James Newman

James is instructed in all manner of commercial disputes that include contractual interpretations and rectification claims, fraud, economic torts, misrepresentation, share sale and purchase agreements, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of warranty claims, joint venture disputes, partnership disputes, sale of goods and services, finance, claims under the Commercial Agents Directive and obtaining urgent injunctive relief (including freezing orders, imaging orders, search orders).

His vast experience in commercial litigation means that he can act in most types of insolvency matters.

He has extensive experience in a range of Construction Disputes including advising and acting for parties involved in proceedings under the Building Safety Act 2022.

James’s article on Fraudulent Misrepresentation can be found here.

James is a member of COMBAR.

Recent examples of his cases include:

Westbase Technology Limited v Vuzix Corporation and others  [2026] – The Claimant brings a claim against the Defendant and two Directors alleging breach of an oral settlement agreement to repurchase unsold stock following a failed distribution partnership. The Defendant contests jurisdiction, citing a New York governing law and exclusive venue clause in the original written agreement. It argued no binding settlement was reached alleging it was a “gentleman’s agreement”.  The contested jurisdiction application can be found at [2026] EWHC 138.

James’s article on the contested application decision can be found here.

Proddow Mackay Legal Limited v Mr Arturas Janavicius  [2025] – James acted for the Claimant against Mr Arturas Janavicius over the attempted termination of a joint venture to operate 3M Law Ltd.  PML allege the termination notice is invalid and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to preserve its stake and board representation. The case turned on whether PML materially breached the Joint Venture Agreement and whether such breaches, if any, justify termination. The matter was listed for 5 day High Court trial in December 2025.

NST Worldwide Limited v (1) World Snooker Limited, (2) World Snooker Holding Limited (3) World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association  [2025] – This is a landmark competition law claim before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. NST alleges that the Defendants who control the global professional snooker tour have abused their dominant position and engaged in anti-competitive agreements that prevent players from participating in rival events. NST claims it was unlawfully excluded from the market for promoting snooker tournaments. The claim seeks damages and injunctive relief, citing restrictive player contracts, calendar monopolization, and historical parallels to the Hendry case. The dispute challenges the governance and commercial structure of professional snooker in the UK.  James is part of the legal team acting for the Claimant.

Articles on this case can be found here and also here.

Artisan Food Hall Ltd (and others) v Redefine Paragon Square Hull Limited – Acted for the Defendant (being led by Ian Clarke KC) in this complex £3M High Court claim concerning alleged defective construction works that the Claimant was required to undertake under an Agreement for Lease.

Treetops Penhurst Limited v Mr William Westphal –  A dispute arising out of a Share Sale Agreement. The Claimant alleged that the Defendant had breached various warranties that concerned a bespoke commercial building made entirely from wood from the surrounding area.

Jeremy Somodi v Mr Thomas Stack – Acted for the Defendant in a claim brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 the dispute arose out of a property development joint venture.

Kingsbury Stone Limited (and others) v Ross Kemp (and others) – Acted for the Claimant (being led by William McCormick KC) in this highly complex High Court claim worth an estimated £100M arising out of a merger of two companies.

Storm Technologies Limited v High Power Petroleum Limited – A dispute where the Claimant is seeking to recover data usage charges that were incurred by a bad actor fraudulently accessing the Defendant’s Microsoft Azure Account.

Patrick Munroe v Lee Parsons – A partnership dispute involving the breakdown of a property development business where properties are said to be worth £16,000,000.

Pharmapac (UK) Ltd v HBS Healthcare Ltd  [2022] EWHC 23 (Comm) – Acted for the Defendant in this £750,000 Commercial Court claim concerning the supply of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indigo Michael Limited (t/a SafetyNet Credit) v The Claims Expert Limited (t/a Impakt Claims) – Acting for the Defendant in this Commercial Court claim in which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant has caused it loss by unlawful means.

London Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Kammar Abbas Khan and Others – Acting for the Fourth Defendant in Detailed Assessment proceedings.  Case concerns, amongst others, the proper interpretation of a CFA and the applicability of numerous Statutory provisions.

