Jamie has a broad practice with a particular focus on retail banking and financial services. He appears in all levels of Courts and Tribunals across the UK and has experience of both formal mediations and informal ‘round table’ settlement discussions. In recent years he has also had significant exposure to ‘white collar’ investigations.
In addition to his litigation practice Jamie undertakes advisory work and drafting for both Claimants and Defendants. This encompasses contentious and non-contentious matters, including a full range of pleadings and advices on substantive issues and quantum.
He has a detailed knowledge of large-scale litigation and often advises on disclosure and legal professional privilege in long running investigations and proceedings.
Law of privilege
Banking & financial services
Jamie has a specialist practice in retail banking and financial services. He regularly represents major banks and financial institutions at interim hearings and trial. He has particular experience of matters involving undisclosed commission, hire-purchase agreements, possession actions, motor finance, PPI claims, and unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
- Paul Maisey v BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited (Gloucester and Cheltenham County Court 2014) – Acting for the Respondent in a dispute arising out of a hire purchase agreement. The case involved use of expert hand writing evidence.
- Regularly instructed by a number of national banks and lenders in PPI claims nationwide.
Jamie is extremely experienced in all aspects of employment law and acts for both Claimants and Respondents.
- Woodley v Media Wow Ltd (Employment Tribunal Leeds 2012) – Representing the Claimant in a multi-day hearing. Complaints of indirect disability discrimination upheld.
- Scotney v Nottingham City Council (Employment Tribunal Nottingham 2012) – Acting for the Claimant after she was dismissed and left the Council for refusing to sign an amended contract varying her terms and conditions of employment, following the single status project being implemented by the Council. Around 7000 employees were affected. Claim for unfair dismissal upheld.
- Moldovan v Ramnath T/A Treflys Care Home (Employment Tribunal Cardiff – Successfully representing the Respondent against claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal.
- Fox v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs (Employment Tribunal East London 2014) – A highly technical case involving over 15 discrete claims. Required detailed understanding of the internal workings and policies of the civil service and complex cross examination of senior civil servants.
- Gibson v Capgemini Financial Services UK Limited (Employment Tribunal Liverpool 2015) – Representing the Respondent in respect of claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. Successfully argued for the matter to be dismissed at a preliminary hearing.
- Jackson v Cleethorpes Working Mens Club (Employment Tribunal Lincoln) – Representing the Respondent against a claim of unfair dismissal and various breaches of the working time regulations.
Civil fraud & asset recovery
Jamie has a wealth of experience in fraud and corruption related matters. Between 2015 and 2018 Jamie was instructed by Fulcrum Chambers LLP to co-ordinate the daily management of the defence for Alstom Network UK, a subsidiary of a French company, prosecuted by the SFO on charges of corruption in connection with contracts obtained in overseas jurisdictions. This instruction involved managing teams of lawyers and paralegals lawyers both in the UK and abroad. He is regularly instructed by the SFO to act as Independent Counsel.
- Rawlinson & Hunter v Director of Serious Fraud Office (2014) Instructed for several months as part of the legal team in relation to a £200 million claim against the SFO.
- E Ltd  – An international mining company, under investigation by the SFO on suspicion of facilitating multi-billion dollar acquisitions through corrupt payments to government officials.
- HMRC  – A multi-million-pound duty fraud working in conjunction with the CPS.
- SFO Independent Counsel [2014-2023]- Instructed on a number of matters including ongoing cases and investigations. Often advising on complex matters of privilege.
Jamie has often been instructed by both private and public sector landlords in possession claims. In addition he has acted in matters relating to mortgage claims and issue as arising out of repairs and construction.
- Copeland v Jarvis T/A BJ Property Builders (Stockport County Court 2011) – Representing the Claimant in a claim arising out of a building project and concerning the construction of the contract and alleged repudiatory breaches.
- Howard De Walden Estates v Mee Ching Ng (Central London County Court – 2013) – Representing the Defendant in respect of a claim for possession brought under section 98 of the Rent Act 1977. The mater revolved around the question of suitable alternative accommodation. The hearing required numerous site visits.
- BA Hons in History
- Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL)
- Bar Vocational Course (BVC)
- The Fraud Lawyers Association
- The Association of Welsh London Lawyers
In his spare time Jamie enjoys theatre and sport. He plays cricket for the Bar of England and Wales.
Barrister: Jamie Williams
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:
- representation in court;
- 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:
- 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
- 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:
- instructing solicitors and clients;
- courts and other tribunals to which documents are presented;
- witnesses and potential witnesses, including expert witnesses;
- other barristers, pupil barristers and other legal representatives;
- 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
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.