Tom Ford

Professional practice

Tom Ford is widely acknowledged as one of the stars of the junior commercial Bar. He is a senior junior regularly instructed – both unled and as part of a team – in high-value commercial disputes, whether contractual or with a tort or fraud aspect. He frequently argues matters against King’s Counsel, and acts both in Court and arbitration. Alongside a top Tier 1 ranking, Legal 500 describes that, “Tom is a force of nature. He can take on much bigger and better funded teams, and beat them into submission almost single-handedly. An extraordinary work ethic and a great legal mind.”

Tom’s practice covers domestic and international commercial dispute resolution, including contractual claims, banking & finance disputes, civil fraud claims, shareholder disputes, arbitrations and related proceedings, and appellate advocacy. Tom is currently recognised in the Legal Directories for his particular reputation in Commercial Dispute Resolution (Chambers and Partners, The Legal 500 and Who’s Who Legal), Civil Fraud (Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500) and Banking and Finance (The Legal 500). Chambers and Partners describes that, “Tom is incredibly tenacious and effective” and that “He is a very established junior with a very sharp intellect and the ability to see new angles.”

Tom’s expertise has been recognised as exceptional: Tom is ranked in Litigation as a “Future Leader” by Who’s Who Legal, has been twice shortlisted as Commercial Litigation Junior of the Year (Chambers Bar Awards 2019 and 2022), and previously highlighted in Legal Week’s Stars of the Bar. That article explained: “Highly commended in 2013’s feature, 2017 sees Ford enter this feature in his own right, as someone who is equally as able at major oligarch disputes, as he is in offshore arbitrations and enforcement actions, to mainstream Commercial Court work, be they banking cases, shareholder disputes, or civil fraud claims…”

Tom has particular and regular experience of acting in high profile and lengthy trials. Recent instructions include acting in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. P&ID, a US $11 billion dollar eight week Commercial Court trial seeking to set aside an arbitration award on the grounds that the award was procured by fraud or contrary to public policy (one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2023); acting – both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal – for a Swiss lawyer in a successful jurisdiction challenge in Public Institution for Social Security v. Al Rajaan & Ors (a previous The Lawyer Top 20 case), and acting in the twelve week Commercial Court trial in Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors, the longest fully remote Commercial Court trial of 2020, involving the cross-examination of witnesses and experts from the UK, Russia, Ukraine and America via video link.

In addition to acting in trials and arbitrations, Tom has considerable experience in interlocutory matters (including freezing injunctions, applications concerning disclosure and challenges to privilege claims, summary judgment and security for costs applications), arbitration enforcement claims and in appeals.

Tom has also acted in arbitrations under various different rules (including ICC, LCIA, DIFC-LCIA, NAI and ad hoc) and seated in various different jurisdictions around the world, including different European Countries, the Middle East, and India. He has also acted in the DIFC Courts in the Dubai International Financial Centre.

What others say

Tom’s most recent comments in the legal directories include:

Legal 500 UK Bar 2023, Banking & Finance:

“Clear, well organised in his submissions, and thorough”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2023, Commercial Litigation:

“Tom has an impressive grasp of detail and the law, but is able to distill that into clear advice and strategic suggestions. He is responsive, very hard-working and overall a pleasure to deal with. His advocacy is well-prepared and persuasive.”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2023, Fraud: Civil:

“Tom is a force of nature. He can take on much bigger and better funded teams, and beat them into submission almost single-handedly. An extraordinary work ethic and a great legal mind. And a very nice chap as well – it is a real pleasure working with him.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2023, Commercial Dispute Resolution:

“Tom has a keen intellect and lives and breathes your case for you.” “He provides excellent written work and is responsive and intelligent. A star in the making.” “He is very good on the strategic side and at looking at everything with a holistic view.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2023, Fraud: Civil:

“Tom is incredibly tenacious and effective.” “He is a very established junior with a very sharp intellect and the ability to see new angles.”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2021, Banking & Finance:

“He is bright, energetic and has the tenacity to always stay one step ahead of the opposition – his strategic thinking is beyond his years.”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2021, Commercial Litigation:

“He combines immense intellectual firepower with incredible focus and a great tactical sense, he drives the litigation in a way that few junior barristers can do or would even attempt.”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2021, Fraud: Civil:

“One of the finest juniors I have ever worked with – diligent, hard-working, highly-intelligent and talented strategist, his package of skills are, to my mind, unrivalled in this area.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2021, Commercial Dispute Resolution:

“Very thorough and precise, he is fantastic to work with and has great energy.” “He is good on his feet and he knows what the court wants to hear.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2021, Fraud: Civil:

“An extremely bright and able junior who is excellent in court.”

