AREAS OF EXPERTISE:
Andrew practises almost exclusively in Commercial and Chancery Dispute Resolution including Arbitration and International Disputes. He also undertakes some non-contentious work.
He was called to the Bar following a short career as a full time law lecturer at Wadham College, Oxford and part time lecturer at King’s College, London.
Andrew specialises in cases of high value and considerable complexity. He has particular expertise in contractual and corporate disputes and regularly appears against QCs and other senior junior Counsel. His clients include banks and major public companies as well as a number of smaller manufacturing and other companies and professional firms.
Year of Call: 1991
Andrew has acted as both arbitrator and advocate in several high value arbitrations.
An arbitration between a supplier of automatic vehicle number plate recognition systems and a supermarket group. The arbitration arose out of the termination of a contract for the supply of such systems throughout the stores operated by the group and was resolved shortly prior to the final hearing. Andrew appeared alone on behalf of the claimant supplier of equipment.
An arbitration arising out of the widening of the M62 motorway near Whitefield. The arbitration arose between the main contractor and its planing subcontractor under a FCEC standard form of sub-contract. Andrew appeared on behalf of the respondent main contractor.
An arbitration arising out of the termination of a commercial agency agreement. I acted as the arbitrator.
Andrew has acted both for and against banks and financial institutions in numerous cases including in disputes involving guarantees and indemnties; the misselling of financial products; negligent advice and wrongful payments.
Cooper v Bank of Scotland plc  EWHC 4645 (Ch) In this case a claim was made by a customer of a bank alleging that the bank had wrongfully made payments exceeding £600,000 out of his account and that he had suffered consequential loss which he ultimately alleged to be in excess of £16,000,000. The claim was ultimately settled after Andrew on behalf of the bank had successfully resisted an appeal against an order refusing to grant the claimant relief from sanctions.
Murphy v HSBC Plc  EWHC 467 (Ch) Andrew acted on behalf of the claimants in a case involving a claim for damages for negligence against a bank by its customers. Silber J reviewed the test applicable for the imposition of a duty of care upon the bank relying upon Andrew’s analysis of the law but ultimately found against the claimants on the facts.
Andrew is frequently instructed on civil fraud cases, particularly those requiring urgent asset preservation/recovery injunctions. Examples of recent cases include:
Andrew’s company practice extends to contentious and non- contentious matters. His contentious practice includes shareholder disputes (including derivative actions and unfair prejudice petitions) and claims against directors. His non-contentious work includes reduction of share capital and restructuring.
Bhullar v Bhullar  1 B.C.L.C. 106 authority on test for the grant of permission to continue a common law derivative action. Morgan J considered that test and its relationship with the test for the grant of an indemnity to the claimant by the company. Andrew appeared as junior counsel for the defendant who succeeded in resisting permission for 1 of the 2 claims and the application for an indemnity.
Andrew’s experience includes the following areas: applications for freezing injunctions and asset preservation orders; carriage of goods; civil fraud and asset recovery; financial services including misselling of derivatives; insurance and reinsurance contract disputes; sale of goods including retention of title and share and business sale disputes.
Carr v Formation plc  EWHC 3116 (Ch). In this case Andrew successfully applied for permission to adduce expert evidence on behalf of one of the Defendants on the issue of market practice in a claim for recovery of an alleged secret commission paid to a football agent on the basis that such evidence was relevant to the issues of unlawful means conspiracy and limitation, in particular deliberate concealment.
Dutton v Minards  EWCA Civ 984  6 Costs L.R. 1047. In this case Andrew successfully acted on behalf of the Claimants in the Court of Appeal in a case concerning the exercise of the Court's discretion as to costs following the deliberate late acceptance by the Defendants of a Part 36 offer made by the Claimants which on its face was less valuable than a previous Part 36 offer made by the Defendants.
Webster v Liddington  EWCA Civ 560;  P.N.L.R. 26. In this case Andrew acted successfully on behalf of a group of claimants as junior counsel. It is the leading authority on responsibility for misrepresentations contained within literature produced by a third party handed over to representees.
Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores  EWCA Civ 1338;  Q.B. 840;  2 W.L.R. 939;  2 Lloyd's Rep. 679. Andrew acted successfully on behalf of Parking Eye as junior counsel. It was referred to extensively by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza the leading authority on the effect of illegality on the enforceability of contracts. The Court of Appeal considered the effect of an intention to perform a contract in an illegal manner and introduced the principle of proportionality in determining whether the illegality was such as to preclude contractual enforcement.
BVM Management v Yeomans  EWCA Civ 1254. Andrew acted alone on behalf of the Claimant. The Court of Appeal considered the proper interpretation of contracts that were partly oral and partly in writing and held that a term providing for termination on three months’ notice was not inconsistent with an agreement for a two year term.
DRL Ltd v Wincanton Group Ltd  EWCA Civ 839 Andrew acted on behalf of the claimant/appellant. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal accepting that the claimant had accepted the defendant’s repudiation.
George Hunt Cranes Ltd v Scottish Boiler & General Insurance Co Ltd  EWCA Civ 1964;  1 All E.R. (Comm) 366;  1 C.L.C. 1;  Lloyd's Rep. I.R. 178; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 60. Andrew acted alone on behalf of defendant the insurance company and successfully argued both at first instance and on appeal that a term of an insurance contract amounted to a claims condition so that the insurers were entitled to refuse to indemnify the insured claimant following a breach of the term.
