Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

London Bar

United Kingdom > London Bar > Commercial litigation > Law firm and leading lawyer rankings



Index of tables

  1. Commercial litigation - Leading sets
  2. Top ten under eight years’ call
  3. Leading Silks
  4. 2018 Silks
  5. 2019 Silks
  6. Leading Juniors

Top ten under eight years’ call

  1. 1

Leading Silks

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6

2018 Silks

  1. 1

2019 Silks

  1. 1

Leading Juniors

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5


One Essex Court

One Essex Court is a pre-eminent commercial set of barristers’ chambers in London. Members provide specialist legal advice, support and advocacy services worldwide, and the barristers' expertise covers all areas of arbitration, litigation, regulation and dispute resolution.

Read more…

With 'excellent bench strength', 3 Verulam Buildings is a 'go-to set for commercial litigation mandates'. Over the years, the set has been building an extremely strong team at the junior end, with some well-chosen laterals, arriving either from rival sets or law firms. Notable recent examples include Jamie Riley QC and James McWiliams from Littleton Chambers. The workload of members also continues to impress, with significant roles on Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton, in which Adrian Beltrami QC successfully represented the defendant, and PCP Capital Partners v Barclays Bank Plc, where Ewan McQuater QC led the defence for the bank.

'A quality set across the board', Brick Court Chambers is 'pre-eminent for commercial disputes'. Clients note that the 'work ethic of the barristers and excellence of their work-product and delivery is almost always superb'. The set's hugely impressive workload demonstrates the esteem with which its barristers are held, as well as their versatility. Recent highlights include Holyoake v Candy Brothers, in which Tim Lord QCTom Adam QC and Ben Woolgar were among a group of five members acting for the defendants. Other major cases include Bank St Petersburg v Arkhangelsky, and SKAT v Solo Capital Partners and (160) others.

Essex Court Chambers is a 'first-class set to turn to on significant matters' with 'an incredibly deep and diverse bench'. The set's versatility on commercial disputes is one of the things that marks it out, with some excellent expertise in areas such as fraud and international arbitration. The set has expanded heavily at the junior level in recent years, with Tim Akkouh arriving from Erskine Chambers being the most recent example. Major recent cases have included PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Others in which Paul McGrath QC, David Davies and James Sheehan were on opposing sides to fellow members, including Ruth den Besten. Other highlights included Fortress Group v BNP Paribas (the Golden Belt litigation), and Yukos Finance v Lynch. Martin Griffiths QC has been appointed a High Court judge in the Queen’s Bench Division.

Fountain Court Chambers is a 'quality set with strength throughout the ranks', including 'strong juniors and silks who are responsive and fun to work with'. The set has 'the depth of brainpower and size of team which a major solicitor practice needs when the balloon goes up'. Members are regularly called upon to act on the country's most hard-fought disputes, including the landmark Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, in which Bankim Thanki QC and Tamara Oppenheimer represented the defendant, and Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton, in which David Railton QC and Charles Bear QC were among eight members involved at various stages of the case. Another highlight was Stobart Group v Tinkler, which involved three members from chambers including Alex Barden.

One Essex Court is an 'excellent' and 'user-friendly' set that is ‘very good at all levels and particularly useful at the bottom as they have very high academic standards' according to instructing solicitors. The calibre of the barristers, from the top silks to the most junior juniors, ensures an impressive range of high-profile instructions. Lately, several of the set's members have had prominent roles on major cases, including Autonomy v Dr Michael Lynch, where Laurence Rabinowitz QC is leading the claim for Hewlett Packard, supported by Conall Patton. Rabinowitz QC and Patton are also facing Neil Kitchener QC in Omers v Tesco plcDavid Wolfson QC also represented EE in various claims brought by Phones4U arising out of its collapse.

7 King's Bench Walk is 'a very strong set' with 'clearly rigorous' selection process for new members. Clients appreciate the 'depth of appreciation of the needs of commercial and insurance clients is impressive'. Members come highly recommended for commercial, insurance, and fraud-related disputes. The set is especially strong at the senior level, where its top silks command huge respect in the courts.