“He’s passionate, driven and comes up with points that change the case.”

In 2019 Tom was shortlisted for Commercial Litigation Junior of the Year (Chambers Bar Awards), with Chambers UK Bar 2020 identifying that Tom “has an intoxicating combination of caution, intelligence and tactical brilliance; he really is three steps ahead in most situations” and “he spots case-changing points that nobody on the other side sees.”

Legal 500 in its 2020 edition particularly highlighted Tom for Civil Fraud and Banking and Finance, describing that he is, “a superstar destined for great things” and that “he is unflappable, dealing with each challenge efficiently and effectively through a combination of determination and charm.”

The previous 2018 edition of Chambers UK Bar Guide described Tom as “a barrister with an insatiable appetite for work, he has a lot of great ideas and can assimilate a morass of facts into a single, succinct point” and that “he goes out of his way to be helpful”, whilst the 2019 edition described that Tom “performs very well, and is very smart, user-friendly, keen and enthusiastic” and “demonstrates excellent attention to detail and drafting skills.” The Legal 500 previously described Tom in its 2019 edition as, ‘an absolutely first-rate junior combining intellect with sound practical judgement and advice.’

Tom was one of Legal Week’s Stars of the Bar 2017. The article explained: “highly commended in 2013’s feature, 2017 sees Ford enter this feature in his own right, as someone who is equally as able at major oligarch disputes, as he is in offshore arbitrations and enforcement actions, to mainstream Commercial Court work, be they banking cases, shareholder disputes, or civil fraud claims… Instructed by firms ranging from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, to Clifford Chance, Ford is described by one as a “diligent junior who never ceases to impress with his capacity for hard work,” while one leader describes him as “outstanding”. What makes him so good? “He has an extraordinary photographic memory combined with a keen eye for the really important matters,” notes one senior lawyer, while another says he is “a bold advocate who is not afraid to express his views forcefully, even if it sometimes means having to go toe-to- toe against those who are more senior to him.”