Andrew has considerable experience in advising upon and acting on behalf of clients with substantial insurance related disputes and in respect of subrogated claims. His experience includes:-
Andrew has considerable experience in advising upon and acting on behalf of clients with international disputes.
He has experience in obtaining anti-suit and worldwide freezing injunctions and relief in support of foreign proceedings. He also has experience in applications to serve out of the jurisdiction, and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in England and Wales.
He is frequently called upon to advise as to the appropriate forum for the resolution of and applicable law governing disputes and advised overseas clients and law firms in relation to both domestic and foreign disputes.
Recent experience includes advising the liquidators of a BVI company as to whether they should adopt the claimant’s case in a multi-million US$ shareholder dispute being litigated in the Chancery Division in London.
In the area of trusts and probate Andrew has extensive experience in disputes both domestic and international between trustees and beneficiaries, the appointment, removal and replacement of trustees and executors and the administration of trusts and estates. He also has experience in acting for and against trust corporations both in the Courts of England and Wales and in advising in offshore jurisdictions.
He applies his skills as an experienced practitioner in commercial dispute resolution to all his cases adopting a client-friendly, commercial, pragmatic but robust approach.
Perry v Neupert  EWHC 52 (Ch). Andrew appeared as junior counsel on behalf of the Claimants who successfully secured an order appointing 1 of them, a daughter of the deceased, as an executor together with an independent executor, in the face of trenchant opposition from the trustees of various discretionary trusts, established by the deceased. In the proceedings the trustees relied upon alleged misconduct of the Claimants in multiple jurisdictions including in the Cayman Islands, the BVI, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (in which the trusts were domiciled).
Perry v Neupert  EWHC 2275 (Ch). Andrew appeared as junior counsel on behalf of the Claimants who successfully (1) recovered 85% of their costs from the Defendant, the executor named in the will of their late husband/father who had initially resisted but subsequently consented to his removal and (2) resisted an application by the Defendant for an order that his costs be met out of the estate.
The costs of successful beneficiaries in proceedings brought under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985—Perry v Neupert: https://academic.oup.com/tandt/advance-article/doi/10.1093/tandt/ttz103/5626210?guestAccessKey=2d25392d-f38a-4a5f-8bf2-8b68feca035e
Andrew is frequently instructed on cases, involving professional negligence claims against accountants, construction professionals, financial practitioners, insurance brokers and surveyors. Examples of claims in which Andrew has acted include the following:
Northern Circuit Commercial Bar Association
Northern Chancery Bar Association
Chancery Bar Association
Professional Negligence Bar Association
British and Irish Commercial Bar Association (Treasurer)
Commercial Litigation Pre Emptive Remedies (Sweet & Maxwell)
St Catherine’s College, Oxford: BA 1988 (Jurisprudence), BCL 1989, MA 1997
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators: Fellow 2001
Legal 500, 2020
"Instils complete confidence in clients."
Chambers UK 2020
"He knows everything about everything; he is incredibly clever. He is great at getting to the heart of matters from a legal point of view, makes everything clear and concise and judges love him." "He is very intelligent and knows everything about the law. He is safe and reliable - you can trust his advice."
Chancery "Super bright and very responsive." "He is very detailed."
"He is extremely thorough, knowledgeable and approachable." "He is a technically excellent and vigorous advocate. Clients immediately respect and trust his advice." "He has a fantastic mind and an extraordinary eye for detail."
Chambers UK 2019
"Extremely diligent, always fully prepared, and someone who gives very good, straightforward advice. "
"He is very thorough and really gets to know the ins and outs of cases." "He is very capable and is always able to make the best of difficult situations."
Legal 500 2019
"Very dedicated and extremely hard working."
Chambers UK 2018
"A fiery advocate."
"He has marvellous attention to detail. If there is a document-heavy and complex piece of litigation, he is very well suited to it. He never lets you down." "He is thorough, knowledgeable and approachable."
Legal 500 2018
"He is remarkably thorough and has a real eye for detail."
Chambers UK 2017
"A very brainy lawyer who always fights very hard for his client." "His written work and advice is always to a very high standard."
"An untiring and tenacious barrister." "He is extremely bright and offers a high standard of client service as well as sound, technical and commercial advice."
Legal 500 2017
"Always well prepared and conscientious with clients."
Chambers UK 2016
"A very proactive, quick and efficient practitioner."
"He is extremely thorough and an excellent advocate with a very good understanding of the law."
"He is very knowledgeable and gives good, concise advice."
36 Young Street, Manchester, M3 3FT
DX: 718188 MCH 3
Direct Dial: 0161 832 9082
5 Park Square, Leeds, LS1 2NE
DX: 713113 LEEDS PARK SQ
Direct Dial: 0113 242 1123
Embassy House, 60 Church Street,
Birmingham, B3 2DJ
DX: 13023 BIRMINGHAM
Direct Dial: 0121 200 3570
Andrew Grantham QC and Louis Doyle QC Appointed as Queen’s Counsel
Paul Chaisty QC and Andrew Grantham have just completed a two-week long arbitration in Zurich. The claim was for a sum in excess of $50,000,000 which arose out of a joint…
LIMITED SPACES Zoom Seminar: Killian Garvey Planning Update
FULL: Zoom Seminar: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Update
FULL: Zoom Seminar: Planning for Flexibility: An Interactive Seminar brought to you…
© Copyright 2020 Kings Chambers. All rights reserved.
Coronavirus (CoVID-19) Public Health England (PHE) recommendations – please view our important guidelines.
Continue using site