COVID-19 - Latest update

Adam Chichester-Clark

Call 2000

Adam has a commercial and commercial chancery practice with a particular focus on the following areas:

  • Civil fraud and trust claims, often involving urgent applications for freezing orders, proprietary injunctions, relief against non-parties under the Chabra jurisdiction and for disclosure under Norwich Pharmacal and the Banker’s Act.
  • Company and partnership disputes in particular claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against directors, partners and employees and allegations of unfair prejudice between shareholders.
  • Insolvency and restructuring in particular claims involving antecedent transactions and asset recovery following liquidation. His restructuring and non-contentious work includes advising on schemes of arrangement and insurance business transfers.
  • Professional liability including professional negligence claims involving accountants, solicitors, barristers, architects and a wide range of specialist contractors.

Recent appellate work includes landmark Supreme Court decisions: in Willers v Joyce (recognition of the tort of malicious prosecution in civil proceedings); in BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland (confirming the correctness of the Saamco principle in professional liability claims); and in BPE v Gabriel (the potential liability of insolvency practitioners for litigation costs incurred prior to their appointment).

Prior to joining Chambers in 2004, Adam practised as an employed barrister at Clyde & Co, where he was heavily involved in insurance litigation and arbitrations arising out of the PA insurance spiral and the failure of split capital investment trusts. He continues to advise on insurance coverage and subrogation issues.

Examples of Adam’s work include:

