Diego Soto-Miranda

Call: 2001

Diego has a wide-ranging practice in international and domestic commercial law, as well as other areas of civil practice, including defamation, professional negligence, human rights law and chancery, litigating in both domestic courts and tribunals.

His practice includes both advisory work and litigation and he appears in cases in the Commercial Court, King’s Bench Division and Chancery Division. In addition, he has appeared before both the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and Employment Tribunals.

His litigation experience extends beyond domestic cases and he is accustomed to working with foreign lawyers, particularly Latin American attorneys and legal attachés of the Latin American Embassies in London. He is instructed both, directly and also in conjunction with the legal attachés.

Diego also undertakes other duties, including drafting legal documents and representing in negotiations, being instructed by solicitors and by Direct Public Access, in which he is also licenced to conduct litigation.


Diego has been instructed in a wide variety of commercial law disputes including insurance and cross border credit transfer agreements (particularly in respect of breach of contract, misrepresentation and POCA 2002 confiscation), as well as other matters involving complex points of sale of goods law, defamation law, human rights law, and chancery (contentious) law.

Featured cases

  • Mrs Santos-Fawden (Widow) -v- Aegon Pension Scheme [POS Ref: PO-20468 & POS Ref: PO-28897] Representing Mrs Santos-Fawden, on DPA and CFA terms, in her settlement negotiations of the actions brought as a result of her late (and high net worth) husband’s intestacy. The issues in dispute were: whether, the Complainant could claim her late husband’s various life insurance and private pensions policies, as well as death in service benefits, in light of being separated but not divorced. The insurers including Scottish Widows had refused to provide the Complainant with information about claiming the funds, then about the criterion employed to determine that she was not entitled. As the Complainant was impecunious (when we started), and to mitigate costs the strategy was to make complaints to the FOS, POS and ICO. As all three found in the Complainant’s favour, all respondents then settled, apart from Scottish Widows who simply issued a payment.
  • Dr Koksal -v- Bank of Scotland [ICO Case Reference: IC-81071- X0J8] An application representing the Complainant on DPA terms and by a part CFA and part fixed fees agreement. The application was made to the ICO on the basis that Paragraph 5(3) Sched.2 Data Protection Act 2018 had not been adhered to by the respondent bank. The Complainant sought the joint beneficiary in bankruptcy’s (BoS’) full third party disclosure of the Trustee in Bankruptcy’s (“TiB”) information to objectively determine the TiB’s impartiality and the proportionality of his fees. As a strategy with minimum costs risks exposure to the Complainant, the ICO and FOS complaints have been used to syphon out lots of information the Complainant had been denied by the respondent. Presently, the ICO has provided SAR sought.
  • Domingo Diosnel Penayo-Vaida -v- (1) Iraci Romao de Oliveira (2) WIT Money Services Express Ltd (3) Intertransfers Inc [2012] EWHC 410 (Comm), LTL 3/2/2012
    Commercial Court: Multi-jurisdictional claim (by the Managing Director of a Paraguayan registered company), arising from the breach of a Debt Compromise Agreement (signed in London), with a personal guarantee from D1 a Director of D3 the parent company (registered in Miami Fl. USA) of D2 (registered in the UK).
  • Cambios y Capitales SA. -v- (1) Mundo Net Int. Ltd. (2) Juan C. Garcia (3) BYG Telecom. Ltd. (4) Barclay’s Bank Plc (5) Access Self-Storage Ltd (Claim No: 4CL04442)
    Commercial Court: Multi-jurisdictional claim arising from the breach of a cross-border credit transfer agreement and a Director’s personal guarantee. The claim required: (1) the global tracing and seizing of assets, notwithstanding the Defendants’ attempts to hide behind the corporate veil; (2) multiple party worldwide freezing injunctions; and, (3) Orders for third party disclosure against various multinational banks.
  • Schenker Limited -v- The Sewing Machine Company Limited (Claim No: 6GG00983) London Merchantile Court: Multi-jurisdictional claim and counterclaim arising from a dispute over the terms of a C.I.F Hong Kong Sea Waybill and the losses resulting from the damage to industrial machinery during carriage.