Blackstone Chambers is praised for its 'strong expertise across a range of areas', with 'some genuine heavyweight advocates at the more senior end, together with really impressive juniors who will no doubt be stars of the future'. Clients add that the set's 'commitment to pro-bono work is also very impressive', while it also stands out for its combination of expertise in public and civil law. Major recent instructions included Reignwood and Ors v Ni and Ors, where Anthony Peto QC represented Reignwood as part of a team of four members, including Daniel Burgess. Seven members were also involved on the Ingenious Litigation, including Robert Anderson QC and Andrew Hunter QC. Pushpinder Saini QC will join the Queen’s Bench Division on 1 October 2019.

With a 'very deep bench' of barristers, Maitland Chambers provides 'a number of very good juniors' and 'some excellent silks' who 'are all a pleasure to deal with'. Members standout for their experience in major commercial Chancery disputes, often with a fraud or offshore element. Members have also seen action on several major Russia and CIS-related claims. Head of chambers Christopher Pymont QC  and Thomas Munby represented UC Rusal Plc in its dispute with Crispian Investments Ltd, while Pymont and Benjamin John acted for Vitaly Orlov and Tugushev v Orlov and Others.

A favoured destination for many of the city's leading litigation departments, Serle Court is particularly noted for its strong grounding in offshore and fraud-related matters, which inevitably cross over heavily into the broader commercial litigation sphere. Most recently, Hugh Norbury QC led a team of four members for Keoghs LLP, one of the law firm defendants in Accident Exchange v McLean and others. Other key cases include Yukos Finance BV v Lynch & Others in which Jonathan Adkin QC was involved, and Glenn v Watson, where Elizabeth Jones QC has led a team of six juniors, including Justin Higgo, on behalf of the claimant

4 Stone Buildings has 'excellent barristers across the board' with 'very sharp minds combined with a user-friendly and commercially minded clerking team'. For some, the set is often the 'first-choice chambers for all commercial Chancery work' and boasts several superstar silks. Recent highlights include Autonomy Corporation v Dr Michael Lynch, in which Robert Miles QC, Richard Hill QC and Sharif Shivji are representing Dr Michael Lynch, and Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and others.

Quadrant Chambers has 'excellent strength in depth' and many solicitors report they have 'not felt the need to look beyond the set for commercial litigation work in the past couple of years'. The set has traditionally been a major player in the shipping, trade, and commodities arena, but is now an increasing force in more broader commercial disputes. Recent cases demonstrate this, including West Ham v E20 Stadium LLP, the first televised civil appeal in the Court of Appeal, in which Paul Downes QC lead a team of three members representing West Ham. In Atlas Navios-Navegacao Lda v Navigators Insurance Co Ltd and others, which went before the Supreme Court, Guy Blackwood QC and Simon Rainey QC were among those successfully representing the respondents.

South Square may be best known for its top-tier expertise in insolvency-related disputes, but its members are also a mainstay of the broader commercial litigation arena. Their standing in the market is reflected in the calibre of their instructions, which recently  included Primeo v HSBC, a professional negligence claim arising from the Madoff fraud in which Tom Smith QC and Richard Fisher are among four members representing Primeo Fund. Other highlights include the AHAB v SAAD $9bn fraud dispute, one of the largest of its kind, and Vincent Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton, which involved five of the set's members, including Jeremy Goldring QC and Stephen Robins.

Twenty Essex has 'an impressive bunch' of versatile silks and juniors. Members are especially experienced in major international disputes, often with a fraud or trade component, and they are especially noted for their private international law expertise. Highlight cases include CMOC Sales & Marketing Limited v Persons Unknown & 30 others, which involved the first-ever persons unknown injunction, and was led by Paul Lowenstein QC and also involved Philip Riches and two other members on behalf of CMOC. Another highlight was Deutsche Bank AG v (1) Sebastian Holdings Inc. (2) Mr Alexander Vik in which Duncan Matthews QC and Charlotte Tan successfully represented Alexander Vik in a related offshore claim before the Court of Apeal of the Turks & Caicos Islands.