  • Global Steel Holding Limited (in Liquidation), Wilson & ors v Mittal [2019]: representing the former director and chairman of a steel investment holding company in respect of an application for private examination by the company’s liquidators.
  • Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & ors v Cooperton Management Ltd & ors [2019]: representing the trustees of various discretionary trusts in respect of tracing and sham claims against them regarding assets amounting to approximately £100m, the subject of freezing and proprietary injunctions.
  • Scottish Boatowners Mutual Insurance Association & TT Club Mutual Insurance Ltd (2019): representing the applicants in their application for a Part VII transfer of a US$300m insurance portfolio under FSMA.
  • Abramovich & ors v Hoffmann (2019): representing the claimant’s formal personal assistant in respect of claims including allegations of dishonest breach of fiduciary duty, bribery, tax evasion and abuse of process.
  • Goodvale Ltd v Munday (2019) appearing for the claimant company on its applications for personal and proprietary injunctions in support of its claims for fraudulent breach of trust and knowing receipt against its former bookkeepers and associated parties.
  • Willers v Joyce [2018] EWHC 3424 (Ch) per Rose J: representing the claimant in respect of his claim that he had been the victim of a malicious claim brought against him by a self-styled billionaire based in the Isle of Man, as the controlling mind of a property and retail group owned by a BVI Trust. The underlying claim, for breach of the claimant’s duties as a director of one of the group companies, had been abandoned immediately before trial in 2013.
  • Kotak v Kotak [2018] EWHC 318 (Ch) per Klein HHJ: appearing for the defendant on his claim that, without his authority or consent, his partner had obtained a series of loans from RBS running to many millions of pounds, which had been secured over partnership property. The Court found that the 28 loans and 7 charges in question had been forged.
  • Phoenix Group Foundation v Cochrane, Stewarts Law LLP v Harbour Fund LLP [2017] EWHC 418 (Comm) per Popplewell J: appearing for the claimant in respect of its claim for c. £73m under the settlement of the Orb litigation. The Court determined that the claimant was entitled to injunctive relief in respect of assets in the hands of a non cause-of-action defendant under the Chabra jurisdiction because there was an arguable case that the defendant controlled them through her ultimate ownership of the corporate structure in which they had been held.
  • Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors [2017] UKSC 21: representing the appellant in respect of its appeal on the extent to which solicitors were responsible for damages for negligence. In accordance with the principle in SAAMCO, the Supreme Court confirmed found that a professional person is only liable for the consequences of the information he has provided to his client being wrong (as opposed to all such consequences), even if the professional knows that the information will be determinative of his client’s decision to pursue the course of action in question.
  • Barrington Development Limited & Anr v Ocra (Seychelles) Ltd & anor [2017] Supreme Court of the Seychelles 184/2017 per Govinden J: representing the defendants in proceedings concerning the shareholding of a Seychelles company in which leave to serve proceedings on them out of the jurisdiction was set aside and the claim struck out.
  • Grenda Investments Ltd v Philip Barton [2017] EWHC 2371 (Comm) per Picken J: representing the claimant on the hearing of its application for summary judgment on claims for circa £20m under 3 loan facility agreements and the defendant’s cross-application to strike out the claims.
  • Willers v Joyce (No.1) [2016] UKSC 43: representing the appellant on its appeal against a decision to strike out his claim on the grounds that there was no tort of malicious prosecution in civil proceedings. By a majority (5 to 4), the Supreme Court determined that there was such a tort in English Law because it would be unjust for a person not to be entitled to compensation for malicious prosecution despite the established public interest in avoiding satellite litigation.
  • Willers v Joyce (No.2) [2016] UKSC 44. The Supreme Court gave guidance on the circumstances in which the President of the Privy Council could direct that a decision of the panel of the Privy Council would be treated as representing the law of England and Wales by the domestic courts.
  • LBI h.f. v Karen Millen [2016] acting for the respondent in her successful application to set aside a statutory demand brought by an Icelandic Bank (formerly known as Landsbankinn) for a sum exceeding £50million under various loan and securities agreements on the grounds that she had been induced to accept the obligations therein by fraudulent misrepresentations in the Bank’s annual accounts and reports.
  • Marino v FM Capital Partners Ltd Marino v FM Capital Partners Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1301 per Longmore, Sales and Beatson LJJ; acting for the defendant who sought to vary a proprietary freezing order to enable him to draw down funds to meet his living and legal expenses on the basis that the funds would be replenished from the proceeds of sale of a house and shares. The Court declined on the basis that he had not established that he had no assets other than those which had been frozen upon which he could draw.
  • Cooper v Thameside Construction Company Limited [2016] EWHC 1694 (TCC) acting for the claimant in subrogated professional negligence claim for damages of circa £6.5m following the flood of a highly prestigious residential property in Hampstead.