Interclass Company Limited v Hambro Roofing Limited – Acting for the Defendant in this ongoing claim in the Technology and Construction Court.  The Claimant alleges that D, a roofing contractor, started a fire at Ludgate House causing losses in the region of £800,000.

Troika Talent Agents LLP v Lena Headey – Acting for the Defendant in this ongoing claim in the Business List (ChD).  The Claimant seeks to recover commissions from a well-known and successful television and film actress.

McAlpine Grant ILCO v AFR Refrigeration Ltd   [2020] EWHC 106 (QB) – Dispute concerning the supply of a faulty refrigerator unit that caused damage to a third party’s high value pharmaceutical products.

Hart v Derek Ingram Limited and another – Acted on behalf of the Defendant in a claim issues in the Technology and Construction Court concerning alleged defective construction works.

Namalco Construction v EMBD – A $150 million dispute involving significant infrastructure projects in Trinidad & Tobago.  James was instructed as a junior on behalf of Namalco Construction.  Namalco was seeking payment of approximately $150 million in respect of major road and infrastructure projects that they were contracted to complete by Estate Management & Business Development Company Limited (EMBD).  The contracts in dispute are based upon the Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Conseils (FIDIC) Red Book.  The dispute is multi-layered and complex.  EMBD have raised issues over the quality of the works, the quantities used, the prices applied and have made allegations that the Contract Supervisors failed to act independently.  There were serious allegations that the bidding process was flawed because Namalco were part of a cartel.

Rugby BC v Mr and Mrs Tayton  [2020] EWHC 898 (QB) – Successfully obtaining an award of indemnity costs against the Applicant for failing to provide full and frank disclosure whilst obtaining a Freezing Injunction against Respondents.

Rattan v Carter-Ruck Solicitors  [2019] 5 WLUK 633 – Acting for the Defendant in successfully striking out the Claimants application for a detailed assessment of a bill of costs.  The Master found that the Claimants conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

In addition to his commercial litigation work, James is instructed in Company disputes.  These cases will commonly involve the control and management of companies, shareholder disputes, s.994 (unfair prejudice) petitions, derivative actions, breach of director’s duties (statutory and fiduciary), minority shareholder actions.

Recent examples of James’s cases include:

Paul Henry v Hunt Commercial Property Limited and others – A s.994 petition where James acts for the Claimant.  The Claimant alleges that he has been excluded from management, company assets have been diverted, and a competing business has been established using the Company’s branding, website, and goodwill.

Ben Albin v NetFM UK Limited – This dispute arose from the sale by NetFM UK Ltd of part of its software development business for £4.5 million.  It was alleged by the Claimant that the Defendant had refused to honour contractual entitlements owed to him under a Shareholder Agreement and Employment Agreement.

Carlos Yabrudy v Pair-Com International Limited and others – A derivative claim, where James acts for the Defendant.  The Claimant makes various allegations including asset diversion, conflicts of interest, and intimidation.

As James has over 25 years of litigation experience, he can handle a broad range of professional negligence claims.  As most of these matters settle following mediation rather than proceeding to an issued claim it is not possible to give client details.

James is a member of the PNBA

His recent cases include:

Michelle Carrington v American International Group UK Limited  [2025] EWHC 1010 (TCC) – James was instructed following the claim being issued and acts for the Claimant who alleges that the Architect failed to provide essential information such as designs, design details and specifications to the Contractor to enable it to complete the works.

An article on the Defendant’s attempts to strike out the claim can be found here.

A v B – James acted as sole Counsel in this multi-faceted property damage and professional negligence claim against the former deputies of a patient.  The patient suffered horrific injuries in a car crash, and her former deputies used part of the settlement monies to by a house that was fully converted to her needs.  Unfortunately, the property suffered significant subsidence, and her deputies underinsured it with RSA.   There was a dispute over the appropriate method to remedy the subsidence and the professional negligence claim is for the shortfall.   The matter was listed for a trial likely to 15 – 20 days, but after a 5 years of litigation the matter was settled at mediation.  James’s instructing solicitor commented after the mediation that “You really went above and beyond on Tuesday, and we couldn’t have asked for a better Counsel”.

