Natasha Dzameh

Natasha’s commercial practice encompasses arbitration, banking, civil fraud, company and partnership disputes, professional negligence, insolvency and trusts. She acts for a diverse client base, ranging from private individuals to major financial institutions and international corporations, including well-known high-street brands. She has experience of offshore litigation and a strong interest in disputes involving civil fraud, breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty.

Her work includes a wide range of contractual disputes, including complex collateral contract issues, across sectors such as brokerage and sale of classic cars and supercars, carriage, consumer credit, equine matters, guarantees, hire, insurance coverage, IT and NHS-related disputes. Natasha accepts instructions in domestic and international arbitrations and has experience of defamation and malicious falsehood claims.

She is consistently recognised in the legal directories for her advocacy, forensic attention to detail and clear, strategic advice, and is well regarded for her work in trials, appeals and urgent, high-risk applications.

Examples of cases include:

• Acting against a silk at trial in an insurance coverage dispute under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 concerning policy termination, exclusions and estoppel.
• An international commercial arbitration dispute worth c. US $3m seated in London under the ICC Arbitration Rules 2012 concerning a navigation system contract and a British Overseas Territory. Led by Leslie Blohm KC.
• Defence of an application to reconsider findings following trial on the basis of contempt where issues of alleged fraud and misconduct affected contractual liability caps, with an underlying claim value of c.£5m.
• Breach of contract claim concerning loss of dental quality assurance certification with losses anticipated to be £1.7m-£3.5m.
• Advising on dealership commission arrangements, including secret and half-secret commissions.
• A negligence matter concerning risk allocation under a JCT contract which required an All Risks Joint Names Policy.
• Being led by a senior junior on a multimillion pound commercial dispute regarding new technology and emerging markets involving litigants in China.
• Securing a c.£1.31m judgment in a breach of contract, Quistclose trust and restitution claim following an unless order in respect of specific disclosure.
• Advising on the validity of a bond, its status (guarantee or indemnity), choice of law, forum and operation of the Insolvency Act 1986. Master bond entered into by purchaser of property with a third party entity based in Costa Rica.
• Subrogated claim by a Japanese insurer in respect of losses suffered by a car manufacturer against various energy companies relating to a power outage at the motor manufacturing plant causing substantial losses.
• Successfully defending a major financial institution at trial in an alleged EFG loan mis-selling claim.
• Injunctive relief to recover 3D digital yacht and superyacht models involving breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidential information and copyright infringement.
• Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd  [2020] EWHC 1075 (Ch)
  A relief from sanctions application following a litany of errors.

Natasha has substantial experience in company, partnership and joint venture disputes.  Her work in this area includes matters involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust; disputes concerning beneficial interests in assets held through corporate vehicles; entitlement to company shares; issues arising under shareholders’ agreements and articles of association; applications for restoration of companies to the register; unfair prejudice petitions; and directors disqualification proceedings.

Natasha also advises on intervenor claims in financial remedy proceedings where the beneficial ownership of business interests is in issue, and she has particular experience in disputes involving farming partnerships.

Some examples of her experience are:

• Lloyd v Hayward  [2025] EWHC 2226 (Ch)
  A five-day trial concerning a joint venture. Issues included whether the arrangement constituted a contractual joint venture or a partnership, the identity of the parties, the applicable terms, the circumstances of termination and whether invoices were a sham. The second defendant was a Jersey entity whose shares were held by a discretionary trust. The matter proceeded as a split trial on liability only, with counterclaims alleging breach of implied terms and, alternatively, restitution in relation to vehicle leasing arrangements. Acted for the claimant, successfully defending against the counterclaims and the allegation that the invoices were a sham.
• Lloyd v Hayward  [2024] EWHC 2033 (Ch)
  Successfully resisting an application to strike out for abuse of process based on alleged warehousing of litigation. Natasha persuaded HHJ Keyser KC that the analysis in Watford Control Instruments v Brown [2024] EWHC 1125 (Ch) was incorrect. The judgment considered approximately 25 authorities, including Court of Appeal, House of Lords and Privy Council decisions.
• Successfully defending against an urgent quia timet injunction sought to prevent a multimillion pound sale on the basis of section 190 of the Companies Act 2006. Issues included contractual interpretation, contingent obligations, occupation rights, directors’ duties and sections 195-196 CA 2006.
• Breach of director’s duties and unfair prejudice concerning an international seafood import-export business wherein linked litigation in Canada was dealt with by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
• Breach of director’s duties and unjust enrichment regarding company assets taken by an ex-director/refusal to return company assets, including real property and the proceeds of sale of foreign property.
• Restoration to the register of a company limited by guarantee where the register of members is missing or never existed. The claim is brought by a personal representative of the deceased sole director.
• Unfair prejudice petition involving shares worth c.£500,000-£1.375m.
• Dispute between law firm partners regarding the ability of a partner to execute his functions and the terms of his departure.
• Proprietary estoppel, trusts of land, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust matter involving the status of a business (joint venture v partnership) which subsequently became a limited partnership, there being a disagreement as to the beneficial interests in the business and asset ownership.
• Dispute involving a partnership and the estate of a deceased partner as to ownership of property in circumstances where the mortgage broker involved was banned by the FSA due to involvement in a £1.5m fraud.

