Mark Chennells KC

Mark is familiar with the standard forms of contract in use in the industry (including FIDIC, NEC, JCT and ICE) and has experience of issues including delay and disruption to projects, variations and defects in design and construction as well as related commercial issues including issues relating to guarantees and performance bonds. He has been involved in disputes of widely varying size, value and scope, and has appeared before a variety of tribunals including in the Technology and Construction Court. His experience of construction and engineering disputes encompasses a wide range of industry sectors. He has extensive international experience as well as in domestic cases. Examples of his cases include:

• Acting for engine supplier in respect of alleged defects in maintenance services and consequent component failures in rolling stock in rail industry.
• Advising in respect of claims under NEC contract in respect of works in healthcare sector.
• Acting in substantial metro rail infrastructure dispute procured on NEC form.
• Acting for dredging company in SIAC arbitration in respect of claims relating to Taiwanese port project. The case involved issues relating to vessel importation, typhoon delays and contractual interpretation as to recoverable vessel rates, as well as extensive expert evidence in respect of marine surveying.
• Acting for employer in respect of claims for defective passive fire protection at university accommodation building.
• Acting for provider in a substantial dispute under a long-term highways maintenance agreement procured on NEC conditions. Issues arose out of the defects liability and payment and performance provisions.
• Acting for fibre-optic cable company in substantial dispute with civil works contractor arising under NEC form. Issue centered upon the proper construction of the payment provisions.
• Acting for SPV in respect of TCC claims arising out of PFI contracts for schools. The litigation relates to myriad defects including in respect of fire, acoustic, energy consumption, structural, render, wall ties and M&E elements.
• Acting for component supplier in dispute with vehicle manufacturer in automotive industry, concerning allegations of defects in components, scope of responsibility and liability.
• Acting for US / Turkish joint venture in SIAC arbitration relating to termination of a contract for the design and construction of a road in challenging circumstances in the Middle East. The case involved delay and engineering claims, as well as complex issues relating to the quantification of lost profit on the terminated contract, and constitutional issues of foreign law relating to the reorganisation of the state entities involved.
• Acting for architect in respect of substantial multi-party TCC dispute as to defective curtain walling at university premises: University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners, Laing O’Rourke & Ors
• Advising PFI company in respect of financing documents and related entitlements arising out of highways construction and maintenance project.
• Acting for a main contractor in a substantial adjudication under NEC form in respect of piling works at a prominent site, involving complex technical and geotechnical engineering issues.
• Acting for design and build contractor in respect of quay extension project and claim against engineering consultant retained to advise and produce designs, concerning subsea ground conditions: Kier v Hyder Consulting.
• Acting for employer in a claim against developer concerning settlement of external hardstandings at new regional distribution centre. Issues included matters of geotechnical engineering: Travis Perkins v Roxhill.
• Acting in an HKIAC arbitration relating to a dispute under a joint venture agreement. The project with which the joint venture was concerned was a HK$10b casino, hotel and retail development in Macau.
• Acting for fit-out contractor in DIAC arbitrations on final accounts for work to new hotel. Issues concerning jurisdiction and counterparty identity as matter of Emirati law, as well as delay and additional cost and variations on high profile project.
