Nick Taylor

Nick Taylor practises across all areas of work in the Business and Property team, with a particular interest in commercial, insolvency, and corporate disputes. Nick is regularly lead by KCs in substantial disputes (including arbitrations, offshore and High Court litigation) alongside a busy sole practice.

Prior to coming to the bar Nick qualified as a chartered accountant in the corporate tax team at one of the ‘Big 4’ firms, which provides a useful background when dealing with matters with an accounting, financial, or tax aspect.

Nick’s recent and substantial ongoing work includes:

Offshore

In the matter of 51job, Inc [2025] CIGC (FSD) 112

Nick acted (along with Richard Boulton KC (One Essex Court) and Mac Imrie KC (Maples and Calder (Cayman) LLP)) for the successful company in the six-week trial of the multi-billion dollar s238 fair value appraisal proceedings in the summer of 2025. In a groundbreaking ruling handed down in November 2025, the Cayman Islands Grand Court, for the first time, determined that the adjusted market trading price alone represented fair value. It was the most successful outcome for any company in section 238 Cayman Islands proceedings to date.

Nick is currently instructed on another high-value s238 appraisal case which is due to go to trial in February 2026.

Arbitrations

M v L acted (led by Paul Chaisty KC) in a substantial international commercial arbitration concerning a dispute over a hotel in Poland (ICC Rules, Zurich seat)

M v F acted (led by Paul Chaisty at Phase I, and Richard Boulton KC (One Essex Court) at Phase II) in arbitration of section 994 Companies Act 2006 petition. Nick acted for the successful petitioning minority shareholder (LCIA Rules). Nick acted at both the liability and valuation phases.

S v F acted (led by Andrew Grantham KC) in arbitration regarding high-value machine press. Nick acted for the claimant party at the two-week final hearing in October 2024 (ICC Rules, London seat)

High Court litigation

JMW Solicitors LLP & Ors v Injury Lawyers 4U Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 3103 (Ch) and (No. 2) [2025] EWHC 1045 (Ch)
Acted (led by Paul Chaisty KC) for the Claimants in multi-day interim application hearings for strike-out/summary judgment and permission to amend concerning the shareholdings and ownership of “Injury Lawyers 4U”, a well-known business.

Hughes v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2024] EWHC 1765 (KB)
Acted (led by Paul Chaisty KC and alongside Rupert Bowers KC and Sam Jacobs of Doughty Street Chambers) for the Claimant in a substantial claim brought against HMRC and CPS for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. Nick and Paul Chaisty addressed specific issues of assignment, the law of champerty and maintenance, and reflective loss on three-day strike-out and summary judgment applications.

Peter Waddell Holdco Ltd v Bluebell Cars Holding Ltd [2024] EWHC 1627 (Ch)
Acted (led by Paul Chaisty KC) for Claimant seeking interim injunctive relief following corporate/boardroom dispute where founder-director and majority owner of a substantial car dealership was excluded from management.

Manolete v Lark & Ors – acted (led by Andrew Grantham KC) for lead Defendants to substantial Insolvency Act claims brought against companies and directors. The claim alleged multiple Insolvency Act claims, breaches of directors’ duties, proprietary claims, restitution and unlawful means conspiracy. The case settled before trial.

Yodel Delivery Network Ltd v Magnit Global GRI Limited [2023] EWHC 3473 (Ch)
Acting (led by Mark Harper KC) for Claimant at reverse summary judgment/strike-out application in commercial dispute. The case is ongoing and awaiting trial.

O’Brien v Phipps [2023] EWHC 1153 (Ch)
Acted for the defendant (led by Mark Harper KC) at one-week trial to a claim alleging an entitlement to a beneficial interest in company shares.

Marwaha v Entertainment One Ltd [2023] EWHC 480 (Ch)
Acted (as sole counsel) for the appellant in an appeal against a refusal to set-aside a statutory demand under Rule 10.5(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016. The appeal raised issues as the grounds for statutory demands, as well as Henderson v Henderson-style abuse of process and compromises.

Re A Company [2021] EWHC 2289 (Ch)
Acted (as sole counsel) at the preliminary hearing of a disputed winding-up petition which considered the now-defunct but temporarily significant ‘coronavirus test’.