William
McCormick KC

William has long been highly ranked in the field of defamation and privacy, where his trial experience and ability to provide early well-focused advice enable him to provide a complete service.

In addition to defamation and privacy work he has represented sports and media personalities in connection with contractual issues including obligations to agencies.

His experience of other area of law gives him an additional edge in cases in which the conduct of businesses or those who operate them is in issue.

Smith & Jackson v Surridge and others [2025] EWHC 74 (KB).
Successfully defended Church and School trustees/governors at a 6 day trial against claims for libel, misuse of private information and negligence arising out of employment references which asserted that the claimant teachers had exposed a child to the risk of harm.

Bates v Rubython [2024] EWHC 2706 (KB).
Represented the claimant (former owner of Chelsea FC and Leeds Utd FC) and obtained an award of £150,000 for serious allegations of sustained wrongdoing, including involvement in the sabotage of the helicopter that crashed killing Matthew Harding and 5 others..

Vine v Barton [2024] EWHC 1268 (KB).
Represented the defendant (a former premier league footballer) in a claim brought by a TV presenter over a series of posts on X which referred to him as “bike nonce”. The Judge ruled that many of those posts meant that the claimant was a paedophile (as opposed to being mere abuse).

Parsons v Various Defendants [2022 to 2024].
Represented the claimant in 3 claims brought in respect of a “poison pen” letter containing defamatory allegations and private information that was circulated in and around his home village.

Millett v Corbyn [2022].
Represented the defendant in a libel claim arising out of comments made on The Andrew Marr Programme about the claimant’s conduct at public meetings. The claimant discontinued the claim shortly before the 3 week trial was due to commence.

Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB) & [2022] EWCA Civ 1146.
Represented the defendant to a claim arising out of her response to a tweet about an assault on the then leader of the Labour Party.

Banks v Cadwalladr [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB).
Represented the claimant in a claim in respect of a Ted Talk accusing him of breaching UK election funding rules.

Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Ltd v Szczecin and Swinoujscie Seaports Authority SA [2018] EWHC 1018 (QB) & [2019] EWCA Civ 1932.
Represented a Polish Port authority in an action based on statements made in Poland that a recycling plant had breached Polish environmental laws. The Judge at first instance declined jurisdiction as a matter of discretion (the first time this had occurred in a libel case) under the Recast Brussels Regulation. The CA overturned that decision and the claim subsequently settled.

Barron & others v Collins & UKIP [2018] EWHC 253 (QB).
Obtained an order that UKIP (not a party to the initial action) was liable for the costs of three Labour MPs who sued UKIP MEP Jane Collins for libel in a speech delivered at the UKIP Conference. UKIP was held liable because it had manipulated the defence of Ms Collins in the hope of obtaining some political advantage in the 2015 general election.

Miller v ANL [2017] UKSC 33.
Argued successfully that the recoverability of success fees in defamation claims was not contrary to Article 10 ECHR.

Lord McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB).
Represented the defendant in what was the first “twitter libel” arising out of unfounded reports on BBC’s Newsnight of child sexual abuse by the claimant.

Tesla Inc v BBC [2013] EWCA Civ 152.
Represented the claimant in its action arising out of an edition of Top Gear and the manner in which that programme reported on the performance of the Tesla Roadster.

William undertakes a wide range of commercial work including disputes arising out of contracts or breaches of fiduciary or other duties.

Advised a construction company in a Part 20 claim brought in respect of a claim for £70m+ arising from defective work in the building of a hospital. The client was alleged to be liable for a subsidiary’s failings based upon 2 guarantees. The documents relied upon were incomplete and so there were difficult issues under the Statute of Frauds 1677 as to whether they were enforceable and also as to whether (if enforceable) they applied to the defects complained of.

Khazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors (2020-2021).
Engaged as leading counsel on behalf of a number of Trustee Companies defending claims to enforce against their assets which (it was alleged) represented the proceeds of frauds committed by one of the settlors of those Trusts. The value of the assets at stake was between £100m and £140m.

Uavend Properties Inc v Adsaax Ltd & Vistra (Singapore) [2020] EWHC 2073 (Comm).
Represented a Seychelles company suing a Singapore-based Trust Company for procuring breach of contract relating to a major property development in London. The defendant both held 95% of the shares in the defaulting company and required its employees to serve as directors of the corporate director of the defaulting company by Company for which it provided directors.