• Acting in an ICC arbitration (London seat) for a Norwegian company against its Tanzanian contractor in respect of a dispute relating to the design and construction of a fertilizer terminal in Dar es Salaam.
• Acting for provider in a dispute under a PFI contract for the provision of management and other services relating to the M25 motorway: Connect Plus (M25) Ltd v Highways England Co Ltd [2017] BLR 33.
• Acting for claimant services company in respect of claim relating to corrosion to steel chilled water pipework; Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 2931 (TCC); [2011] BLR 108.
• Acting for Portuguese joint venture in ICC Arbitration in Poland (hearings in Warsaw) relating to major infrastructure project procured under FIDIC contract.
• Acting for well-known developer in six-week arbitration in Hong Kong relating to the contractor’s final account. Issues concerned, amongst other things, defects, delay, loss and expense and variations.
• Acting for the employer in substantial arbitration in Dublin concerning claims arising out of a FIDIC-based design and build contract for a road.
• Acting for a Spanish infrastructure company in respect of a HK$1bn arbitration relating to a major viaduct project in Hong Kong under HKIAC rules.
• Acting in TCC proceedings for foreign government in dispute with Spanish contractor relating to termination of high-profile infrastructure project under FIDIC form; Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar.
• Acting for Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd in its disputes with P C Harrington Contractors Ltd, the main concrete sub-contractor in respect of the New Wembley National Stadium. Involved in significant adjudications, TCC litigation and related Part 8 High Court proceedings. See P C Harrington Contractors Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [2008] BLR 16.
• Acting for a dredging and construction Sino-Dutch joint venture in arbitrations in Hong Kong (HKIAC Rules) concerning misrepresentations in tender documentation and disputed claims as to variations.
• Acting for contractor against utilities company in Part 8 proceedings relating to adjudications arising out of pipeline installation project; Wales and West Utilities Ltd v PPS Pipeline Systems GmbH [2014] BLR 163.
• Acting for specialist M&E contractor in respect of defects in air conditioning system and corrosion of steel pipework; Verizon v NG Bailey & Ors.
• Acting for contractor in claim against supplier of proprietary cladding system applied to tower blocks in Glasgow; Insulclad v Dryvit.
• Acting for joint venture in respect of claims arising out of airport project procured on NEC3 contract.
• Acting for the British government in a 12-week final account arbitration relating to a large scale road-building project. Issues included delay and disruption, and variation claims.
• Acting for the claimant utilities contractor in action concerning the assignment of proceeds of account under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and the ability to adjudicate; Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v Tony McFadden Utilities Ltd [2010] BLR 89.
• Acting for the contractor in a multi-party M&E dispute relating to PFI hospital contract; HpC Kings College Hospital v Costain & Ors.
• Acting for a well-known property developer in a TCC action concerning a claim under an agreement relating to infrastructure made pursuant to the s.278 of the Highways Act 1980; Dorset County Council v Countryside Properties (Commercial) PLC.
• Acting for a regional development agency in a direct claim against a sub-contractor arising out of the removal of goods from a project site. Issues included the operation of retention of title provisions in the JCT standard form of contract and claims under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977; South East England Development Agency & Ors v Pro-Fix Services Ltd.