  • Re Dowa Insurance Company (Europe) Limited [2016] EWHC 1447 (Ch) per Snowden J: appearing for the applicants on their applications for the sanction of a solvent scheme of arrangement under Part 26 CA 2006 and an insurance business transfer under Part VII FSMA.
  • BPE Solicitors v Gabriel [2015] UKSC 39 appearing for the trustee-in-bankruptcy on his application for a pre-emptive declaration as to his liability for litigation costs incurred prior to his appointment in the event that he adopted the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that he would not be liable for the costs of any distinct proceedings below if he adopted the appeal and there was no longer an automatic rule that insolvency practitioners would be liable for the costs incurred prior to their appointment in respect of litigation which they choose to adopt after their appointment.
  • Key Homes Limited v Rafik Patel [2015] Appearing for the claimant companies on their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and trust against a former director in respect of monies obtained from investors in respect of proposed residential and commercial blocks at 8 development sites.
  • D&K Drost Consult GmbH v Foremost Leisure (Holdings) Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 73 per Longmore: appearing for the defendant to a claim for commission and/or a quantum meruit on the basis that an agreement entered into by a hotel developer had to be interpreted as meaning that the architects and a project management company were entitled to be rewarded for work which they had already undertaken.
  • Carter-Meggs v Templeco 677 Ltd [2015]: acting for insurers in respect of a subrogated claim for professional negligence following a fire at a highly prestigious residential property in Guildford.
  • Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited [2014]: appearing for the Applicants on their application for a Part VII transfer of a US$300m insurance portfolio under FSMA.
  • Hayes v Hayes [2014] Bus. L.R. 1238 per Nugee J. appearing for the debtor on the hearing of a bankruptcy petition against him. In affirming the dismissal of the Petition on appeal, the Court found that new material could be taken into account, provided that there was a change in circumstances and that the clear practice of the insolvency courts was to determine petitions without cross-examination.
  • Re Aston Lloyd & Partners Ltd [2013] Adam appeared for the company’s liquidators in respect of their successful applications for Berkeley Applegate relief in respect to 8 international commercial development sites.
  • Nedgroup Trust Ltd v Nat West & anor [2013] Acting for insurers in obtaining Freezing and Banker’s Trust relief under a subrogated claim for fraudulent misappropriation of trust funds.
  • Langstone Leisure Ltd (LLL) v Willers [2013] EWHC 1498 – Newey J. Acting for the Defendant in a claim alleging breach of his fiduciary and common law duties as a director of a billion pound property and retail business empire. The proceedings were discontinued immediately before trial in April 2013, whereupon the Court refused the third party’s application for costs against the Defendant and made a cut-through order against the claimant.
  • Gabriel v Little, BPE & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1513 per Maurice Kay, Gloster and Fulford LJJ. Acting for the Appellant on his appeal against the dismissal of his claim for fraudulent representation and in response to an appeal by his former solicitors.
  • Crema v Savit & Symkowicz [2013] Acting for the alleged debtor on his successful defence of a Petition on jurisdictional grounds brought by his former US attorneys.
  • Freestyle Extreme Ltd v Loughlin & anor [2013] Acted for the claim company in respect of its successful claims involving allegations against its former directors for breach of their fiduciary duties and breach of trust.
  • Hayes v Hayes [2012] EWHC 1240 (Ch) – Pelling HHJ. The Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Registrar not to exercise his discretion in favour of releasing the Bankrupt arising under a family costs order pursuant to s.281 IA 1986.
  • Edwards & Godding Ltd v Fidler [2012] Acting for the Company’s former director in respect of the Company’s claim for breach of common law and fiduciary duties alleged to have caused losses of c. £1m.
  • O’Connell v Field [2011] Appearing for the Liquidator in an application for “search and seizure” relief under s.365 IA 1986, following the Respondent’s misappropriation of assets in the sum of about £6m from his former employer.
  • Berryland Books v Baldwin & Navaratnarajah [2010] EWCA Civ 1440 per Ward, Longmore and Etherton LJJ. Adam acted for the first appellant in her successful appeal against the finding of the first instance court that she was guilty of conspiracy and breaches of fidelity as an employee.
  • Belfairs Management Limited v Sutherland & anor [2010] All ER (D) 59 (Sep) per Norris J. Acting for the Claimant at the trial of its claim for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty.
  • Koshy v DEG & another [2008] EWCA Civ 27 per Ward, Smith and Arden LJJ. Acting for the claimant in respect of his claims to set aside judgments for fraud, which had been obtained by a German Bank and the liquidators of a Zambian company. The Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that, in previous proceedings, the claim had elected to continue with his appeal on a limited basis before the Court of Appeal rather than having the issue remitted to the Chancery Division.
  • Re Malayan Insurance Company (U.K.) Limited [2008] – acting for the company on the sanction of an insurance cut-off scheme of arrangement.
  • Cases of Interest
    • Global Steel Holding Limited (in Liquidation), Wilson & ors v Mittal [2019]: representing the former director and chairman of a steel investment holding company in respect of an application for private examination by the company’s liquidators.
    • Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & ors v Cooperton Management Ltd & ors [2019]: representing the trustees of various discretionary trusts in respect of tracing and sham claims against them regarding assets amounting to approximately £100m, the subject of freezing and proprietary injunctions.
    • Scottish Boatowners Mutual Insurance Association & TT Club Mutual Insurance Ltd (2019): representing the applicants in their application for a Part VII transfer of a US$300m insurance portfolio under FSMA.
    • Abramovich & ors v Hoffmann (2019): representing the claimant’s formal personal assistant in respect of claims including allegations of dishonest breach of fiduciary duty, bribery, tax evasion and abuse of process.
    • Goodvale Ltd v Munday (2019) appearing for the claimant company on its applications for personal and proprietary injunctions in support of its claims for fraudulent breach of trust and knowing receipt against its former bookkeepers and associated parties.
    • Willers v Joyce [2018] EWHC 3424 (Ch) per Rose J: representing the claimant in respect of his claim that he had been the victim of a malicious claim brought against him by a self-styled billionaire based in the Isle of Man, as the controlling mind of a property and retail group owned by a BVI Trust. The underlying claim, for breach of the claimant’s duties as a director of one of the group companies, had been abandoned immediately before trial in 2013.
    • Kotak v Kotak [2018] EWHC 318 (Ch) per Klein HHJ: appearing for the defendant on his claim that, without his authority or consent, his partner had obtained a series of loans from RBS running to many millions of pounds, which had been secured over partnership property. The Court found that the 28 loans and 7 charges in question had been forged.
    • Phoenix Group Foundation v Cochrane, Stewarts Law LLP v Harbour Fund LLP [2017] EWHC 418 (Comm) per Popplewell J: appearing for the claimant in respect of its claim for c. £73m under the settlement of the Orb litigation. The Court determined that the claimant was entitled to injunctive relief in respect of assets in the hands of a non cause-of-action defendant under the Chabra jurisdiction because there was an arguable case that the defendant controlled them through her ultimate ownership of the corporate structure in which they had been held.
    • Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors [2017] UKSC 21: representing the appellant in respect of its appeal on the extent to which solicitors were responsible for damages for negligence. In accordance with the principle in SAAMCO, the Supreme Court confirmed found that a professional person is only liable for the consequences of the information he has provided to his client being wrong (as opposed to all such consequences), even if the professional knows that the information will be determinative of his client’s decision to pursue the course of action in question.
    • Barrington Development Limited & Anr v Ocra (Seychelles) Ltd & anor [2017] Supreme Court of the Seychelles 184/2017 per Govinden J: representing the defendants in proceedings concerning the shareholding of a Seychelles company in which leave to serve proceedings on them out of the jurisdiction was set aside and the claim struck out.
    • Grenda Investments Ltd v Philip Barton [2017] EWHC 2371 (Comm) per Picken J: representing the claimant on the hearing of its application for summary judgment on claims for circa £20m under 3 loan facility agreements and the defendant’s cross-application to strike out the claims.
    • Willers v Joyce (No.1) [2016] UKSC 43: representing the appellant on its appeal against a decision to strike out his claim on the grounds that there was no tort of malicious prosecution in civil proceedings. By a majority (5 to 4), the Supreme Court determined that there was such a tort in English Law because it would be unjust for a person not to be entitled to compensation for malicious prosecution despite the established public interest in avoiding satellite litigation.
    • Willers v Joyce (No.2) [2016] UKSC 44. The Supreme Court gave guidance on the circumstances in which the President of the Privy Council could direct that a decision of the panel of the Privy Council would be treated as representing the law of England and Wales by the domestic courts.
    • LBI h.f. v Karen Millen [2016] acting for the respondent in her successful application to set aside a statutory demand brought by an Icelandic Bank (formerly known as Landsbankinn) for a sum exceeding £50million under various loan and securities agreements on the grounds that she had been induced to accept the obligations therein by fraudulent misrepresentations in the Bank’s annual accounts and reports.
    • Marino v FM Capital Partners Ltd Marino v FM Capital Partners Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1301 per Longmore, Sales and Beatson LJJ; acting for the defendant who sought to vary a proprietary freezing order to enable him to draw down funds to meet his living and legal expenses on the basis that the funds would be replenished from the proceeds of sale of a house and shares. The Court declined on the basis that he had not established that he had no assets other than those which had been frozen upon which he could draw.
    • Cooper v Thameside Construction Company Limited [2016] EWHC 1694 (TCC) acting for the claimant in subrogated professional negligence claim for damages of circa £6.5m following the flood of a highly prestigious residential property in Hampstead.
    • Re Dowa Insurance Company (Europe) Limited [2016] EWHC 1447 (Ch) per Snowden J: appearing for the applicants on their applications for the sanction of a solvent scheme of arrangement under Part 26 CA 2006 and an insurance business transfer under Part VII FSMA.