Natasha acts in technically and factually complex disputes involving allegations of dishonesty, fraud and the use of forged or sham documentation. Her practice includes asset preservation and recovery, and she has a particular interest in matters involving freezing injunctions. She regularly advises on cases where issues of credibility, intention and documentary authenticity are central.

She is adept at analysing extensive documentary and factual material, identifying decisive evidential issues at an early stage and developing focused case strategies. Natasha brings a disciplined and strategic approach to cases involving serious allegations, presenting complex factual narratives with clarity and precision in both written submissions and oral advocacy.

• Lloyd v Hayward  [2025] EWHC 2226 (Ch)
  A five-day trial concerning a joint venture. Issues included whether the arrangement constituted a contractual joint venture or a partnership, the identity of the parties, the applicable terms, the circumstances of termination and whether invoices were a sham. The second defendant was a Jersey entity whose shares were held by a discretionary trust. The matter proceeded as a split trial on liability only, with counterclaims alleging breach of implied terms and, alternatively, restitution in relation to vehicle leasing arrangements. Acted for the claimant, successfully defending against the counterclaims and the allegation that the invoices were a sham.
• Insurance Act 2015 litigation concerning alleged non-disclosure, moral hazard and avoidance of a policy.
• A c.£8.4m dispute concerning alleged misapplication of funds, misrepresentation, deceit, inducement of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, unlawful means conspiracy, secret commissions, knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, offences under the CDDA 1986 and breaches of the FSMA 2000.
• Defence of an application to reconsider findings following trial on the basis of contempt where issues of alleged fraud and misconduct affected contractual liability caps, with an underlying claim value of c.£5m.
• Advising in a c.£3.4m dispute concerning the acquisition and operation of a surgical robot, including whether a trust involved in funding via a corporate vehicle constituted a sham trust.
• Breach of director’s duties and unfair prejudice concerning an international seafood import-export business wherein linked litigation in Canada was dealt with by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
• A complex breach of trust and knowing receipt claim concerning transfer of shares involving nine parties. Listed  for a 10 day trial. Settled at mediation.
• A specific performance claim involving various trust arguments, collateral contracts and an attempt to set aside a deed on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation and/or mistake in which Natasha was against a silk.
• Advising trustees in bankruptcy as to the validity of a charge relating to a £1.5m loan and whether the loan agreement was a sham.
• A tort of deceit, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claim in respect of an eco-home.
• A breach of trust and fiduciary duty claim involving unpaid statutory levies and allegations of dishonest assistance involving the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008.

Natasha has experience in a broad range of corporate and personal insolvency disputes, acting for both debtors and creditors from the pre-action stage through to the conclusion of proceedings. Her work often involves insolvency matters that intersect with other areas of law, including company, trust and property disputes, and she accepts instructions in cross-border cases.

She has a particular interest in misfeasance, breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty claims, transactions at an undervalue and directors’ disqualification proceedings. Her experience also includes a wide range of insolvency-related applications, including injunctions to restrain the presentation of petitions or the appointment of administrators, approval of office-holder remuneration, annulment of bankruptcy orders, suspension of discharge, examination of bankrupts, property sales and applications to set aside statutory demands.