Defamation law

Featured cases

  • Malaga-Cano -v- Barclay & 11 Ors. [2017] EWHC 1498 A defamation claim in which I represented the claimant on DPA terms before Master Thornett. The complex legal argument being considered was whether an occasional participant and event organiser at a private members club and registered charity, could be regarded as having a calling and thus legitimately invoke the protection of s.2 Defamation Act 1952).
  • Bewry -v- Reed Elsevier UK Ltd (trading as LexisNexis) and another – [2015] 1 WLR 2565
    Court of Appeal: Overturning HHJ Moloney QC’s decision (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Bewry -v- (1) Reed Elsevier UK Ltd (t/a LexisNexis) & (2) Reed Business Information Ltd (t/a Community Care Inform) [2013] EWHC 3182 (QB), found that despite the learned judge’s extensive experience in defamation law, he had been wrong in his exercise of discretion when he granted the Claimant’s Application for an extension of the limitation period to issue defamation proceedings as per s.32A Limitation Act 1980, in circumstances where the claimant had been unaware of the publication of an allegedly defamatory case report for one year and thereafter had entered into negotiations for the publication of an amended report and correction. It had been reasonable for the claimant to seek to negotiate a settlement rather than to commence proceedings. However, the Court of Appeal found that the Judge had failed to take enough account in his reasoning of the claimant’s lack of explanation for his delay in issuing the claim.

Human Rights law

Featured cases

  • R (oao Robinson) -v- Rutland County Council [2016] EWHC 2275 (Admin) A renewed oral judicial review application before Mr Roger Ter Haar (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge). The matter before the Court concerned Mrs Robinson’s challenge of the local authority’s then decision to remove her license to act as a Foster Carer, without adequate disclosure of the evidence in support of the removal. The arguments for and against the disclosure sought by the Claimant included complex and competing understandings of the nature, purpose and proportionality of the juxtapositions between privacy law and having a fair process.
  • R (on the Application of) Rayment -v- Norfolk County Council [2016] EWHC 1195 (Admin) High Court (QBD): A renewed Application for permission to apply for Judicial Review after permission was refused on paper by HHJ Karen Walden‐Smith. In light of fresh evidence indicating the Defendant’s employee’s historic gross misconduct, the Claimant sought permission to judicially review the Defendant’s 28/09/15 refusal to retrospectively review its conduct of a LADO that took place in 2009.
  • R (On the Application of) Hoskins -v- Norfolk County Council [2014] EWHC 3739 (Admin) High Court (QBD): An Application for reinstatement of a Judicial Review application, permission to amend and specific disclosure; in relation to the Claimant’s seeking of judicial review of Norfolk County Council’s 10/02/12 decision to remove a foster child from her care. HHJ Anthony Thornton QC, granting the Application for specific disclosure adjourned the matter to allow the Claimant sufficient time to amend her Statement of Facts and Grounds of Judicial Review, to then Apply for reinstatement of the action.