He has wide experience acting for contractors on domestic and international disputes arising out of the design and construction of, among other things, power stations, offshore wind farms and waste water treatment plants as well as oil and gas disputes (infrastructure and otherwise). Examples of his work include:

• Acting for offshore drilling companies in LMAA arbitrations arising out of construction and sale of semi-submersible drilling rigs from Korean yard, for deployment in North Sea, and related ss.68 and 69 applications. Issues included scope of liquidated damages provisions and defects: Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering v Songa Offshore [2020] EWHC 2353 (TCC)
• Acting for Iraqi contractor in respect of oilfield project dispute against Italian oil major. LCIA Arbitration (London seat). Issues included responsibility for importation delays, the impact of the state owned oil company’s actions, liability for termination and the quantification of the various claims and counterclaims that ensued, including liability for liquidated damages.
• Acting for employer in defence of c.$95m claims from Spanish EPC contractor arising out of contract for design and construction of combined cycle power plant in the Caribbean. Involved force majeure claims relating to alleged typhoon damage of components in transit, covid-19 delay claims, extensive geotechnical engineering issues, entitlement to liquidated damages and issues arising out of bond call. ICC arbitration, London seat.
• Acting for Belgian marine contractor in disputes relating to design and construction of Taiwanese offshore wind farm. Disputes and issues arose out of scope of variation provisions, vessel and equipment provision, and subsea conditions.
• Acting in Commercial Court proceedings relating to Royalty Agreement relating to African gas concession and related UNCITRAL arbitration concerning Participation Agreement and relationship with Joint Operating Agreement. Issues in the latter dispute concerned voting rights issues, issues of authorisation of expenditure, liability for operations and costs, and disparate accounting issues under the parties’ contracts.
• Acting for subsidiary of Russian oil company (ICC arbitration, London seat) in dispute with US liner hanger service provider arising out of drilling of offshore well in Ghana. Issues included the cause and responsibility for failure of system and consequent claims for additional expenditure following remedial solution determined, responsibility for delay and cost, and contractual limitations and exclusions.
• Acting for consortium of oil majors in UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of project for the design and construction of LNG facility in Africa.
• Advising on price escalation / indexing issues arising out of project for design and construction of nuclear power plant in the Middle East.
• Acting for owner of photovoltaic power plant in disputes arising out of EPC and O&M contracts relating to the plant.
• Acting for Japanese company in arbitrations concerning claims arising out of failure of condenser unit at Russian refinery.
• Acting for Danish contractor in two pieces of litigation arising out of contract for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm.
• The first concerned the valuation of variation orders relating to the replacement of the installation vessel deployed on the project; MT Højgaard A/S v EON [2013] EWHC 967 (TCC); [2014] EWCA Civ 710; [2015] BLR 55.
• The second concerned responsibility for the failure of the grouted connections in the foundations, and is the first piece of English litigation arising out of the industry wide design code failure that emerged in 2009. The case was heard by the Supreme Court in 2017; MT Højgaard A/S v EON [2014] BLR 450; [2015] BLR 431; [2017] BLR 477
• Acting for Chinese steel fabricator in US$400m TCC action concerning manufacture and supply of steel structures for the Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm project: Fluor v ZPMC [2016] EWHC 2062 (TCC).
• Acting for Dutch joint venture partners in an NAI arbitration concerning the design and construction of a test rig for the topside lifting systems of a new decommissioning vessel. Case fought to a conclusion in Rotterdam.
• Acting for a drilling contractor in litigation arising out of the drilling of a well offshore Guinea. Issues relating to the LOGIC standard form and amendments to it, and allegations of delay and additional cost in the drilling of the well. Claims between concessionaire (a subsidiary of Hyperdynamics corp), the well project manager and the drilling contractor; Jasper v AGR; SCS v AGR.
• Acting for drilling company in litigation arising out of the drilling of a well offshore Tunisia. Issues involving delay and cost associated with drilling of the well; Grup Servicii Petroliere SA v CE Tunisia Bargou & Ors.
• Acting for supplier of condenser to operator of LPG terminal in claim relating to failure of system though corrosion of cupro-nickel tubing and related proceedings; Zueitina Oil Co v Hunt Thermal Technologies.
• Acting for a global provider of technology-based “design and build” process facilities solutions to the upstream oil & gas industry in its Commercial Court claim relating to the supply of topside process modules for an FPSO to operate offshore New Zealand; Global Process Systems Inc v Tablelands Development Limited.
• Acting for international energy company in respect of dispute arising out of hydro-power project.
• Acting for owner in dispute over refurbishment and upgrade of semi-submersible drilling rig.
• Acting for Japanese contractor in two ICC Arbitrations against European and Middle Eastern counterparties in respect of waste water treatment plant in the Middle East. Both arbitrations were fought to a final hearing in London.
• Advising substantial shipbuilding company on claims with specialist international engineering company.
• Advising an international energy company extensively in respect of its rights and liabilities, including in respect of claims intimated, under EPC contracts for the provision of new combined cycle gas turbine power stations. Issues considered include the scope of force majeure provisions, the operation of extension of time provisions and obligations in respect of the provision of spare parts.
• Advising civil works contractor in respect of claims arising out of multi-fuels power project.
• Acting for two Degremont companies, the subsidiaries of a French Utilities group, in a major TCC action concerning the design and construction of a secondary treatment plant at a waste water facility. In addition to dealing with issues concerning the performance of the plant in terms of output so as to enable compliance with an EC Directive (giving rise to issues as to the design, construction and operation of the plant), Mark was heavily involved in the stay of proceedings on an alleged parent company guarantee in favour of the exclusive jurisdiction of the French Courts and the claim arising out of the Group Action brought by local residents relating to alleged odour nuisance; United Utilities v Degremont & Ors.
• Advising a well-known Far Eastern conglomerate on rights and liabilities under EPC Contract.
• Advising a contractor on rights and liabilities under contract for provision of overseas waste water treatment plant.