Natasha is a contributor to LexisPSL, for which she has produced insolvency practice notes on general and limited partnerships.

Examples of Natasha’s cases:

• Advising on injunctive relief relating to the prospective appointment of administrators in connection with an alleged debt of approximately £3m in the context of a c.£40m project.
• Advising trustees in bankruptcy as to the validity of a charge relating to a £1.5m loan and whether the loan agreement was a sham.
• A c.£1.65m insolvency matter involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duties by LPA receivers.
• Acting for the trustee in bankruptcy in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), Land Registration Division. An application had been made to register a restriction against a property shortly prior to its sale with the bankrupt being adjudged bankrupt after the sale. Neither the bankrupt nor the purchaser were aware of the sale. The applicant claimed a beneficial interest arising out of a resulting or constructive trust or proprietary estoppel.
• A guarantee case concerning issues of indemnity and subrogation where the beneficiary had been declared bankrupt during her lifetime and had since died.
• An application for disclosure of documents used in other proceedings relating to a company in liquidation which had managed a fund in excess of £100m.
• An application for deferment of dissolution in which she successfully argued that the dissolution date used by Companies House involved an incorrect interpretation of section 201(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
• A dispute concerning beneficial interests in a property where the legal owner was a Guernsey registered company and the alleged beneficial owners had been subjected to numerous bankruptcies.
• Advising on the validity of a bond, its status (guarantee or indemnity), choice of law, forum and operation of the Insolvency Act 1986. Master bond entered into by purchaser of property with a third party entity based in Costa Rica.

Natasha is a highly experienced practitioner acting for both claimants and defendants in complex professional liability matters. Her practice spans claims against a broad range of professionals, including agents, brokers, solicitors and barristers, construction professionals (such as architects and surveyors), engineers, executors, financial professionals, trust companies, trustees, and valuers. She also advises on insurance coverage issues.

Natasha is well known for her ability to manage sophisticated, multi-party disputes involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust by executors, trustees, and directors. Her strong traditional chancery background underpins her expertise in negligence claims arising out of estates and trusts.

Early in her career, Natasha completed a three-month secondment at a leading professional negligence firm, where she worked on a wide range of solicitors’ professional negligence claims, further strengthening her specialist expertise in this field.

Her experience includes:

• A claim against solicitors concerning failure to advise and poor advice in the context of a c.£5 million commercial dispute regarding guarantees.
• A construction and rectification claim on the basis of the clerical error of a solicitor. This involved section 33(2) of the Wills Act 1837. The law firm which had drafted the will instructed a silk.
• Advising a law firm on potentially negligent will drafting by a predecessor firm in relation to charitable gifts and charitable trusts in circumstances where there were anticipated to be numerous wills with the same deficiencies.
• Professional negligence allegations in respect of accountancy services.
• Successfully arguing at trial that a builder who had altered designs had assumed responsibility such that his position in negligence was akin to that of a professional.
• Solicitors’ professional negligence in failing to set aside a possession order resulting in the loss of the property.
• Professional negligence of a costs draftsperson in proceedings concerning the Solicitors Act 1974.
• A c.£1.65m insolvency matter involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duties by LPA receivers.

Natasha acts in agricultural, commercial and residential property disputes, including high-value and legally complex matters. She has experience in litigation concerning beneficial interests in property, particularly where ownership structures involve corporate vehicles or multiple properties. Some disputes raise allegations of coercive control. She also represents intervenors in matrimonial proceedings where the beneficial ownership of real property is in issue.

Her work includes advising on equitable and trust-based claims such as constructive and resulting trusts, proprietary estoppel, Pallant v Morgan equity, undue influence, duress, sham trusts, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, equitable accounting and the equity of exoneration. These issues often intersect with disputes concerning partnership property, estates and insolvency.

Natasha also advises on commercial property matters, including contracts for the sale and development of land, mortgages, misrepresentation and professional negligence. Her property damage experience includes defective works, fire, flood, product safety issues and tree root damage.

She also accepts instructions on insurance coverage disputes.