Examples of recent cases

Acting (led by Joe Smouha KC) in proceedings in the Commercial Court concerning the enforcement of a substantial New York Convention arbitration award, with issues including the effect of international sanctions. Recent reported judgments include Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. International Military Services Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 6409, upheld by the Court of Appeal in an expedited appeal (Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. International Military Services Ltd [2020] 1 WLR 1726) and subsequently refused permission by the Supreme Court.
Acting (led by Mark Howard KC) in PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors, a very substantial Commercial Court dispute involving claims under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code against a number of Ukrainian oligarchs. The case culminated in a twelve week fully remote trial in 2020. Interlocutory issues included jurisdiction & the question of the discharge of the worldwide freezing injunction (first instance PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2017] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 833 and Court of Appeal PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2018] 4 WLR 14); security for costs (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2019] Costs L.R. 977); permission to amend (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2018] EWHC 2499 (Comm) and subsequently PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 623 (Comm)), claims to privilege (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 2437 (Comm)) and waiver of privilege (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 3225 (Comm)), and relief from sanctions (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors ([2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm)).
Acting (led by Nathan Pillow KC) in Public Institution for Social Security v. Al Rajaan, [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm), concerning the proper jurisdiction of a major fraud claim.
Acting (as sole Counsel) in a two-day jurisdiction and summary judgment application in the Chancery Division in relation to share options granted in relation to the sale of a major telecommunications group (Kinsella v. Emasan AG [2019] EWHC 3196 (Ch)).
Acting (led by Stephen Houseman KC) in a LCIA-DIFC Arbitration concerning a shareholder dispute in the tech industry involving DIFC and KSA entities, and acting as sole counsel in related proceedings in the DIFC Court (CFI 031/2019, judgment dated 5 March 2020).
Acting (led by Graham Chapman KC) in a five-week Commercial Court trial in a Russian oligarch dispute: Filatona Trading Ltd v. Navigator Equities Ltd [2019] EWHC 173 (Comm), with interlocutory issues including security for costs (Danilina v. Chernukhin [2018] EWHC 39 (Comm) and Court of Appeal [2019] 1 WLR 758) and disclosure.
Acting (as sole Counsel) in a two-day Commercial Court interlocutory hearing in relation to claims of privilege (Sotheby’s v Mark Weiss Ltd [2019] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 191) and against David Foxton KC (Sotheby’s v Mark Weiss Ltd [2017] EWHC 3789 (Comm)).
Acting (led by Joe Smouha KC) in a dispute (Chancery Division) involving share options in the context of the sale of an international telecommunications business.
Acted (led by Richard Millett KC) in a LCIA Arbitration for a major Russian entity in a multibillion-dollar shareholder dispute over the control of a leading international telecommunications company.
Acted (led by David Joseph KC) for a major European wind turbine manufacturer in an ad hoc arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in respect of a dispute with its Indian joint venture partner.
Acted for shareholders of a substantial retailer in relation to disputes under a Shareholders’ Agreement in an LCIA Arbitration.
Acted (led by Gordon Pollock KC and Salim Moollan KC) in Burlington Resources (Irish Sea) Ltd v. Hydrocarbon Resources Ltd, a dispute in the Commercial Court involving issues of contractual construction and equitable rectification.
Acted (as sole Counsel) in a jurisdiction challenge in the Commercial Court involving Swiss parties in connection with a dispute concerning oil supplies in Turkmenistan.
Acted (led by Graham Dunning KC) in a substantial LCIA Arbitration involving a dispute between joint venture parties.
Acted (led by David Foxton KC and Stephen Houseman KC) in JP Morgan Chase Bank plc (2) JP Morgan Securities Ltd v. Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe Anstalt öffentlichen Rechts v. Clifford Chance Partnerschaftsgesellschaft von Rechtsanwälten, Wirtschaftsprüfern, Steuerberatern und Solicitors: an eight week Commercial Court trial in connection with allegations of misselling of Credit Derivative Obligations. Interlocutory applications included disputes in relation to the specific disclosure of internal investigations and claims to privilege.
Acted (led by Dominic Kendrick KC and Paul McGrath KC) in Linsen International Ltd v. Humpuss Sea Transport PTE [2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 663; [2011] 2 CLC 773: successfully discharging a worldwide freezing injunction which had been incorrectly obtained on the basis of piercing the corporate veil.

Arbitration & related court applications

Tom was one of Legal Week’s Stars of the Bar 2017. The article explained: “Highly commended in 2013’s feature, 2017 sees Ford enter this feature in his own right, as someone who is equally as able at major oligarch disputes, as he is in offshore arbitrations and enforcement actions, to mainstream Commercial Court work, be they banking cases, shareholder disputes, or civil fraud claims…”

Tom has experience in acting in arbitrations under various institutional rules, and in different jurisdictions. Tom is also regularly instructed in ancillary court proceedings, including claims to enforce arbitration awards.

Examples of recent cases, which are typical of Tom’s practice, include:

Acting (led by Joe Smouha KC) in proceedings in the Commercial Court concerning the enforcement of a substantial New York Convention arbitration award, with issues including the effect of international sanctions. Recent reported judgments include Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. International Military Services Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 6409, upheld by the Court of Appeal in an expedited appeal (Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. International Military Services Ltd [2020] 1 WLR 1726) and subsequently refused permission by the Supreme Court.
Acting (led by Stephen Houseman KC) in a LCIA-DIFC Arbitration concerning a shareholder dispute in the tech industry involving DIFC and KSA entities, and acting as sole counsel in related proceedings in the DIFC Court (CFI 031/2019, judgment dated 5 March 2020).
Acted (led by Richard Millett KC) in a LCIA Arbitration for a major Russian entity in a multibillion-dollar shareholder dispute over the control of a leading international telecommunications company.
Acting (led by Graham Dunning KC) in a substantial LCIA Arbitration involving a dispute between joint venture parties.
Acting (led by David Joseph KC) in an ad hoc arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
Being brought in (led by Vernon Flynn KC) for the purpose of preparing an appeal to the Court of Appeal on behalf of a party contesting jurisdiction and seeking to resist enforcement of an arbitration award falling within the New York Convention.
Acted (led by Graham Dunning KC) in an ICC arbitration seated in Dubai. The final hearing took place in the UAE in February 2014.
Acted (led by Joe Smouha KC) in a NAI arbitration involving a contractual dispute arising from a License Agreement relating to the development of a pharmaceutical drug. The final hearing took place in the Hague and resulted in a $130 million damages award.