SKAT (Danish Tax Authority) Litigation (2019-2020).
Successfully defended the CEO of a Luxembourgish Company who was alleged to have negligently failed to identify conduct said to be part of a world-wide conspiracy that defrauded the Danish Tax Authorities of more than £1.2bn. The claim was discontinued in the face of an application for summary judgment.

AMP Advisory and Management Partners v Force India Formula One Team Limited [2019] EWHC 2426 (Comm).
In which he successfully secured a quantum meruit for work done (without a contract) in assisting in the securing of the title sponsor (BWT) for the F1 team now known as Racing Point (which produced the well-known colouring of the team’s cars).

Sports Direct International v Rangers International FC [2016] EWHC 85(Ch).
Represented Rangers Football Club Ltd and its Chairman Dave King in the dispute with Mike Ashley and Sports Direct PLC, securing the dismissal as an abuse of process of an application to commit Mr King to prison, the striking out of parts of that substantive claim and the imposition of terms upon Sports Direct PLC when it sought to discontinue the balance of its claim on the eve of the trial.

Rangers Retail v TRFC [2017] EWHC 737 (Ch).
Represented the defendants in a further claim concerning the ability of a JV partner (a subsidiary of Sports Direct) to bring a derivative action when the JV agreement purported to exclude any right to sue the defendant.

Advised a Jersey Company on the availability of remedies as against its professional advisors in connection with losses of £150m due to systematic frauds committed against its wholly owned subsidiaries in Hong Kong and China.

Defended a Gibraltarian Financial Services Company against allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with an allegedly fraudulent investment scheme in which up to £15m was obtained from investors. The claimant discontinued the claim 6 weeks before trial.

Defended a Hong Kong Company against a claim for £8m based upon an alleged guarantee given to the NHS in favour of a UK subsidiary.

Various claims involving the enforcement of post termination restrictive covenants both as to involvement in competing businesses and the use of confidential information.

William’s cases in this area comprise, disputes between shareholders concerning breaches of agreements as to how companies are to be managed or allegations that they are being unfairly managed, and claims that the obligations owed to companies (or creditors) have been breached by the board or other senior management.

Advising the Respondent to an unfair prejudice petition alleging that the openly executed removal of part of a family-owned business retail business many years previously was a breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy and unfairly prejudicial conduct entitling the Petitioner to a 50% share of that part of the business and of the profits (claimed at in excess of £20m) since then. The claim settled shortly before trial but further allegations of breaches of duty were raised.

Uavend Properties Inc v Adsaax Ltd & Vistra (Singapore) [2020] EWHC 2073 (Comm).
Represented a Seychelles company suing a Singapore-based Trust Company for procuring breach of contract relating to a major property development in London. The defendant both held 95% of the shares in the defaulting company and required its employees to serve as directors of the corporate director of the defaulting company by Company for which it provided directors.

Advising the Petitioner in a claim for unfair prejudice based upon the breach of a Shareholders’ Agreement. The Respondents wished to expand the care home business by acquiring and developing further properties which would restrict the ability to pay dividends for a number of years. The Shareholders’ Agreement required the consent of all members for certain steps – there was a dispute as to whether it covered this step and if not, whether such conduct was unfairly prejudicial management of the company’s affairs. The case settled on the first day set for the trial.

Advising a number of shareholder investors in a “start-up” in respect of the dilution of their majority shareholding by the board by the issue of new shares to some of the directors at an almost “nil” valuation. The dilution was carried out on the purported basis that the company required urgent finance which the shareholders had refused to provide and using an authorisation to which the shareholders had assented and on the basis that the company was – having no other possible source of investment – valueless. The shareholders deny that they had been given a proper opportunity to contribute further funds on the same terms as did the board, and have evidence that the board was working for some months in preparation to seize control for themselves at a massive under-value.

Disputes between family members and the companies they controlled as to ownership of a chain of Service Stations and residential properties, including litigation over breaches of the agreement compromising the first series of disputes.