Examples of her instructions include:

• Beneficial interests dispute in respect of several investment properties in multiple jurisdictions involving arguments as to constructive trusts, resulting trusts and sham trusts.
• Pallant v Morgan equity dispute between companies regarding the purchase of a £1.6m plot of land.
• A specific performance claim involving various trust arguments, collateral contracts and an attempt to set aside a deed on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation and/or mistake in which she was against a silk. Also involved a claim under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.
• Dispute over beneficial interests in properties with a background of coercive control and criminal proceedings listed for a six day trial. Counterclaim for repayment of loan, damages for breach of trust and occupation rent.
• Trust property dispute concerning 123 acres of land, said trust being a family will trust. An option agreement was granted to a property development company over some of the land. Access was blocked by an individual who claimed to be farming parts of the land, by way of a farming partnership, and that there had been succession to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
• Nuisance and negligence claim concerning a fire which caused extensive damage to a range of commercial buildings.
• Breach of contract, negligence and Consumer Protection Act 1987 claim regarding allegedly defective sofas which were said to have resulted in total loss of a property.
• Acting for the trustee in bankruptcy in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), Land Registration Division concerning a dispute over beneficial interests arising out of the registration gap.
• A proprietary estoppel claim based on an express promise by a deceased promisor, and alternatively acquiescence, in relation to a farm containing a property which was subject to an agricultural tie.
• Sollis v Leyshon & Leyshon  [2018] EWHC 2853 (Ch)
  Dispute over the misappropriation of funds and transfer of real property. Issues included: breach of trust, duress, proprietary estoppel, resulting trusts, unconscionability, undue influence and unjust enrichment. Due to an admission by the Claimant during Natasha’s cross-examination, the Claimant’s case was reduced to one of undue influence. This case is cited in several practitioner’s texts and provides a helpful analysis of undue influence where the advice of a legal representative has been sought.

Natasha has extensive experience in trusts, probate and estates litigation, advising on complex and sensitive disputes, including matters involving allegations of physical and/or sexual abuse. Her practice includes applications for the removal of personal representatives and trustees; claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt; claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; the construction and rectification of wills and trusts; charitable gifts and trusts (including cy-près); property-related trust disputes; insolvent estates; proprietary estoppel; will validity challenges; protective costs orders and Beddoes applications.

She is consistently recognised in the legal directories for her chancery and probate work and is known for her technical expertise, clear analysis and effective advocacy. Natasha is valued for her responsiveness, sound judgment and ability to deliver focused advice in complex disputes, particularly where commercial issues intersect with contentious trusts or probate and has been published in the Trusts and Estates Law & Tax Journal.

Some examples of Natasha’s cases are:

• Administration of a c.£13.1m estate in circumstances where there is a lack of certainty as to the identity and scope of beneficiaries entitled on an intestacy, a number of whom were born in Kenya but now reside in Canada.
• A will construction and rectification claim on the basis of clerical error concerning Section 33 of the Wills Act 1837 in which the law firm drafting the will were represented by a silk. Some of the beneficiaries counterclaimed alleging a secret trust.
• A will validity challenge in relation to a £4.5m estate which was discovered to be potentially insolvent due to liabilities, structure and jurisdiction of the assets. Allegations concerned lack of capacity, want of knowledge and approval, undue influence and lack of due execution. Natasha secured orders for indemnity costs from discontinuing claimant in respect of the claim and recovered 100% of the costs in respect of an application for security for costs.
• A claim for breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty involving fraud on a power in relation to a discretionary trust, removal of the trustees and removal of personal representatives in respect of a linked estate.
• A claim under the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 and the Presumption of Death Act 2013 where the missing individual left letters for family members but no body was found.
• An Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim in relation to a multimillion pound estate in circumstances where eligibility was disputed and the deceased had transferred over £1m to Pakistan. HMRC were yet to determine whether the transfers were failed investments or taxable lifetime gifts.
• A complex breach of trust and knowing receipt claim concerning transfer of shares. Involved 9 parties. Listed  for a 10 day trial. Case settled at mediation.
• Baston v Osment & Fox & Others  [2021]
  A claim by a beneficiary for the removal of personal representatives whereby, as a result of the impact of COVID, the need for removal had been overtaken by subsequent events. Despite this Natasha secured an order that the executors (lay and professional) pay her client’s costs and that both executors be denied their indemnity from the estate.
• Representing the successful administrator in joined trials in Scott v Allen [2019] and Smith, Binns & Clarke v Scott [2020] heard over three days. One concerned the presumption of revocation of a will,  in circumstances where one of the claimants claimed to have found an uncertified copy of a 1988 will, and an application for removal of the administrator. The other concerned a claim for an account and a declaration as to ownership of property, the main asset being secured in the interim as a result of Natasha’s application for a £625,000 freezing injunction. Unusually Natasha was required to cross-examine one of the USA-based witnesses via the court telephone.
• Sollis v Leyshon & Leyshon  [2018] EWHC 2853 (Ch)
  Dispute over the misappropriation of funds and transfer of real property. Issues included: breach of trust, duress, proprietary estoppel, resulting trusts, unconscionability, undue influence and unjust enrichment. Due to an admission by the Claimant during Natasha’s cross-examination, the Claimant’s case was reduced to one of undue influence. This case is cited in several practitioner’s texts and provides a helpful analysis of undue influence in relation to lifetime gifts where the advice of a legal representative has been sought.
• Gregory v Ziuzina  [2017] 12 WLUK 82
  Forfeiture dispute regarding the estate of a British millionaire who died intestate in the Ukraine. This specific stage concerned whether there should be a determination of the forfeiture rule prior to the conclusion of an inquest into the deceased’s death. Natasha was involved at various stages in the substantive litigation and was led by Leslie Blohm KC. She dealt with the final hearing on her own against a silk and a junior.