Banking & financial services

The Legal 500 has particularly identified Tom for his skill in Banking and Finance, describing Tom in its 2021 edition as “bright, energetic and has the tenacity to always stay one step ahead of the opposition – his strategic thinking is beyond his years.” The 2020 edition described Tom as, “unflappable, dealing with each challenge efficiently and effectively through a combination of determination and charm.” Tom was highlighted in its 2019 edition as ‘An absolutely first-rate junior combining intellect with sound practical judgement and advice.’

Tom has experience acting for and against major financial institutions and corporations in disputes involving banking and financial transactions.

Examples of recent cases, which are typical of Tom’s practice, include:

Acting (as sole Counsel) in a two-day jurisdiction and summary judgment application in the Chancery Division in relation to share options granted in relation to the sale of a major telecommunications group (Kinsella v. Emasan AG [2019] EWHC 3196 (Ch)).
Acting (as sole Counsel) in a dispute involving personal guarantees in connection with loans provided to a company.
Acting (as sole Counsel) in relation to charging orders over the shares.
Acting in a dispute involving claims under s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to the refinancing of a corporate entity and the repurchase deeply subordinated convertible private equity certificates (CPECs).
Acting (led by James Collins KC) in Capita Business Services Ltd & Ors v. Reliance Security Group Ltd: a dispute in the Commercial Court involving allegations of breach of warranty in connection with the sale of a business.
Acting (as sole Counsel) in Integral Petroleum SA v. SCU-Finanz AC & Ors, a jurisdiction challenge in the Commercial Court involving Swiss parties in connection with a dispute concerning oil supplies in Turkmenistan.
Acting (led by James Collins KC) in Ng Su Ling v. (1) Goldman Sachs International (2) Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, a dispute in the Commercial Court concerning bankers’ duties in relation to the termination of a margin loan facility and liquidation of a portfolio.
Acted (led by David Foxton KC and Stephen Houseman KC) in JP Morgan Chase Bank plc (2) JP Morgan Securities Ltd v. Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe Anstalt öffentlichen Rechts v. Clifford Chance Partnerschaftsgesellschaft von Rechtsanwälten, Wirtschaftsprüfern, Steuerberatern und Solicitors, an eight-week Commercial Court trial in connection with allegations of misselling of Credit Derivative Obligations. Interlocutory applications included disputes in relation to the specific disclosure of internal investigations and claims to privilege.
Acted (led by Paul McGrath KC) in Svenksa Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA (Publ) & ors v. DS Smith Plc, a dispute in the Chancery Division relating to the preparation of Completion Accounts in connection with the sale of a business.
Acted (led by Joe Smouha KC) in Saltri III Ltd v. MD Mezzanine SA [2012] EWHC 1270 (Comm), a dispute relating to a mezzanine financing arrangement. The case, which culminated in a three-week Commercial Court Trial, included substantial interlocutory hearings, including a two-day disclosure application involving issues of control and privilege.

Civil fraud & asset recovery

Tom is identified in both the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for his expertise in cases involving civil fraud & asset recovery. Chambers & Partners describes Tom in its 2021 edition as “an extremely bright and able junior who is excellent in court” and “passionate, driven and comes up with points that change the case.” Legal 500 in its 2021 edition describes Tom as “One of the finest juniors I have ever worked with – diligent, hard-working, highly-intelligent and talented strategist, his package of skills are, to my mind, unrivalled in this area.”