Featured cases

  • EMC Finance Limited – v- Hussain [Business List (ChD)HC-2017- 002814] A misrepresentation claim representing the Defendant on DPA terms before Master Bowles. The complex legal argument being considered whether: (a) real property could pass, if the transfer documents were forged by unknown third parties and the transfer witness’ name is illegible; (b) seller’s (Defendant/Client) conveyancing solicitor owes duty of care and legal privilege, for disclosure, to a seller that says he never instructed them; and (c) matter should be stayed to prevent adverse effect on the Defendant at a criminal trial and police confiscation proceedings.
  • Lady Wellesley -v- The Rt. Hon. The 8th Earl Cowley (Lord Wellesley) & 8 Ors. [Claim No. HC- 2017001704] A claim representing the Claimant on DPA terms before various Chancery Division Masters including Master Clark. The Claimant was impecunious and mentally disabled. She brought the claim against the late father’s estate, stepmother, five siblings and two trustees, to challenge the late father’s Will having been excluded – the claim was brought in the Chancery Division’s Property, Trusts and Probate List under ss.2, 3(1)(a), (b), and (e) to (g) Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The action was contested all the way up to appeal for a period of over two years, during which I the claimant alone and against two firms of solicitors, a Queen’s Counsel and a leading junior.
  • Pita-Ponte -v- (1) Plant (2) Hygiene Audit (2023) Ltd (3) Hygiene Audit Ltd (Claim No: HC11C03288) Multi-jurisdictional claim (by the Spanish domiciled former Director of D3) against D1 and D2, both UK domiciled; for breach of the Memorandum and Articles of Association as per ss. 388(1)(b), 580, 993 and 994(1) of the Companies Act 2006 and fraudulent misrepresentation as per ss.2, 4, 9, 10 and 12 Fraud Act 2006.

Professional negligence

Featured cases

  • Re MTACC Ltd [11/12/20] A multi-jurisdictional opinion on the legality of, and legal obligations arising from, a Maltese e-money account provider, producing pre-paid MasterCards (under franchise) to a UK company, for the latter’s payment of independent workers in Colombia. The matter was further complicated by the facts that: a) the end recipient of the transaction benefit (the independent workers) were in Colombia, and b) the independent workers were being paid in a third money currency exchange transaction, and c) the payments to the independent workers were for their services as webcam models, entertaining the UK company’s international clientele. Accordingly, there were complex multi-jurisdictional issues of money laundering regulations and safeguarding against people trafficking in three different jurisdictions to deal with.
  • Re Grupo Carval (Betapharma) [11/09/20 & 07/10/21] Advising a Miami based pharmaceutical company, on multi-jurisdictional matters including: s.5 Limitation Act 1980 in connection to a proposed claim under an English jurisdiction contract against an Indian company; and the enforceability of non-disclosure and non-costs clauses in an LCIA Rules arbitration agreement.
  • Da Silva & 4 Ors. -v- Air Compluto S.A. (t/a Skydive Lillo) & 2 Ors. (Claim No: HQ10X02016) A fatal accident claim, representing the Claimants (widow, mother and other dependants) on DPA and CFA terms in the High Court (QBD). The case involved multi-jurisdictional claim under ss.1 and 1A Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and s.1(1) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, arising from a skydiving fatal accident in Spain. The multi-jurisdictional issues arose from: (a) the victim being a Brazilian born UK national (domiciled in the UK) with; (b) a Russian national wife (domiciled in the UK); and, (c) 4 family dependant Brazilian nationals (domiciled in Brazil). The action centred around the multinational Defendants’ challenges against jurisdiction and service; and the true construction of Articles 5(5) Lugano Convention; 5(2) and 5(4)(b) Rome Convention; and, 15(1)(c) and 16(1) Brussels I Regulation.


  • Business and Human Rights; and the Anthropomorphic Errors: L.R. 2013, 34(1), 3-12 (Part 1); and, Bus.L.R. 2013, 34(2), 46-53 (Part 2)
  • On the CPR’s Tridentian Fig Leaf and the Commercial Court’s Judicial Veil: L.R. 2015, 36(6), 220-228 (Part 1); and, Bus. L.R. 2016, 37(1), 7-15 (Part 2).
  • In the Hypothetical Matter of Hamlet -v- Abaddon: & H. 2016, 9(2), 139-171. Fame and fortune: all reputations are equal, but some reputations are more equal than others: Comms. L. 2017, 22(2), 51-61.
  • DIEGO’S STORY (published by Vermilion, Random House, 1st May 1997) an autobiographical and philosophical account of growing up with SMA and becoming a Barrister.