Instructed on one side of a bitter family dispute over the ownership of a string of petrol stations and domestic properties with a total value in excess of £10m. The disputed facts extended back c 20 years and involved allegations of dishonesty (including against professional advisers) forgery and undue influence. The initial litigation settled at mediation on terms involving the transfer of shares in various of the “family” companies but further litigation ensued about alleged breaches of the terms of the settlement, requiring an urgent application to the Court for the extension of time within which certain transactions were to be completed and information provided.

Acted for 7 defendants to claims for damages/an account of profits based upon allegations of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy and knowing receipt arising out of the setting up of a competing business (including the supply to football clubs of ground coverings).

Advising clients (who formed a minority shareholding “block”) on their claim for unfairly prejudicial conduct against the majority shareholder (an international motor manufacturer) based upon the issuing of new shares at a discount in return for loans. Allegations that an earlier compromise agreement (settling a similar complaint) was being breached and that the majority was deliberately frustrating efforts to secure alternative finance.

Defending a claim alleging unfair prejudice and seeking the compulsory sale of the client’s 50% interest in a family business worth £15-30m. Allegations of exclusion from management and abstraction of company funds on both sides.

William has extensive experience of advising in the investigation of potential claims where the need is to identify the perpetrators of any possible fraud and the location of the assets in issue, including the use of “Norwich Pharmacal” relief. He is regularly retained to pursue and defend such allegations, particularly in the context of allegedly defaulting company officers.

Acted for 7 defendants to claims for damages/an account of profits based upon allegations of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy and knowing receipt arising out of the setting up of a competing business (including the supply to football clubs of ground coverings).

Defending liquidator’s claim for £9.5m in respect of sums removed from company including unlawful returns of capital authorised by directors and paid to two shareholders who were alleged to have known of misconduct of the directors. Claim issued 6 years after the payment was made and without any prior warning. The shareholders had spent the money received and defended the claims on various bases including change of position. Claims for knowing receipt and receipt of unlawful dividends were dismissed shortly before trial and a settlement was then agreed on the morning of trial under which shareholders recovered the majority of their costs.

Khazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors (2020-2021).
Engaged as leading counsel on behalf of a number of Trustee Companies defending claims to enforce against their assets which (it was alleged) represented the proceeds of frauds committed by one of the settlors of those Trusts. The value of the assets at stake was between £100m and £140m.

SKAT (Danish Tax Authority) Litigation (2019-2020).
Successfully defended the Gerant (CEO) of a Luxembourgish Company who was alleged to have negligently failed to identify conduct said to be part of a world-wide conspiracy that has defrauded the Danish Tax Authorities of more than £1.2bn. The claim was discontinued in the face of an application for summary judgment by the d 3Case 4

Advised two companies in a claim against a shareholder/director and 5 companies which he controlled, for sums in excess of £10m which represented sums obtained by secretly diverting a series of property development opportunities (both before and after a merger with another company) to his own companies. He had concealed his interests in those transactions from the company (and the company’s clients) thus exposing it to claims from those clients.

Defended a Gibraltarian Financial Services Company against allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with an allegedly fraudulent investment scheme in which up to £15m was obtained from investors. The claimant discontinued the claim 6 weeks before trial.

Advised a Jersey Company on the availability of remedies as against its professional advisors in connection with losses of £150m due to systematic frauds committed against its wholly owned subsidiaries in Hong Kong and China.

William advises and represents parties relying upon and resisting allegations of professional negligence across a range of disciplines.

Advised a Jersey Company on the availability of remedies as against its professional advisors in connection with losses of £150m due to systematic frauds committed against its wholly owned subsidiaries in Hong Kong and China.

Defended a Gibraltarian Financial Services Company against allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with an allegedly fraudulent investment scheme in which up to £15m was obtained from investors. The claimant discontinued the claim 6 weeks before trial.

Represented client in a claim alleging that solicitors had failed to properly advise on an employee’s possible claim under the Commercial Agents Regulations, exposing the employer client to that claim and requiring a payment to compromise it.

Represented client suing for the failure of solicitors to take steps to protect the design rights of a new type of hairbrush in various jurisdictions in the Far East.

Represented aN ATE insurer in a dispute as to the issuing by a firm of solicitors of policies to clients and the conduct of the insured litigation.

Represented a client suing his solicitors for the drafting of a share sale agreement which left him vulnerable to being forced out as a “bad leaver”.