The Legal 500 described Tom in its 2020 edition as, “a superstar destined for great things.” Tom was previously selected as one of Legal Week’s Stars of the Bar, with the article explaining, “highly commended in 2013’s feature, 2017 sees Ford enter this feature in his own right, as someone who is equally as able at major oligarch disputes, as he is in offshore arbitrations and enforcement actions, to mainstream Commercial Court work, be they banking cases, shareholder disputes, or civil fraud claims…”

Tom has considerable experience in claims pursuing and defending allegations of fraud and bad faith (including disputes involving claims of deceit, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy), and is regularly instructed on significant and high profile cases involving allegations of fraud.

Examples of recent cases, which are typical of Tom’s practice, include:

Acting (led by Mark Howard KC) in PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors, a very substantial Commercial Court dispute involving claims under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code against a number of Ukrainian oligarchs. The case culminated in a twelve week fully remote trial in 2020. Interlocutory issues included jurisdiction & the question of the discharge of the worldwide freezing injunction (first instance PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2017] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 833 and Court of Appeal PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2018] 4 WLR 14); security for costs (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2019] Costs L.R. 977); permission to amend (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2018] EWHC 2499 (Comm) and subsequently PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 623 (Comm)), claims to privilege (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 2437 (Comm)) and waiver of privilege (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 3225 (Comm)), and relief from sanctions (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors ([2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm)).
Acting (led by Nathan Pillow KC) in Public Institution for Social Security v. Al Rajaan, [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm), concerning the proper jurisdiction of a major fraud claim.
Acting (as sole Counsel) in a two-day Commercial Court interlocutory hearing in relation to claims of privilege (Sotheby’s v Mark Weiss Ltd [2018] EWHC 3179 (Comm)) and against David Foxton KC (Sotheby’s v Mark Weiss Ltd [2017] EWHC 3789 (Comm)).
Instructed in a five-week Commercial Court trial, and multiple interlocutory applications, including relating to disclosure and security for costs (which went to the Court of Appeal) in a Russian oligarch dispute: Danilina v Chernukhin [2018] EWHC 39 (Comm); Danilina v Chernukhin [2019] 1 W.L.R. 758; Danilina v Chernukhin [2018] EWHC 2503 (Comm) and Filatona Trading Ltd v Navigator Equities Ltd [2019] EWHC 173 (Comm).
Acting (led by Vernon Flynn KC) in Jakob v. Mazur, a dispute concerning the registration and enforcement of a freezing injunction in England pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 and under Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001, Schedule 1, paragraph 2.
Acting (led by Paul McGrath KC) in the Commercial Court for a FTSE 100 company in claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty against former employees and other individuals relating to the misappropriation of funds.
Acting (led by David Joseph KC) in an ad hoc arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 involving a dispute in connection with a joint venture in India, including allegations of breach of duties of good faith.
Acted (led by Paul McGrath KC) in Svenksa Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA (Publ) & ors v. DS Smith Plc, a dispute in the Chancery Division relating to the preparation of Completion Accounts in connection with the sale of a business, including claims of conspiracy.
Acted (led by Paul Stanley KC) in Concept Oil Services Ltd v. En-Gin Group LLP, obtaining a worldwide freezing injunction in the Commercial Court in a dispute involving allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy.
Acted (led by Dominic Kendrick KC and Paul McGrath KC) in Linsen International Ltd v. Humpuss Sea Transport PTE [2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 663; [2011] 2 CLC 773, discharging in the Commercial Court a worldwide freezing injunction which had been incorrectly obtained on the basis of piercing the corporate veil.