Teaching & conferencing

Graduate Teaching Assistant

  • London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE) From 30th August 2007 – 30th July 2008. Teaching A-Level students on the LSE’s “Pathways to Law” program.

Lecturing and Conferencing

  • Keynote Speaker of the 1st Plenary Session for the Posture & Mobility Group (“PMG”) National Conference at Warwick University, on 14th April 2011; titled: “Human Rights, the Disability & Equality Act 2010 and the Provision of Assistive Technology: do they fly in the face of health & safety/risk management?”
  • Occasional Guest Speaker at Kings College London, since spring 1999, on the Child Studies M.A with Prof. Chris Abbott, the Catholic fellowship and other institutions.


Awards & certifications

Other Qualifications & DPA:

  • DPA Accredited and licenced to conduct litigation.
  • Chartered Institute Of Arbitrators, associate member
  • CEDR, representing clients in mediation
  • LAMDA, certificate of merit


  • The Inner Temple’s Major Bursary Award for BVC 1999/2000.
  • The Inner Temple’s Disability Award for BVC 1999/2000.


  • London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) 2006 – 2008 LL.M (International Business Law)
  • The Inns of Court School of Law (ICSL) 1999 – 2000 Postgraduate Diploma in Laws (BVC)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) 1996 – 1999 LL.B (Hons.)


  • Spanish (Fluent)


  • Listening to and collecting, original Salsa vinyl LPs, Cinema, Reading, Visiting Museums and Galleries, Debating contemporary issues.

This is the Privacy Policy for:

Barrister: Diego Soto-Miranda

Address: 1EC, 3 King’s Bench Walk North, Inner Temple, London, EC4Y 7HR

The Purposes for which Personal Data is Processed:

Personal data will be processed in order to enable the provision of legal services, ie:

  1. advice;
  2. representation in court;
  3. the drafting of legal documents.

It may also be necessary to retain personal data for conflict-checking purposes or for use in the defense of potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes.

The Lawful Basis for Processing Personal Data

In some cases the subject of the personal data will have given consent to the processing of his or her personal data. Where explicit consent has not been given, personal data will be processed only when:

  1. it is necessary for the performance of a contract with the person whose personal data is processed (or prior to entering such contract, in order to take steps at the request of the person whose personal data is processed); or when
  2. it is necessary for the purposes of providing legal services.

Special Categories of Personal Data

It may be necessary to process personal data which constitute particularly sensitive special categories, ie personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation.

Such data will only be processed where processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.

Who will receive Personal Data

The recipients of the personal data processed will be:

  1. instructing solicitors and clients;
  2. courts and other tribunals to which documents are presented;
  3. witnesses and potential witnesses, including expert witnesses;
  4. other barristers, pupil barristers and other legal representatives;
  5. regulatory authorities.

Retention Periods for Personal Data

Personal data in case files will generally be kept at least the end of one year after the maximum relevant limitation period has expired. The limitation period will be measured from the latest date it is possible to bring any appeal.

The retention period will be reviewed when the work has been completed. The retention period may be adjusted at that time.

International Data Transfers

In cases involving international disputes, it may be necessary to transfer personal data to countries outside the European Economic Area which have different data protection standards to those which apply in the European Economic Area. This will only be done for the purposes set out in this Privacy Policy. In the event this is necessary, appropriate safeguards will be in place to protect personal data, such as European Commission approved standard contractual clauses or the EU-US Privacy Shield. You have a right to ask for a copy of the relevant safeguard.

Individual’s Rights

If your personal data has been processed or held, you have a right to request access to (and rectification or erasure of) personal data; or to request restriction of processing concerning the data subject; or to object to processing; as well as the right to data portability. These rights may be limited where there is a legal requirement, or other legitimate grounds, to process your data.

If you wish to exercise these rights, please use the contact details above.

If you have unresolved concerns you also have the right to complain to data protection authorities.