Natasha is an accredited mediator and brings substantial experience of representing parties at mediations, which she draws upon to inform her approach. She also accepts instructions to provide early neutral evaluations (ENE) whether on the papers or following oral submissions.

Natasha is committed to facilitating the efficient and proportionate resolution of disputes through structured and constructive engagement. She is attentive to both the legal and practical considerations informing parties’ positions and is skilled at identifying the issues most likely to impede or enable settlement. She adopts a calm, impartial and flexible approach, assisting parties to evaluate risk, test assumptions and explore realistic avenues to resolution.

• Lloyd v Hayward  [2025] EWHC 2226 (Ch)
  A five-day trial concerning a joint venture. Issues included whether the arrangement constituted a contractual joint venture or a partnership, the identity of the parties, the applicable terms, the circumstances of termination and whether invoices were a sham. The second defendant was a Jersey entity whose shares were held by a discretionary trust. The matter proceeded as a split trial on liability only, with counterclaims alleging breach of implied terms and, alternatively, restitution in relation to vehicle leasing arrangements. Acted for the claimant, successfully defending against the counterclaims and the allegation that the invoices were a sham.
• Lloyd v Hayward  [2024] EWHC 2033 (Ch)
  Successfully resisting an application to strike out for abuse of process based on alleged warehousing of litigation. Natasha persuaded HHJ Keyser KC that the analysis in Watford Control Instruments v Brown [2024] EWHC 1125 (Ch) was incorrect. The judgment considered approximately 25 authorities, including Court of Appeal, House of Lords and Privy Council decisions.
• X v Y Ltd
  Successfully defending against an urgent quia timet injunction sought to prevent a multimillion pound sale on the basis of section 190 of the Companies Act 2006. Issues included contractual interpretation, contingent obligations, occupation rights, directors’ duties and sections 195-196 CA 2006.
• Baston v Osment & Fox & Others  [2021]
  A claim by a beneficiary for the removal of personal representatives whereby, as a result of the impact of COVID, the need for removal had been overtaken by subsequent events. Despite this Natasha secured an order that the executors (lay and professional) pay her client’s costs and that both executors be denied their indemnity from the estate.
• Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd  [2020] EWHC 1075 (Ch)
  A relief from sanctions application following a  litany of errors.
• Scott v Allen [2019] and Smith, Binns & Clarke v Scott  [2020]
  Heard as joined trials. One concerned the presumption of revocation of a will,  in circumstances where one of the claimants claimed to have found an uncertified copy of a 1988 will, and an application for removal of the administrator. The other concerned a claim for an account and a declaration as to ownership of property, the main asset being secured in the interim as a result of Natasha’s application for a £625,000 freezing injunction. Unusually Natasha was required to cross-examine one of the USA-based witnesses via the court telephone.
• Sollis v Leyshon & Leyshon  [2018] EWHC 2853 (Ch) 
  Dispute over the misappropriation of funds and transfer of real property. Issues included: breach of trust, duress, proprietary estoppel, resulting trusts, unconscionability, undue influence and unjust enrichment. Due to an admission by the Claimant during Natasha’s cross-examination, the Claimant’s case was reduced to one of undue influence. This case is cited in several practitioner’s texts and provides a helpful analysis of undue influence in relation to lifetime gifts where the advice of a legal representative has been sought.
• Gregory v Ziuzina  [2017] 12 WLUK 82
  Forfeiture dispute regarding the estate of a British millionaire who died intestate in the Ukraine. This specific stage concerned whether there should be a determination of the forfeiture rule prior to the conclusion of an inquest into the deceased’s death. Natasha was involved at various stages in the substantive litigation and was led by Leslie Blohm KC. She dealt with the final hearing on her own against a silk and a junior.