Commercial chancery disputes

Acting (as sole Counsel) in a two-day jurisdiction and summary judgment application in the Chancery Division in relation to share options granted in relation to the sale of a major telecommunications group (Kinsella v. Emasan AG [2019] EWHC 3196 (Ch)).
Instructed in a five-week trial, and multiple interlocutory applications, including relating to disclosure and security for costs (which went to the Court of Appeal) in a Russian oligarch dispute, including claims relating to the proper construction and effect of a shareholders’ agreement: Danilina v Chernukhin [2018] EWHC 39 (Comm); Danilina v Chernukhin [2019] 1 W.L.R. 758; Danilina v Chernukhin [2018] EWHC 2503 (Comm) and Filatona Trading Ltd v Navigator Equities Ltd [2019] EWHC 173 (Comm).
Acted (led by Richard Millett KC) in a LCIA Arbitration for a major Russian entity in a multibillion-dollar shareholder dispute over the control of a leading international telecommunications company.
Acted for shareholders of a substantial retailer in relation to disputes under a Shareholders’ Agreement.
Acting (led by Gordon Pollock KC and Salim Moollan) in Burlington Resources (Irish Sea) Ltd v. Hydrocarbon Resources Ltd, a Commercial Court dispute including claims of equitable rectification.
Acting (led by David Joseph KC) in an ad hoc arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 involving a dispute between joint venture parties.
Acted (led by Paul McGrath KC) in Svenksa Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA (Publ) & ors v. DS Smith Plc, a dispute in the Chancery Division relating to the preparation of Completion Accounts in connection with the sale of a business.
Acted (led by Richard Millett KC) in proceedings in the Chancery Division relating to the registration and priority of charges over property, including issues of subrogation.

Commercial litigation

Tom is identified in both the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for his expertise in commercial litigation. The Legal 500 in its 2021 edition describes that Tom “combines immense intellectual firepower with incredible focus and a great tactical sense, he drives the litigation in a way that few junior barristers can do or would even attempt.” Chambers & Partners in its 2021 edition describes that Tom is “very thorough and precise, he is fantastic to work with and has great energy” and “he is good on his feet and he knows what the court wants to hear.”

Tom was shortlisted as Commercial Litigation Junior of the Year (Chambers Bar Awards 2019), with Chambers UK Bar 2020 identifying that Tom “has an intoxicating combination of caution, intelligence and tactical brilliance; he really is three steps ahead in most situations” and “he spots case-changing points that nobody on the other side sees.”

Chambers and Partners has consistently highlighted Tom for his skill in Commercial Dispute Resolution, describing Tom in its 2018 edition as “a barrister with an insatiable appetite for work, he has a lot of great ideas and can assimilate a morass of facts into a single, succinct point” and that “he goes out of his way to be helpful.” In 2019, Chambers and Partners described that Tom “performs very well, and is very smart, user-friendly, keen and enthusiastic” and “demonstrates excellent attention to detail and drafting skills.”

Tom has experience across a wide range of international and domestic commercial cases, including disputes regarding contractual construction, duties under contracts and in tort, issues of quantum and substantial banking & finance and civil fraud claims. Tom acts at all stages of the litigation process, including advisory work, drafting pleadings, appearing in court and bringing appeals (with considerable experience of acting in the Court of Appeal).

Examples of recent cases, which are typical of Tom’s practice, include:

