The Legal 500

Chambers of George Bompas QC

Work 020 7242 5524
Fax 020 7831 7907

London Bar

Within Administrative and public law (including local government) Administrative and public law (including local government) - Leading silks

[back to top]

Within Banking and finance (including consumer credit), tier 4

4 Stone Buildings is ‘a natural port of call for structured finance disputes, particularly where trust issues arise'. The set has ‘a good roster of excellent silks' and a solid reputation in fraud and insolvency related banking disputes. Highlights included JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and Deutsche Bank v Unitech.

[back to top]

Within Commercial litigation, 4 Stone Buildings (George Bompas QC) is a third tier set,

4 Stone Buildings is ‘a premium set', equally comfortable in the Chancery Division as it is in the Commercial Court. Its members provide ‘high-quality advice and advocacy, with a strong focus on effective case management'.

[back to top]

Within Company and partnership, 4 Stone Buildings (George Bompas QC) is a second tier set,

4 Stone Buildings is ‘a fantastic set and first port of call for company and insolvency issues'. The set’s strength in depth at the top means that, despite Malcolm Davis-White QC joining XXIV Old Buildings, it still fields a number of top-tier silks. Highlight cases included Chemtrade Ltd v Fuchs Oil and McKillen v Frederick Barclay & Ors.

[back to top]

Within Fraud: civil, 4 Stone Buildings (George Bompas QC) is a second tier set,

Although a relatively small set, 4 Stone Buildings houses ‘first-rate lawyers and advocates', and ‘some particularly good QCs'. It is recommended for cases involving an international dimension, tracing claims and aspects of insolvency.

[back to top]

Within Insolvency, 4 Stone Buildings (George Bompas QC) is a second tier set,

Blessed with ‘some real gems away from the bigger names', 4 Stone Buildings has ‘strong performers at all levels' and provides ‘all-round quality in insolvency and related finance/banking cases'. Praised for its ‘very commercial advice', as well as work in the private sector for companies, banks and funds, the set also has a long tradition of advising the government on insolvency matters (many of the set’s juniors are on the Attorney General’s panels).

[back to top]

Within Set overviews: England and Wales,

4 Stone Buildings fields ‘very commercial' barristers; ‘from the baby juniors to the silks, they are excellent'. For some, it is ‘the first choice for matters involving civil fraud, company, insolvency and cross-border litigation', but individual members have developed expertise in other areas, such as international trusts and public law. The set also maintains strong connections overseas, particularly in the Caribbean and the Far East. David Goddard is ‘one of the most experienced, cheerful and approachable senior clerks'; his team is ‘among the best', and includes Jason Doyle who ‘stands out as particularly helpful and responsive'. Offices in: London

[back to top]

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to

    How to build an investment fraud defence case that disproves prosecution allegations of dishonesty.

    With a town council now officially facing a fraud investigation, we examine what individuals in such a large body should do if they come under suspicion.
  • The risks of liberation

    The dangers that pension liberation and money laundering pose to those involved in pension funds and management.

    What has been achieved since the introduction of the Act that was intended to tackle bribery in business?

    Five banks being fined £3.6 billion in the US for manipulating forex is a stark reminder of the legal risks involved in currency trading. Here, Aziz Rahman of Rahman Ravelli examines how the brokers and the traders in forex can avoid legal problems.
  • Foreign Intercepts

  • Finding the 
right words

    In the recent case of Newbury v Sun Microsystems [2013], the defendant argued that an offer to settle proceedings was ‘in principle' only and that a binding contract could not be formed until further terms had been agreed and a formal contract had been signed. It supported this argument by referring to a statement, in the offer letter, that the settlement was to be ‘recorded in a suitably worded agreement'. 

  • Behind the corporate veil: is that all there is?

    That companies have an existence entirely separate to that of their shareholders and directors is a foundational principle of English law and commerce.

  • Restoring environmental damage: putting a price on ecosystem services

    On 7 August 2009 a 40-inch pipeline ruptured, spilling 5,400 cubic metres of crude oil into the soil and groundwater of La Crau nature reserve in southern France, a habitat protected under French and European law. The operator had to excavate and replace 60,000 tons of soil, install 70 wells to pump and treat groundwater and 25 pumps to skim oil from surface water, at a cost in the region of €50m. However, this was just the primary remediation (that is, restoring the site to the state it would have been if the damage had not occurred). The operator was also required to compensate for the damage to the habitats and the loss of the ecosystem services that would otherwise have been provided by La Crau nature reserve. Measures included purchasing land outside of the nature reserve and contributing to its management for a period of 30 years (over €1m), monitoring the water table for 20 years (over €500,000), monitoring fauna over three years (€150,000) and rehabilitation in accordance with best available ecological techniques (nearly €2m). Overall, the compensatory restoration (to compensate for the amount of time that the ecosystem was impacted) and complimentary restoration (to compensate for elements of the ecosystem that had been permanently lost) came to more than €6.5m. 

  • The role of arbitrators in EU antitrust law

    In May 2014, it will be ten years since Regulation No 1/2003 entered into force. When the legislator of the European Union adopted this Regulation on 16 December 2002, its main objective was to decentralise the enforcement of the two main provisions of EU antitrust law, Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). Where do the arbitrators fit in this picture?