    • BPE Solicitors v Gabriel [2015] UKSC 39 appearing for the trustee-in-bankruptcy on his application for a pre-emptive declaration as to his liability for litigation costs incurred prior to his appointment in the event that he adopted the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that he would not be liable for the costs of any distinct proceedings below if he adopted the appeal and there was no longer an automatic rule that insolvency practitioners would be liable for the costs incurred prior to their appointment in respect of litigation which they choose to adopt after their appointment.
    • Key Homes Limited v Rafik Patel [2015] Appearing for the claimant companies on their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and trust against a former director in respect of monies obtained from investors in respect of proposed residential and commercial blocks at 8 development sites.
    • D&K Drost Consult GmbH v Foremost Leisure (Holdings) Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 73 per Longmore: appearing for the defendant to a claim for commission and/or a quantum meruit on the basis that an agreement entered into by a hotel developer had to be interpreted as meaning that the architects and a project management company were entitled to be rewarded for work which they had already undertaken.
    • Carter-Meggs v Templeco 677 Ltd [2015]: acting for insurers in respect of a subrogated claim for professional negligence following a fire at a highly prestigious residential property in Guildford.
    • Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited [2014]: appearing for the Applicants on their application for a Part VII transfer of a US$300m insurance portfolio under FSMA.
    • Hayes v Hayes [2014] Bus. L.R. 1238 per Nugee J. appearing for the debtor on the hearing of a bankruptcy petition against him. In affirming the dismissal of the Petition on appeal, the Court found that new material could be taken into account, provided that there was a change in circumstances and that the clear practice of the insolvency courts was to determine petitions without cross-examination.
    • Re Aston Lloyd & Partners Ltd [2013] Adam appeared for the company’s liquidators in respect of their successful applications for Berkeley Applegate relief in respect to 8 international commercial development sites.
    • Nedgroup Trust Ltd v Nat West & anor [2013] Acting for insurers in obtaining Freezing and Banker’s Trust relief under a subrogated claim for fraudulent misappropriation of trust funds.
    • Langstone Leisure Ltd (LLL) v Willers [2013] EWHC 1498 – Newey J. Acting for the Defendant in a claim alleging breach of his fiduciary and common law duties as a director of a billion pound property and retail business empire. The proceedings were discontinued immediately before trial in April 2013, whereupon the Court refused the third party’s application for costs against the Defendant and made a cut-through order against the claimant.
    • Gabriel v Little, BPE & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1513 per Maurice Kay, Gloster and Fulford LJJ. Acting for the Appellant on his appeal against the dismissal of his claim for fraudulent representation and in response to an appeal by his former solicitors.
    • Crema v Savit & Symkowicz [2013] Acting for the alleged debtor on his successful defence of a Petition on jurisdictional grounds brought by his former US attorneys.
    • Freestyle Extreme Ltd v Loughlin & anor [2013] Acted for the claim company in respect of its successful claims involving allegations against its former directors for breach of their fiduciary duties and breach of trust.
    • Hayes v Hayes [2012] EWHC 1240 (Ch) – Pelling HHJ. The Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Registrar not to exercise his discretion in favour of releasing the Bankrupt arising under a family costs order pursuant to s.281 IA 1986.
    • Edwards & Godding Ltd v Fidler [2012] Acting for the Company’s former director in respect of the Company’s claim for breach of common law and fiduciary duties alleged to have caused losses of c. £1m.
    • O’Connell v Field [2011] Appearing for the Liquidator in an application for “search and seizure” relief under s.365 IA 1986, following the Respondent’s misappropriation of assets in the sum of about £6m from his former employer.
    • Berryland Books v Baldwin & Navaratnarajah [2010] EWCA Civ 1440 per Ward, Longmore and Etherton LJJ. Adam acted for the first appellant in her successful appeal against the finding of the first instance court that she was guilty of conspiracy and breaches of fidelity as an employee.
    • Belfairs Management Limited v Sutherland & anor [2010] All ER (D) 59 (Sep) per Norris J. Acting for the Claimant at the trial of its claim for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty.
    • Koshy v DEG & another [2008] EWCA Civ 27 per Ward, Smith and Arden LJJ. Acting for the claimant in respect of his claims to set aside judgments for fraud, which had been obtained by a German Bank and the liquidators of a Zambian company. The Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that, in previous proceedings, the claim had elected to continue with his appeal on a limited basis before the Court of Appeal rather than having the issue remitted to the Chancery Division.
    • Re Malayan Insurance Company (U.K.) Limited [2008] – acting for the company on the sanction of an insurance cut-off scheme of arrangement.

     

  • Education

    Adam attended St Paul’s School in London. Between 1995 and 1998 he read English Literature at St Catherine’s College, Oxford. He obtained a Diploma in Law at City University in 1999 and was called to the Bar in 2000. He is a member of Middle Temple and an Astbury Scholar.

  • Memberships

    Chancery Bar Association

  • Personal interests

    English literature and theatre, Art, History, Running, Football & Rugby Union

  •  

    Share this
Menu