Acting (led by Mark Howard KC) in PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors, a very substantial Commercial Court dispute involving claims under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code against a number of Ukrainian oligarchs. The case culminated in a twelve week fully remote trial in 2020. Interlocutory issues included jurisdiction & the question of the discharge of the worldwide freezing injunction (first instance PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2017] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 833 and Court of Appeal PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2018] 4 WLR 14); security for costs (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2019] Costs L.R. 977); permission to amend (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2018] EWHC 2499 (Comm) and subsequently PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 623 (Comm)), claims to privilege (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 2437 (Comm)) and waiver of privilege (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors [2020] EWHC 3225 (Comm)), and relief from sanctions (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors ([2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm)).
Acting (led by Nathan Pillow KC) in the Commercial Court in Public Institution for Social Security v. Al Rajaan, [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm), concerning the proper jurisdiction of a major fraud claim.
Acting (led by Joe Smouha KC) in proceedings in the Commercial Court concerning the enforcement of a substantial New York Convention arbitration award, with issues including the effect of international sanctions. Recent reported judgments include Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. International Military Services Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 6409, upheld by the Court of Appeal in an expedited appeal (Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. International Military Services Ltd [2020] 1 WLR 1726) and subsequently refused permission by the Supreme Court.
Acting (as sole Counsel) in a two-day jurisdiction and summary judgment application in the Chancery Division in relation to share options granted in relation to the sale of a major telecommunications group (Kinsella v. Emasan AG [2019] EWHC 3196 (Ch)).
Acting (led by Stephen Houseman KC) in a LCIA-DIFC Arbitration concerning a shareholder dispute in the tech industry involving DIFC and KSA entities, and acting as sole counsel in related proceedings in the DIFC Court (CFI 031/2019, judgment dated 5 March 2020).
Acting (as sole Counsel) in a two day Commercial Court interlocutory hearing in relation to claims of privilege (Sotheby’s v Mark Weiss Ltd [2018] EWHC 3179 (Comm)) and against David Foxton KC (Sotheby’s v Mark Weiss Ltd [2017] EWHC 3789 (Comm)).
Instructed in a five-week Commercial Court trial, and multiple interlocutory applications, including relating to disclosure and security for costs (which went to the Court of Appeal) in a Russian oligarch dispute: Danilina v Chernukhin [2018] EWHC 39 (Comm); Danilina v Chernukhin [2019] 1 W.L.R. 758; Danilina v Chernukhin [2018] EWHC 2503 (Comm) and Filatona Trading Ltd v Navigator Equities Ltd [2019] EWHC 173 (Comm).
Acting (led by Joe Smouha KC) in a dispute (Chancery Division) involving share options in the context of the sale of an international telecommunications business.
Acting in PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors, a very substantial Commercial Court dispute involving claims under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code, with interlocutory hearings having concerned jurisdiction and discharge of the world wide freezing (which went to the Court of Appeal) and security for costs.
Acting (led by Gordon Pollock KC and Salim Moollan) in Burlington Resources (Irish Sea) Ltd v. Hydrocarbon Resources Ltd, a dispute in the Commercial Court involving issues of contractual construction and rectification.
Acting (as sole Counsel) in Integral Petroleum SA v. SCU-Finanz AC & Ors, a jurisdiction challenge in the Commercial Court involving Swiss parties in connection with a dispute concerning oil supplies in Turkmenistan.
Acting (led by James Collins KC) in Capita Business Services Ltd & Ors v. Reliance Security Group Ltd, a dispute in the Commercial Court involving allegations of breach of warranty in connection with the sale of a business.
Acting (led by Vernon Flynn KC) in Jakob v. Mazur, a dispute involving the registration and enforcement of a freezing injunction in England in Commercial Court proceedings pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 and under Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001, Schedule 1, paragraph 2.
Acting (led by Joe Smouha KC) in proceedings in the Commercial Court concerning the enforcement of a New York Convention arbitration award.
Being brought in (led by Vernon Flynn KC) for the purpose of preparing an appeal to the Court of Appeal on behalf of a party contesting jurisdiction and seeking to resist enforcement of an arbitration award falling within the New York Convention.
Acted (led by David Foxton KC and Stephen Houseman KC) in JP Morgan Chase Bank plc (2) JP Morgan Securities Ltd v. Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe Anstalt öffentlichen Rechts v. Clifford Chance Partnerschaftsgesellschaft von Rechtsanwälten, Wirtschaftsprüfern, Steuerberatern und Solicitors: an eight-week Commercial Court trial in connection with allegations of misselling of Credit Derivative Obligations. Interlocutory applications included disputes in relation to the specific disclosure of internal investigations and claims to privilege.
Acted (led by Paul McGrath KC) in Svenksa Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA (Publ) & ors v. DS Smith Plc, a dispute in the Chancery Division relating to the preparation of Completion Accounts in connection with the sale of a business.

Career

2012: SEC Advanced International Advocacy Course
October 2009: became a tenant of Essex Court Chambers following successful completion of pupillage
2008: Call (Gray’s Inn)
2008: three-month internship at UNHCR Somalia (based in Nairobi)
2008: BVC, Inns of Court School of Law
2007: visiting tutor in Constitutional and Administrative Law at King’s College, London
2007: research assistant: The Law of Confidentiality: A Restatement by Paul Stanley

Education

2007: LLM at the University of London (Restitution; Company Law; Comparative Human Rights; The Law relating to Art and Antiquities)
2006: Law BA (Hons) (Law), Cantab, First Class

Awards