PPS Shopfitters Limited v AZ Investment (a firm) and others (TCC)  [2025] – James acts for the Claimant in this High Court claim for unpaid sums arising from an oral cost‑plus‑20% agreement to refurbish a Public House.  The Defendant counterclaims and alleges that the works were negligently undertaken.

Taray Investments Limited and others v Gately Heritage LLP  [2020] EWHC 716 – Five-day professional negligence trial in which James acted for the Claimants in which they sought damages from their solicitor for the lost opportunity of purchasing and developing a residential site.

X v Y – A professional negligence claim against two firms of solicitors who failed to advise the Claimant that a significant property development could not be undertaken due to restrictions/planning issues with the proposed purchases site.   The estimated value is in excess of £1.5 million.

A v B  – James was instructed as junior Counsel to Lord Garnier KC who were acting for the Claimant in his professional negligence claim.   The Defendant was instructed as Leading Counsel for the Claimant in his failed defamation claim against various medical professors and an NHS Trust.  The Claimant sought to recover from the Defendant the legal fees he incurred and the costs he was ordered to pay within the defamation proceedings.  The claim has recently settled on a confidential basis with the Defendant’s insurers making a significant payment to the Claimant

X v Y – James is instructed as sole Counsel by the Claimant in a professional negligence claim against a relatively well-known barrister.  The matter concerns negligent litigation advice in a relatively complex piece of High Court litigation.

James’s practice covers the full scope of real property law. He regularly provides advice on matters including disputed titles, beneficial ownership, covenants, easements, boundaries, mortgages, mortgage receivership and failed property development.

James is a member of the Property Bar Association and Chancery Bar Association.

Recent examples of James’s cases include:

Various Claimants v Stripe Homes Limited and Stripe Homes (Quayside) Limited – The Claimants, who are all overseas investors, invested over £750,000 in two failed property developments.  The Claimants alleged (amongst other matters) that the two Defendants (induced them into the investment by fraudulently misrepresenting that the investment will be protected by an independent trustee.

A v B – A multi-party commercial and property dispute in which James acted as sole counsel for the Claimant.  B had restructured and then loaned the target company, that A was a former director of, in excess of £2 million.  That company subsequently failed to repay the said sum and pursuant to a number of personal guarantees and legal charges over his home address,  B and the lenders sought to recover the sum from A.  The claim was defended on the basis that other common directors of the target company and B and the lenders had fraudulently misrepresented and conspired together to convince A to execute the personal guarantees and legal charges without disclosing to him the true financial worth of the target company.  The matter was successfully concluded at mediation.

X v Y – X invested £700,000 in a proposed property development, namely an equine centre catering for neurodiverse individuals.  The investment was subject to various loan agreements, written and oral which were all said to be subject to a mortgage over the investment property.  There was a breakdown in the relationship and X sought to recover its investment.  The matter was successfully concluded at mediation.

James’s core practice areas are heavily involved in matters relating to civil fraud, asset recovery, and the advancement of proprietary claims. His expertise is regularly called upon throughout the litigation process, covering everything from the initial investigation of alleged fraud to the pursuit of claims aimed at recovering assets.

He is frequently instructed by clients at various stages, whether it is to assist in the investigation of suspected fraudulent activity or to take action following the discovery of fraud. This includes seeking interlocutory relief to protect assets, as well as representing clients in lengthy and complex trials where fraud and asset recovery are central issues.

In conjunction with his commercial practice James is also developing a practice in Sports Law.

He has recently achieved notable success in a matter that has attracted significant interest in the national press. The Claimant was an academy player (who because of his age cannot be named) with a Premier League Club when he was illegally approached by Liverpool FC. As a result, Liverpool FC was banned from signing academy players from other English clubs and being fined £100,000. Under the terms of the settlement with the Premier League and Liverpool FC, his client will be able to continue with his education at his current private school at no cost to him and be free to join another club within the academy system without that club being required to pay compensation in the sum of £49,000 to Stoke City FC, that sum having been settled.

He has acted for various agents and football clubs regarding disputes concerning player commissions and agency fees.