1
TITAN EUROPE 2006-3 PLC v COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL UK PLC (In Liquidation) (2015)
K/S Lincoln v CBRE

[2010] EWHC 1156
[2010] EWHC 1156
K/S Lincoln v CBRE
Mortgage Express v Countrywide Surveyors

[2015] EWCA 1110
[2015] EWCA 1110
Mortgage Express v Countrywide Surveyors

Commercial

Download

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

D&G; Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority

[2013] EWCA Civ 514
[2013] EWCA Civ 514
D&G; Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority
D&G; Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority

[2015] EWHC 226 (QB)
[2015] EWHC 226 (QB)
D&G; Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority
Breyer Group Plc v Department of Energy and Climate Change

[2015] 2 711 ER 44; [2015] 1 WLR 4559
[2015] 2 711 ER 44; [2015] 1 WLR 4559
Breyer Group Plc v Department of Energy and Climate Change
Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Property Co Ltd

[2013] EWHC 3530
[2013] EWHC 3530
Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Property Co Ltd
Petrocapital Resources PLC v Morrison & Foerster

[2013] EWHC 2682
[2013] EWHC 2682
Petrocapital Resources PLC v Morrison & Foerster
THOMAS COOK TOUR OPERATIONS LTD (FORMERLY SUNWORLD LTD) v HOTEL KAYA
[2009] EWHC 720
[2009] EWHC 720
THOMAS COOK TOUR OPERATIONS LTD (FORMERLY SUNWORLD LTD) v HOTEL KAYA
Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v. United Paints Ltd

LTL 12/11/99
LTL 12/11/99
Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v. United Paints Ltd
Brill v. Penn

[1997] 1 WLR 1356 ; [1997] 3 All ER 470 ; [1997] 74 P&Cr; 210 ; LTL 16/4/97
[1997] 1 WLR 1356 ; [1997] 3 All ER 470 ; [1997] 74 P&Cr; 210 ; LTL 16/4/97
Brill v. Penn
Orb ARL v Fiddler

[2016] EWHC 361 (Comm)
[2016] EWHC 361 (Comm)
Orb ARL v Fiddler

Commercial Chancery

Download

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
  • Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Property Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 3530; trusts arising out of failure of joint venture, Rose J.
  • 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

Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Property Co Ltd

[2013] EWHC 3530
[2013] EWHC 3530
Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Property Co Ltd
Noel Edmonds v Lawson

[2011] EWHC 2897
[2011] EWHC 2897
Noel Edmonds v Lawson
Dore v Leicestershire County Council

[2010] EWHC 1387
[2010] EWHC 1387
Dore v Leicestershire County Council
BUXTON COUNTRY HOMES LTD v (1) SURFBUILD LTD (2) SCSC DEVELOPMENTS LTD (3) JAMES CANSDALE (LITTLE CHALFONT LTD)
[2008] EWHC 1475 (Ch)
[2008] EWHC 1475 (Ch)
BUXTON COUNTRY HOMES LTD v (1) SURFBUILD LTD (2) SCSC DEVELOPMENTS LTD (3) JAMES CANSDALE (LITTLE CHALFONT LTD)
Starbibi Raja (Administratrix of the Estate of Mohammed Sabir Raja Deceased) v. Austin Gray (A Firm)
[2002] EWCA Civ 1965 ; LTL 19/12/2002 ; [2003] 13 EG 117
[2002] EWCA Civ 1965 ; LTL 19/12/2002 ; [2003] 13 EG 117
Starbibi Raja (Administratrix of the Estate of Mohammed Sabir Raja Deceased) v. Austin Gray (A Firm)
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v. Lewis Silkin & Anor : Same v. Marsha Shaire & Others
[2001] 3 WLR 639 ; [2001] 4 All ER 364 ; [2000] 1 FLR 973 ; [2000] 3 EGLR 131
[2001] 3 WLR 639 ; [2001] 4 All ER 364 ; [2000] 1 FLR 973 ; [2000] 3 EGLR 131
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v. Lewis Silkin & Anor : Same v. Marsha Shaire & Others
Bristol & West Building Society (Plaintiff) v. Fancy & Jackson (a firm) (Defendants) : Same (Plaintiff) v. Defendants in 1995 B 2165; 1995 B 2401; 1995 B 2468; 1995 B 2858; 1995 B 3197; 1996 B 0784
LTL 25/9/97 ; [1997] 4 All ER 582
LTL 25/9/97 ; [1997] 4 All ER 582
Bristol & West Building Society (Plaintiff) v. Fancy & Jackson (a firm) (Defendants) : Same (Plaintiff) v. Defendants in 1995 B 2165; 1995 B 2401; 1995 B 2468; 1995 B 2858; 1995 B 3197; 1996 B 0784
Homsy v. Searle