Mark has significant experience of IT project disputes and has acted variously for client, supplier and consultants. Issues of which Mark has direct experience include (but are not limited to) payment and termination provisions in IT contracts, software design and defects, and delay in the provision of software. Recent matters include:

• Acting for banking group in respect of its claim arising out of a major incident affecting the operation of its batch processing systems. Details are confidential, but the incident was widely reported by all news outlets.
• Acting for public body in expedited Commercial Court proceedings relating to termination of outsourcing contract. Issues included whether there had been qualifying material breaches of contract, and whether the right to terminate had been engaged and retained at the point of termination: BT v Cornwall Council, Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Peninsula Community Health [2015] EWHC 3755 (Comm).
• Acting for payroll software supplier in dispute with airport company purchaser of software and related services. Issues concerned allegations of mistake, misrepresentation and breach, and the scope and nature of contractual warranties, exclusions and entire agreement provisions
• Acting for specialist software supplier in respect of dispute as to scope of implementation services, termination and financial claims, including limitations of liability
• Acting for software supplier in respect of software implementation dispute and liability for sums under the contract. Issues included scope of parties’ respective obligations in respect of data provision.
• Advising data processing company in respect of contract with data storage provider, including in respect of material breach / termination notices.
• Acting for defence company in respect of disputes relating to communications systems.
• Acting for purchaser of software to facilitate multilateral settlement of payment obligations of member international banks.
• Acting for a major mobile telecommunications provider in multi-party action in the TCC concerning a project for the provision of a new content and portal service delivery platform; T-Mobile International UK Ltd v LogicaCMG UK Ltd.
• Acting for supplier of electronic ticketing machines in dispute with bus operator; Nottingham City Transport v Hoeft & Wessel.
• Acting for a firm of management consultants in two multi-million-pound actions in the Commercial Court in relation to the ‘benchmarking’ of a global IT outsourcing deal in the telecoms sector. Issues included proper operation of service supply and payment provisions under outsourcing contract, benchmarking provisions and industry practice; IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Compass Management Consulting.
• Acting for building society in dispute relating to complaints management software; Charter UK Ltd v Nationwide Building Society.
• Acting for the Claimant in a multi-million pound TCC action concerning the provision of safety critical embedded software to a company engaged in the provision of mass transit rail systems. Issues included the operation of termination provisions under the contract, repudiation, defects and delay in the provision of the software. Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd v Data Systems & Solutions Ltd.

Mark has acted as sole counsel and as junior counsel variously for and against engineers, architects, project managers and other consultants in the IT, construction and engineering sectors. Recent instructions include:

• Acting for defendant engineering company in proceedings arising out of traffic modelling exercise and related advice; Secretary of State for Transport v Atkins.
• Acting for third party architects in multi-party TCC litigation concerning delay and defective works; EEF Ltd v Sol Construction Ltd v Hodder Associates.
• Acting for defendant architects in the TCC and in the Court of Appeal in relation to a claim by the occupier of a distribution warehouse arising out of a flood. Issues included the scope of an architect’s duty of care to ‘subsequent’ occupiers and the relevance of the opportunity for intermediate examination and discovery of design defects; Pearson Education Ltd v The Charter Partnership Ltd [2006] PNLR 14 (TCC), [2007] EWCA Civ 130 (CA).
• Acting in a TCC claim for specialist designers of spa facilities for fees and allegations of professional negligence in relation to services provided; Corporate Edge Group Ltd v Champneys Tring Ltd.
• Acting for management consultants in an action brought by an IT services supplier alleging negligence in the benchmarking of an outsourcing agreement; IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Compass Management Consulting.
• Acting in arbitrations for a well-known engineering company relating to claims of professional negligence in the supply of multi-disciplinary consultancy services. The claims were arising out of a project in the education sector alleged to be over-time and over-budget.
• Arbitrations against consultants involved in overseas airport terminal project.
• Dispute under Partnering Agreement relating to structural engineering issues.

