James Barnard

Commercial

James has a wide experience of commercial disputes (both of an advocacy and an advisory nature) which represents the core of his practice. Areas of law regularly undertaken by him include: contractual disputes; deceit, dishonest assistance, conspiracy to defraud and breach of fiduciary duty; factoring and invoice discounting; sale of goods and warranty claims.

Featured cases

Jiang and another v Liberty Stock Limited (2022)

James is acting for Claimants who contend that they are victims of a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by a third party who had led them to believe that they were making successful investments in the Forex/Vantage markets.  The £2 million allegedly invested by the Claimants was paid by telegraphic transfer into the Defendant’s bank account on the instructions of the third party.  This bank account was used by the third party as a conduit for the monies but has been frozen following the involvement of the Police Force Economic Crime.  Questions arise as to whether the Claimants still have a proprietary claim to these monies and an immediate entitlement to their return.

Cannagrow Biosciences Ltd v Department of Health Social Care (2021)

James represented a healthcare supplier in relation to a dispute arising out of 3 contracts (with a value of in the region of £30 million) for the supply of PPE Respirator Face Masks which were procured by the Department of Health and Care (the “DHSC”) for use within the National Health Service. The case involved questions pertaining to what terms and conditions were incorporated into the contracts, whether the face masks were supplied in accordance with manufacturer’s standards and/or statutory implied terms (correspondence with description and satisfactory quality), whether the DHSC was entitled to reject the face masks on the grounds that they did not have adequate filtration efficiency and/or has lost the right to reject the masks.  In the case of one of the contracts, there was also a dispute as to whether the parties had entered into a binding contract at all.

Helen Green Design Ltd v Vasilenko (2020)

James represented the Defendant is a claim by an interior design company to recover monies allegedly due pursuant to unpaid invoices for its services and for the supply of furnishings and joinery.  Questions arising in the case included whether the Claimant had supplied its interior design services with reasonable care and skill, whether the Defendant was liable to pay for an alleged undisclosed hidden mark-up which she contended had been applied to the cost of the furnishings, whether the Claimant was entitled to assert a lien over the goods supplied until its invoices were paid and the quantum of the Defendant’s counterclaim for damages for distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity.

Mehta v Tyrone Rowe-McKenzie  (2020)

James represented a Part 20 Defendant who had made an application pursuant to CPR Pt 39.3(3) to set aside a judgment which had been entered against him following his failure to attend a trial. The questions arising were whether the Claimant had acted promptly when he found out that judgment had been entered against him, whether he had good reason for not attending the trial and whether he had a reasonable prospect of success at the trial.

Share Purchase Dispute in London Court of International Arbitration (2019)

James successfully represented a Claimant in a commercial arbitration to recover in the region of US$ 13 million which remained outstanding pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”).  The dispute included questions about whether the Defendant was precluded from making deductions by reason of a no-set off clause, interpretation of the terms and conditions of the SPA (including whether the Defendant’s liability was dependent upon future revenues of the company), whether time for payment was of the essence, the Claimant’s entitlement to rely on a No Oral Modification Clause, and whether the Claimant was precluded from recovering the sums outstanding by reason of waiver, forbearance or estoppel.

Compagnie Française D’Assurance Pour Le Commerce Extèrieur (“Coface”) v Core Atlantic Limited (2019)

James represented the Defendant in relation to a claim by Coface to recover monies which it contended had been incorrectly paid out pursuant to fraudulent trade credit insurance claims.  The case revolved around complex factual questions to determine whether a fraud had ever been perpetrated by the Defendant.  Furthermore, whether Coface was entitled to treat itself as discharged from the trade credit insurance policy and thereby refuse to indemnify the Defendant in respect of further insurance claims for debts which were outstanding and unpaid.

Banking & financial services

James is regularly instructed on behalf of major UK clearing banks and other major finance houses. Typical disputes relate to enforcement of different types of personal and corporate loan agreements, enforceability of guarantees, charges, validity of mandates and other banking related matters. He also carries out work relating to the regulation and provision of financial services, including cases related to speculation in derivative products, such as futures, options and contracts for differences, requiring extensive knowledge of financial markets and the way they operate.

James has repeatedly been recommended by Legal 500 in this field.

Featured cases

Personal Representatives of the Estate of Drusilla Harvey (deceased) v Bank of Scotland (2022)

James is representing the Claimants in a challenge pursuant to the unfair relationship provisions in sections 140A – 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 of the terms and conditions of a Shared Property Appreciation Mortgage entered into with Bank of Scotland (“BOS”).  The Claimants also have an additional claim arising out of the manner in which BOS purported to give credit for alterations and improvements which had been made by the borrower to the mortgaged property when calculating the amount of the BOS’s entitlement to the shared appreciation.