William’s practice includes cases in which various aspects of insolvency, both corporate and personal arise, including attempts to set aside transactions and to recover assets for the benefit of creditors, and attempts to prevent enforced insolvency procedures.

Aldermore Bank plc v Lynch [2022] EWHC 3050 (Ch).
Acting for debtor on an appeal by a bank against the reversal by the ICC Judge of a trustee’s acceptance of a debt of £1.2m based upon a guarantee alleged by the debtor to have been forged.

Represented a company (and its founder and majority shareholder) in a series of proceedings seeking to prevent it being placed into administration by a minority Maltese investor acting in combination with Chinese suppliers. Allegations were made on both sides of misrepresentations and breaches of fiduciary duties by the board, including those appointed by the investor. Other proceedings were issued against the company which were said to be part of an overall conspiracy to acquire the business at an undervalue.

Represented a father serving a life sentence for the murder of his wife and their eldest son. The claim sought relief under the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of the father’s transfer to the son (whilst awaiting trial) of assets (which included cash (c £400k) and an extensive property portfolio in the UK and abroad. Following his conviction the deceased’s executrix obtained a default judgment for £1.5m for wrongful death and sought to have the properties returned to the father for enforcement. The claim was fought out over c 10 years and settled on the morning of the trial.

Defending liquidator’s claim for £9.5m in respect of sums removed from company including unlawful returns of capital authorised by directors and paid to two shareholders who were alleged to have known of misconduct of the directors. Claim issued 6 years after the payment was made and without any prior warning. The shareholders had spent the money received and defended the claims on various bases including change of position. Claims for knowing receipt and receipt of unlawful dividends were dismissed shortly before trial and a settlement was then agreed on the morning of trial under which shareholders recovered the majority of their costs.

Re Ruskin Private Hire Ltd [2017].
Resisted claims by a liquidator against the finance director for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust and fraudulent preference.

Represented a defendant Colombian company facing attempts to enforce an LCIA arbitration award for £60m +. The claimant has secured freezing order over insurance monies held in London. The client company had entered into administration in Colombia and sought recognition of those proceedings which the claimant opposed on the basis that it was a sham.

Insurance company arbitration – Arbitration between ATE insurer and solicitor which issued thousands of policies under a number of coverholder agreements. The insurer claimed that the solicitor had agreed to bear a proportion of adverse costs awarded and then committed wholesale breaches of the terms of the agreement and concealed the extent of the losses being sustained for many years.

In 2019 William represented claimants seeking to enforce their rights against a joint venturer developer of property transferred or charged by them to him.  Their claim was met with pleas of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation and breach of the joint venture agreement on their part. On the eve of trial the developer abandoned his case.

Patrick v McKinley [2017] EWCA Civ 2068.
Successfully representing the respondent to an appeal in respect of alleged beneficial interests in properties arising over a period of years.

Dattani v Damac Ltd (DIFC March 2015).
Resisted the appeal of a developer against judgment for damages based upon the failure to complete a residential and retail project in Dubai.

His case-load in Trinidad & Tobago has covered cases concerning the development/construction of multi-million pound hotel and villa leisure resorts.

• “He is a first class tactician and always impressive on his feet. He has a really lovely advocacy style. He is charming, energetic.”
• “William’s advocacy is superb. He has a very good manner with solicitors and lay clients. His advice is clear and comprehensible.”
• “William immediately identifies the key issues, focuses on them, charms and impresses judges in equal measure, and frequently makes fifty-fifty cases appear to be straightforward successes.” Legal 500, 2024 
• “William McCormick is a great all rounder, who provides technical and straightforward advice. He is very intelligent and has extensive knowledge.” Chambers and Partners, 2024
• “Impresses with his ability to give clear, unequivocal advice.” Chambers and Partners, 2024
• “A seasoned practitioner who inspires instant confidence with the clients.” Legal 500, 2022 
• “A go-to barrister who is responsive, hard-working and very intelligent.” Chambers and Partners, 2021
• “He is a fearsome advocate with excellent cross-examination skills.” Chambers and Partners, 2021
• “An absolute star at the Bar, he stands out for his forensic ability to focus on the relevant issues in hand and as a superb courtroom performer.” Legal 500, 2021
• “A seasoned silk who combines brilliant advocacy and analysis with a user-friendly style: he always adds value.” Legal 500, 2021