In addition to the specialist areas above, Mark is also instructed on general commercial disputes arising (such as sale of goods and bonds and guarantees), to include:

• Acting in an arbitration relating to a dispute between joint venture partners as to the distribution of an arbitration award.
• Acting for payment service provider in dispute with credit card acquirer relating to termination and validity of liquidated damages provision.
• Acting in an arbitration relating to a contract for the provision of water extraction rights.
• Advising in respect of security documentation concerning importation / exportation of vessel for offshore subsea surveying exercise.
• Acting and advising extensively in a major dispute concerning the provision of a parent company guarantee in a major utilities project. Conflicts of laws issues included jurisdiction under the Judgments Regulation and the proper choice of law (including in respect of issues of authority); United Utilities v Degremont & Ors.
• Advising in relation to calls on performance bonds and drafting of call documentation.
• Acting for a well-known multi-national company in relation to the supply of specialist surveying equipment. The claims, which were successfully settled at mediation, were brought under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in relation to amongst other things fitness for purpose and adequacy of firmware.
• Acting for claimant power company in respect of claims under contract for installation of CHP units and energy supply; Combined Power (South) Limited v European Development Company.
• Acting for a property development company in disputes concerning financing agreements for property development; 4Site Services Ltd v Calverley Properties (Kingswood Birches) Ltd.
• Acting for an Australian manufacturer of specialist equipment in claims for breach of exclusive supply agreements with British companies; Bell Scaffolding (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rekon Ltd & Anor.

Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Co Ltd v Songa Offshore [2020] EWHC 2353 (TCC)

MPB v LGK [2020] EWHC 90 (TCC); [2020] BLR 222

MTH Højgaard A/S v EON Climate & Renewables [2014] BLR 450; [2015] BLR 431; [2017] UKSC 59; [2017] BLR 477

Wales and West Utilities Ltd v PPS Pipeline Systems GmbH [2014] BLR 163

MTH Højgaard A/S v EON Climate & Renewables [2013] EWHC 697 (TCC); [2014] EWCA Civ [710]; [2015] BLR 55;

Fluor v Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co, Ltd [2016] EWHC 2062 (TCC)

Fluor v Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co, Ltd [2018] EWHC 1 (TCC)

Axis v Multiplex Europe [2019] EWHC 169 (TCC); [2019] Bus LR 986; [2019] BLR 250; 182 Con LR 110

Connect Plus (M25) Ltd v Highways England Co Ltd [2017] BLR 33

BT Cornwall Ltd v Cornwall Council, Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Peninsula Community Health CIC [2015] EWHC 3755 (Comm)

Countryside Properties v MDS Civil [2009] EWHC 3418 (TCC);

Charter UK Ltd v Nationwide Building Society [2009] EWHC 1002 (TCC)

Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine & Ors [2011] BLR 108

Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v Tony McFadden Utilities Ltd [2010] BLR 89

P C Harrington Contractors Limited v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited [2008] BLR 16

Pearson Education Ltd v The Charter Partnership Ltd [2006] PNLR 14 (TCC), [2007] EWCA, Civ 130 (CA), [2007] BLR 324

2021 Queen’s Counsel

2001-2002 – BVC, Inns of Court School of Law, London

2001 – Senior Mooter, Gray’s Inn

Lord Justice Holker Award Holder, Gray’s Inn

1998-2001 – MA Law (Upper Second), Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge University

Mark is a member of COMBAR, TECBAR and the SCL.

“He has an excellent analytical mind that yields sound advice. Mark is a pleasure to work with and is an exceptionally good advocate in a non-showy delivery.”

Construction Energy & Infrastructure, The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2023

“He’s incredibly hard-working, a perfectionist with a real eye for detail.”

“He’s really, really clever, his advocacy is all very good and he punches above his weight.” “Mark Chennells’ cross-examination is very good.”

“He is a highly effective advocate.”

Construction, Chambers UK Bar 2023

He is absolutely outstanding and an extremely good skeleton argument writer.”

“He is a very astute, thorough, incisive and experienced barrister.”

Energy & Natural Resources, Chambers UK Bar 2023

“He’s very knowledgeable about the law, great on the technical detail, and able to present complex issues in simple terms to tribunals.”