Innes v Barclays Bank plc (2021)

James successfully acted on behalf of an individual with a claim against Barclays Bank plc for making unauthorised debits from his bank account amounting to in excess of £3 million.  The claim centred around whether the bank ever had reasonable or genuine grounds for submitting a Suspicious Activity Report to the National Crime Agency in accordance with the money laundering provisions contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Ebury Partners Limited v Elmon SA (2020)

 James acted on behalf of the Defendant in respect of claim brought by a financial services company operating in the foreign exchange market for sums allegedly due and owing pursuant to a forex hedging contract known as a Flexible Forward Contract (“FCC”).  The claim raised questions about whether the Claimant had expressly or impliedly made false representations to the Defendant about the FFC and the risks involved; also whether the instruction received by the Claimant to enter into the FCC was subject to a condition precedent which never subsequently arose.

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Ramsden (2019)

James represented the bank in a claim to recover outstanding indebtedness pursuant to various loans made to the Defendant in respect of a number of property based investments, including a hotel which was repossessed by the bank and sold in its capacity as mortgagee in possession.  The Defendant claimed that the bank was liable to him because the hotel has been sold at an undervalue and that the bank should compensate him for the value of the chattels left at the property.  The case also involved issues pertaining the validity of other security (including cross-charges over property) which had been personally granted by the Defendant and his son in support of the loans.

National Westminster Bank plc v Carter and another (2019)

James represented the bank in a claim in respect of sums due and owing pursuant to personal guarantees executed by the Defendants as security for debts of their company which had gone into liquidation.  The Defendants disputed liability on the grounds of deceit, misrepresentation and economic duress on the part of the bank and also alleged that the executed guarantees were not valid and binding because they did not comply with the formal requirements of Statute of Frauds 1677 Section 4.

Insolvency & restructuring

James has a wide experience in personal insolvency and in company liquidations both as an advocate and in the provision of advice including:

statutory demands, winding-up petitions and bankruptcy petitions, matters arising during the course of a winding-up including examinations, preference, transactions at an undervalue, restrictions on the re-use of company names and the like.

Featured cases

Frederick White (as liquidator of Enterprise Insurance Co Ltd) v Papayanoppolus (2022)

James is representing the Respondent, a director of a Greek company carrying on business as an insurance broker, in an application brought against him pursuant to Insolvency Act 1986 section 213 by the liquidator of an insurance company incorporated and registered in Gibraltar (the “Company”) for (i) a declaration that the Respondent had been knowingly a party to carrying on business of the Company with the intent to defraud creditors of the Company and for fraudulent purposes and (ii) that the Respondent make a personal contribution of up to €7,500,000 to the assets of the Company.  The Respondent is applying to strike out the application and/or for summary judgment against the liquidator.

Izsak Gabay v Alain Schibl [2021] EWHC 2251 (Ch)

James successfully represented the Respondent in an application to set aside a Statutory Demand for monies outstanding pursuant to a Settlement Deed in the sum of US$2,558,338.03.  The dispute revolved around whether the Applicant was entitled to dispute the debt on the grounds that he had a valid cross-claim arising out of the Respondent’s alleged breaches of the terms of the Settlement Deed.  This included questions about whether there was sufficient mutuality between the underlying debt and the Applicant’s cross claim and whether the evidence adduced by the Applicant met the minimum evidential threshold required to demonstrate that there was a genuinely triable issue in relation to the Applicant’s contentions that he had suffered loss and damage and/or to quantify his alleged damages.

Re: U Can Fly Limited (2020)

James successfully represented the Applicant in an application for an injunction restraining the Respondent from presenting a winding up petition for an alleged unpaid debt.  The Applicant contended that the debt was disputed on substantial grounds and that the Respondent’s claim was nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to extract monies from the Applicant which it was not liable to pay.

Associations

• Chancery Bar Association
• British Italian Law Association
• Commercial Bar Association
• London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association

Awards & certifications

• Queen Mother’s Scholar – Middle Temple

Languages

• Fluent Italian
• Good French

Skills & interests

• Trustee of The Wallace Collection
• Trustee of The Linbury Trust
• Art, Opera, Ballet, Theatre, Heritage, Literature, Cooking, Cricket

This is the Privacy Policy for:

Barrister: James Barnard

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.