Chambers UK

“Natasha Dzameh’s submissions are incredibly compelling and insightful. She is able to make a genuine positive difference in every case.” “Natasha Dzameh demonstrates a deep and thorough legal understanding and provides follow-up assistance should it be needed. She is a very safe pair of hands.” “Natasha Dzameh has an excellent eye for detail and looks at every matter from every possible angle” “Natasha Dzameh is brilliantly detail-oriented and thinks about things that others don’t think about.”

“Natasha’s grasp on complicated contractual and property matters is enviable. She presents her cases very well and her advocacy is clear and strong.”

“Natasha Dzameh has an excellent eye for detail and looks at every matter from every possible angle. Technically she is superb and she is unfazed at advocacy.” “Natasha Dzameh is always prepared for action, very strong on procedure and legal technicalities – a very good lateral thinker and problem solver.”

Chambers UK (2026)

“She has a thorough approach to matters and will go the extra mile for clients and instructing solicitors.” “She goes the extra mile for clients and always thinks outside the box to find the best outcome for the client.” “Her advice is honest and practical.” “Natasha Dzameh has a great eye for detail.”

“Natasha is really good; she’s really tenacious and experienced, incredibly user-friendly and a really good team player.”

“Natasha’s attention to detail is good and she is a quick reader of papers.”

“Natasha Dzameh deals with papers quickly and effectively.”

Chambers UK (2025)

“Natasha is great with clients and clear and concise when advising.” “A really tenacious and sharp barrister.” “Very good on contracts, clever, direct and cuts to the chase.”

“She is very thorough and quick on her feet in court. Her submissions are excellent, and she is able to respond to comments by the judge and opponents in excellent time.” “She is technically good but also practical and tactical as well. She foresees problems and gives tactical advice on what should or shouldn’t be done.” “She goes over and beyond, looking at different aspects to get the best outcome. She knows the law inside out and uses that to her advantage to build a fantastic result. She builds a great rapport with clients.”

“Natasha is a great advocate with a sharp eye for detail.” “Natasha is very thorough and meticulous in her drafting. She never fails to consider all aspects including those beyond the immediate issue and demonstrates an exceptional knowledge and understanding of the law, both factually and practically.’

“Natasha’s technical expertise is phenomenal.” “Natasha is excellent. We instruct her for trust of land and general contentious probate advice on 1975 claims. She is really clear in terms of her advocacy, good on her feet and can be really forceful when needed.’”

Chambers UK (2024)

“A great go-to counsel for complex matters – very responsive and approachable.” “Natasha has real technical brilliance, she is skilled at working through tricky cases and finding the best legal route to enable the client to achieve the desired outcome.” “She is excellent with the clients and able to put them at ease.”

“She is excellent with clients and able to put them at ease, she is also able to break down complex legal points for any client.’ “

“She works hard and turns things around really quickly, while clearly putting the time and effort into thinking through what is best for her and my client.” “She is serious, competent, and knows all the procedures.’ “

“Natasha is extremely knowledgeable and efficient. She is also very approachable and flexible in her work style. She provided outstanding service.”

Chambers UK (2023)

“She has good attention to detail and was quick to think outside the box. She was creative in her drafting.”

