In this episode, we are joined by Blackstone Chambers’  Stephen Nathan KC, Tom Croxford KC, and Tom Hickman KC as they share their most memorable cases.

Listen in as Stephen Nathan KC recalls his longest-running case, Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways Company.  Stephen draws on his unique experience in court and his visit to Iraq. The several judgments in KAC v IAC have, so far, been cited in more than a hundred High Court and Court of Appeal judgments in England, as well as in other common law jurisdictions.

Tom Croxford KC discusses the complexity of  Passi v Nissan & Ors, a high-profile whistleblowing case, much reported in international press, including successfully resisting application for interim relief by former general counsel.

Tom Hickman KC reflects on one of his involvement in one of the highest profile and most controversial cases of modern times, R(Miller) v Secretary of State Exiting the European Union, in which Judges were branded “Enemies of the People” and the Supreme Court sat for the first time with 11 Justices. Tom reveals insights about the origins of the case and how he was caught up in the whirlwind litigation in a team led by Lord Pannick KC.

Join us for this insightful and thought-provoking episode as these distinguished barristers detail their most memorable cases and the experiences they encountered.

We are delighted to share Part II of the Blackstone Chambers’ Annual Employee Competition Seminar of The Litigation Podcast with Craig Rajgopaul, Sarah Wilkinson, and Emmeline Plews. 

 In Part II, Craig Rajgopaul will discuss conspiracy claims and professional conduct issues.  

Sarah Wilkinson examines whether the new willingness to grant damages in lure of injunction may permeate into employment law.  

Emmeline Plews analyses the case of Boydell v NZP Ltd and another, regarding a recent decision in the Court of Appeal which gives important guidance on severance.

We are delighted to share Blackstone Chambers’ annual Employee Competition Seminar in a two-part series of The Litigation Podcast. 

In these episodes, based on the 2023 Employee Competition Seminar, Tom Croxford KC introduces Paul Goulding KC and Diya Sen Gupta KC in Part I, and Craig Rajgopaul, Sarah Wilkinson, and Emmeline Plews in Part II. 

In Part I, Paul Goulding KC analyses the scope and implications of proposed legislation to cap non-compete agreements at three months. 

Diya Sen Gupta KC examines the utilisation of unlawfully or improperly obtained evidence, drawing on the recent cases Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) v Azima and FKJ v RVT.  

In this episode, we are joined by Blackstone Chambers’ Michael Beloff KC, Ian Mill KC, Catherine Callaghan KC, and Tim Parker as they share their most memorable cases.

Listen in as Michael Beloff KC  recalls his first case, representing the band Love Affair. In this amusing account, he shares the satisfaction of achieving his first successful outcome for the band. He then follows with his most interesting case, Merdeka University Bhd v. Government of Malaysia, which is also included in ‘MJBQC: A Life Within and Without the Law’.

Ian Mill KC shares his experience representing high profile celebrities, George Michael [1994] ChD 142 and Ed Sheeran [2022] EWHC 827(Ch), in recording contracts and copyright disputes. Ian discusses the challenges of media attention in these high-profile cases.

Catherine Callaghan KC discusses the complexity of Mr. and Mrs M. Against the Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2016]EWCA Civ 611, and highlights the memorable impact this case had on her own life.

Finally, Tim Parker reflects on one of his earlier cases in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (unreported, CACV 117/2017, 25 September 2017) as a pupil at Blackstone Chambers, and the impact of this case on same-sex rights in Hong Kong.

Join us for this insightful and thought-provoking episode as these distinguished barristers detail their most memorable cases and the lessons they learned from them.

Join Ian Mill KC, Mark Vinall, Celia Rooney, and Rayan Fakhoury as they discuss the shape of music litigation, past and present, with key lessons learned from recent cases including cases involving Ed Sheeran, Rudimental, Culture Club and Rihanna. 

This episode examines topics such as: 

• the relevance of access for copyright cases in the digital age,
• how the courts treat evidence in proving musical creation,
• contractual disputes and the implications of the advent of streaming for the construction of historic contracts
• emerging contrasts and divergences between US and UK music litigation

Join Andreas Gledhill KC and he explores the implications of the recent case Re Compound Photonics Group Ltd; Faulkner v. Vollin Holdings Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1371.

One of the most contentious issues in the law of obligations has been the role of good faith in contract law:   

1. When is an obligation of good faith implied?   
2. And in cases where it is either implied, or expressly agreed, what is its scope:  what standard of behaviour does a duty of good faith bind the parties to? 

Andreas will address these issues, with particular reference to a decision of the Court of Appeal in October, in a case called Re Compound Photonics Group (which I’ll call “Compound”, for short).

In this episode, Leona Powell will discuss challenges when applying for search orders in fraud cases following the Court of Appeal’s decision in TBD Ltd v Simons. In particular, Leona will explore how to address the need for urgent inspection of documents in the wake of that case.  

In this episode, Tom Leary will be discussing the recent developments of Authorised Push Payments (APP) fraud.

Tom looks at how APP fraud victims may be protected through claims against the victim's bank, claims against the fraudster's bank, and regulatory changes that are coming soon.

In this episode, Luka Krsljanin will be discussing what happens after you’ve obtained a freezing order and the types of orders you can obtain for further disclosure or further evidence.

Luka will explore this in two-parts – (I) How you can get further disclosure orders and (II) The order for attendance at court to be cross examined.

Robert Anderson KC will take you through dissipation in the context of freezing orders, specifically what evidence can legitimately go into that section of the affidavit in support of the application for a freezer, dealing with the risk of dissipation.

This episode discusses:

· What constitutes a risk of dissipation?

· What is the purpose of a freezing order?

· What do you need to prove dissipation?

Upcoming episodes in the Fraud Litigation series include:

· Luka Krsljanin with After the Freezing Order (Part II)

· Tom Leary with I’d like my money back please: APP fraud and claims against the bank (Part III)

· Leona Powell with Provisional: Search Orders (Part IV)

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Litigation Podcast and share!