He’s extremely skilled at getting to the real meat of the issue, and he has a skill of taking huge amounts of information and narrowing it down to what is relevant.”

International Arbitration, Chambers UK Bar 2023

“Mark is a good, strong advocate with an excellent mind. He’s very clever and identifies difficult and compelling arguments.”

Construction, The Legal 500 2023

“He is very good at getting into the detail of a case whilst keeping an eye on the overall strategy, and his advocacy skills are very good.”

Energy, The Legal 500 2023

“He is very hard working and really gets into the detail which provides dividends when you are in the hearing. He also has a good feeling for strategy and is excellent on his feet.”

International Arbitration: Counsel, The Legal 500 2023

“He is fiercely intelligent and has a knack for seeing alternative approaches to what appears to be difficult problems.”

Construction, Energy and Infrastructure, The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2022

“A responsive and incredibly diligent barrister, he gets into the meticulous detail of a matter very quickly and has a thorough cross-examination style.”

“A commanding presence both on his feet and in conference but also impressive in his grasp of the commercial and practical issues in a dispute.”

Construction, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2022

“He is very good at really penetrating the detail and getting into the nub of the issue very quickly.” “

He is a very skilled operator and is able to deal with difficult technical issues in the sector.”

Energy, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2022

“Very user-friendly and good to work with.” “He’s very quick and very good on his feet.”

International Arbitration, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2022

“Mark is able to absorb a considerable amount of information, and also is able to get to the core of the problem and identify the key issues. He is hardworking and focuses on the detail.”

Construction, The Legal 500 2022

“Very quick to get on top of the detail and difficult concepts, user friendly and an excellent advocate.”

International Arbitration, The Legal 500 2022

“Mark is very adept at seeing the commercial issues and cutting through irrelevant material to focus on the issues.”

Energy, The Legal 500 2022

“Great cross-examination skills, provides a calm and thorough approach.”

International Arbitration, The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2021

“He is excellent on his feet and on paper. A QC in waiting.” “A real workhorse with a great attention to detail.” “He is a calming influence in stressful situations.”

Construction, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2021

“An outstanding junior.” “He’s like a chainsaw on documents – powers through them and produces great results.” “His writing is very good. He’s very good at cross-examination too.”

Energy, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2021

“He is really excellent – he stands out.” “Absolutely fantastic. He is a very good cross-examiner.”

International Arbitration, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2021

“Very astute, thorough, incisive and experienced junior. His preparation is impeccable and he zeroes in on the key issues.”

Construction, The Legal 500 2021

“He offers considered analysis and instils confidence into his clients”

IT and Telecoms, The Legal 500 2021

“Sharp, yet has a straightforward approach with the ability to make the most complex contractual issue simple to understand.”

International Arbitration, The Legal 500 2021

“He gets to the heart of the issues very quickly and never hesitates to plummet into the details of a case.”

Energy, The Legal 500 2021

“He has a skill set that instructing solicitors dream of and would be at the very top of the list of juniors I would be delighted to recommend – he is an intellectual heavyweight with a masterful presence and yet also very accessible and client-friendly.” “A very astute, thorough, incisive and experienced junior.”

Construction, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2020

“He is tough, clever and very personable.” “He is commercial and has a positive attitude.”

Energy, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2020

“A great lawyer who is extremely modern in his approach.” “A really good cross-examiner.”

International Arbitration, Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2020

“Dedicated, with a great eye for detail.”

Construction, Energy & Infrastructure, The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2020

“He has a knack for suggesting different approaches which turn issues on their head and in your favour. “

Construction, The Legal 500 2020

“Clever with good instincts and very able to run whole sections of a big case on his own.”

Energy, The Legal 500 2020

“He offers considered analysis and instils confidence into his clients.”

IT and Telecoms, The Legal 500 2020

“Has a knack of popping up with slightly different answers and approaches which turn issues on their head and in your favour. “

International Arbitration, The Legal 500 2020

The above are a selection of recent client endorsements from the leading legal directories, both UK and internationally. For a complete list of endorsements, please contact the practice management team at Atkin Chambers.