“Natasha gives a very thorough review of issues and detailed written advice, thus clients feel very confident with her approach.” “She is so enthusiastic and determined to put in the hard yards. Solicitors love her and she fights her corner really hard.”

“She is an absolute ball of energy. She is good in court and fights her case.” “She is very thorough and she thinks outside the box.”

Chambers UK (2022)

“She’s very pragmatic, approachable and thorough, sometimes picking up on things you wouldn’t necessarily pick up on yourself and taking perspectives you might not have thought of.” “Natasha has already forged a clear path to success, looking at the bigger picture to provide clients with clear but rounded advice.”

“Natasha will look at the bigger picture to provide the clients with clear but rounded advice.” “She does not just consider one aspect of a case but takes all solutions and pathways into consideration.” “Always friendly and ready to discuss matters. Very pragmatic and approachable.”

Chambers UK (2021)

“She’s very thorough, her attention to detail is strong and she’s very approachable. She’s always at the other end of the phone and she’s always willing to help.’ ‘She is right on top of the legal and factual aspects of a case.’”

Chambers UK (2020)

The Legal 500

“Natasha is a phenomenal talent. She is clear, concise, and tenacious, both in her written advice and in her advocacy. Her submissions are incredibly compelling and insightful; she is able to make a genuine, positive difference in every case.”

“Natasha is super, super bright and a brilliant advocate. She is astute, thorough, and on top of the detail. Natasha is an asset to have on your side.”

“Natasha is always practical, precise and thorough. She is very commercial in her advice and cautious in her approach, making sure everything is lined up before jumping. She is open and friendly and puts clients at ease. Natasha also exudes gravitas that displays her expertise.”

The Legal 500 (2026)

“Natasha is very astute and quickly grasps the issues at hand. She is a strong advocate and a quick thinker. She provides considered and thorough advice.”

“Natasha is incredibly well-prepared and knows her cases back to front. She is relatable and provides thorough advice to her clients. Her advocacy is strong, and she presents her arguments clearly and succinctly.”

The Legal 500 (2025)

“Natasha is a fountain of knowledge. She is very astute and is able to look at complex issues and break them down easily to determine the best strategy to meet a client’s needs. Natasha also always provides prompt and clear advice.”

“She is a methodical thinker who prepares thoroughly for trial. On her feet she is fast, but particularly comes into her own in closing arguments.  Her written work is also very thorough but most importantly when working together on a matter, she is always available to talk something over on the phone.”

“Natasha has a great eye for detail and is able to marshal arguments into very concise and effective submissions and pleadings.”

The Legal 500 (2024)

“Natasha has forensic attention to detail and is very analytical. She provides clear-headed, focussed advice which is understandable to clients. A very efficient barrister.”

“Natasha digests the tricky elements of a case and plans out a robust, yet practical, strategy for resolving issues. She brings clarity and direction to a matter. Her advice is very astute.”

“Natasha is very analytical. She goes the extra mile. Her advice and drafting are detailed and she is always keen for a challenge. Natasha is able to build a good rapport with clients with her grounded approach and ability to explain complex legal principles.”

The Legal 500 (2023)

“Natasha is a strong advocate, robust and able to think creatively to reach a novel solution to difficult legal issues. “

“Natasha has a great eye for detail and is very determined in her approach. She provides advice in a commercial way.”

“Natasha always provides clear and detailed opinions. She explores all aspects of the case and has detailed knowledge not only of the law but the procedural rules. She focuses on the core issues, and her legal analysis is firm.”

The Legal 500 (2022)

“Natasha is very responsive, extremely thorough, pragmatic and easy to work with as part of the team. She is an assertive and tenacious advocate.”

“Her strong legal analysis and keen eye for detail allow her to offer concise and pragmatic advice.”

“An excellent and compelling advocate. Natasha is insightful, personable and very intelligent.”

The Legal 500 (2021)

“Professional, knowledgeable, and with a good eye for detail.”

“Very sharp and responsive, with great attention to detail and a good way with clients.”

The Legal 500 (2020)

“Extremely intelligent, with an eye for practical and innovative solutions.”

“A very sharp and user-friendly barrister.”

The Legal 500 (2019)