LTL 28/2/96 ; [1996] EGCS 43
LTL 28/2/96 ; [1996] EGCS 43
Homsy v. Searle
Shah v Forsters

[2018] PNLR 8
[2018] PNLR 8
Shah v Forsters

Costs

Download

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) Hill Dickinson v Warren (7.1.19) – considering s.70(1) Solicitors Act; and ambiguities and lacunae in CPR provisions concerning interim costs certificate.

Disciplinary and Regulatory

Download

An approachable and eloquent silk. – Legal 500, 2020

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 the last 4 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 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.

Cases

R (on appn of Crookenden) v ICAEW

[2013] EWHC 1909
[2013] EWHC 1909
R (on appn of Crookenden) v ICAEW
Williams v SRA

[2017] EWHC 1478; EWHC 2005
[2017] EWHC 1478; EWHC 2005
Williams v SRA

Insurance & Reinsurance

Download

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 2013-14 he has appeared in numerous (c. 10-15) 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.

Public Law and Human Rights

Download

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] UKCC 40. He appears for claimants in the claim against DECC for damages under the Human Right Act which arises out of the attempt to make retrospective changes to solar heating tariffs, now on appeal from the ground-breaking decision  in Breyer v DECC [2014] EWHC 2257

Cases

D&G; Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority

[2013] EWCA Civ 514
[2013] EWCA Civ 514
D&G; Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority
D&G; Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority

[2015] EWHC 226 (QB)
[2015] EWHC 226 (QB)
D&G; Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority
Breyer Group Plc v Department of Energy and Climate Change

[2015] 2 711 ER 44; [2015] 1 WLR 4559
[2015] 2 711 ER 44; [2015] 1 WLR 4559
Breyer Group Plc v Department of Energy and Climate Change
R (on application of Electoral Commission) v City of Westminster Magistrates, UKIP intervening
[2010] UKSC 40; [2010] 3 WLR 705
[2010] UKSC 40; [2010] 3 WLR 705
R (on application of Electoral Commission) v City of Westminster Magistrates, UKIP intervening
Cachia v. Faluyi

[2001] EWCA Civ 998 ; [2001] 1 WLR 1966 ; [2001] 1 All ER 192
[2001] EWCA Civ 998 ; [2001] 1 WLR 1966 ; [2001] 1 All ER 192
Cachia v. Faluyi

Sports Law

Download

‘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 has recently joined 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

Cases

Venturi v Coral Eurobet

[2012] EWHC 2139
[2012] EWHC 2139
Venturi v Coral Eurobet
Vefa Ibrahim Araci v Kieren Fallon

[2011] EWCA Civ 668
[2011] EWCA Civ 668
Vefa Ibrahim Araci v Kieren Fallon
Glyn (t/a Priors Farm Equine Veterinary Surgery) v. McGarel-Groves
[2006] EWCA Civ 998; [2005] EWHC 1629 (QB); LTL 11/8/2005
[2006] EWCA Civ 998; [2005] EWHC 1629 (QB); LTL 11/8/2005
Glyn (t/a Priors Farm Equine Veterinary Surgery) v. McGarel-Groves
Exterior Profiles Ltd v. Curragh Bloodstock Agency Ltd

LTL 6/1/00
LTL 6/1/00
Exterior Profiles Ltd v. Curragh Bloodstock Agency Ltd

Offshore

Download

‘”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.

Qualifications & Memberships

Christ Church, Oxford, 1st class degree in P.P.E

VAT registration number: 397272511