Wilberforce Chambers has 'excellent strength in depth' and is often the 'first port of call on all Chancery, trust matters'. The barristers are 'first-class specialists and masters of their brief' who 'never disappoint'. Clients note that the set's 'expansion in recent years has turned them into a full-service set to deal with any area of law'. A major highlight has been the significant role several members have had on the AHAB v SAAD dispute, including Tom Lowe QC and John Wardell QC who are on opposing sides. Joanna Smith QC was also instructed to represent the apellants before the Supreme Court in Frederick v Positive Solutions Financial Services Limited.

XXIV Old Buildings has an excellent reputation for acting on hard-fought offshore disputes, and is also a popular choice for commercial claims before the London courts. Recently, several members, including Alan Steinfeld QC  and Edward Cumming QC, acted on Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and others v Conway & others, while Stephen Moverley Smith QC and Hugh Miall acted on Société Générale v Goldas, a dispute relating to gold bullion consignments.

A 'great set' with 'several heavyweights and rising stars', 4 New Square is an increasingly popular destination for the City's top litigation firms and practices, thanks to its impressive range of experienced silks and hungry juniors. Recently, Justin Fenwick QC and Graham Chapman QC represented Oleg Deripaska and Lolita Danilina respectively in their dispute with Vladimir Chernukhin and others in a major trial before the Commercial Court. Lucy Colter was Fenwick's junior on the case.

4 PUMP COURT is 'very good value' with 'some very good silks and juniors', so say instructing solicitors. The versatile chambers has barristers with a good spread of expertise, from acting on high-end commercial, banking, and insurance claims, to international commodities, shipping, and trade disputes. Nigel Tozzi QC recently represented Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Australia in a dispute with Motortrak before the Commercial Court.

Erskine Chambers is 'a very good set, filled with juniors and silks who are often top of their game'. The set will miss Tim Akkouh, who has joined Essex Court Chambers, although it still has several extremely well-regarded juniors among its ranks. The set is especially strong on Chancery issues, and is also noted for its fraud expertise. A notable highlight was Andrew Thompson QC's role representing BAT Industries in its dispute with Sequana, which went to the Court of Appeal.

Littleton Chambers has a selection of 'extremely competent and specialist barristers,' who 'have never let me down', according to one instructing solicitor. The set as a whole is praised for being 'cost effective, knowledgeable, client friendly and flexible', and has 'developed a superb commercial dispute practice in recent years', particularly for litigation with 'an employment angle'. Key cases include JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Ilyas Khrapunov, in which Charles Samek QC and Marc Delehanty represented Khrapunov.

Interview with...

Law firm partners and practice heads explain how their firms are adapting to clients' changing needs

GC Diversity and Inclusion Report

In partnership with...

International comparative guides

Giving the in-house community greater insight to the law and regulations in different jurisdictions.

Select Practice Area

Press releases

The latest news direct from law firms. If you would like to submit press releases for your firm, send an email request to

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‘centre of life test’ in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of  ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan   [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the “Regulations”). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess  Surinder Singh  cases that appear before them.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a  sole representative visa  is not “a  majority shareholder in the overseas business”.
  • Immigration Skills Charge - A Guide for Employers

    As a Sponsor, you may be required to pay the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) each time you sponsor a migrant in the  Tier 2 General  or  Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Long-term Staff  subcategory.
  • 5 FAQS about paragraph 320(11)

    In applications for entry clearance where the applicant has a negative immigration history in the UK, the application may be refused under the general grounds for refusal, which are found in part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Where an applicant has  ‘previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules’,  the application could be refused under paragraph 320(11). In this post we look at five frequently asked questions about paragraph 320(11). 
  • Multiple nationality and multiple citizenship (including dual nationality and dual citizenship)

    British nationality law permits multiple nationality and multiple citizenship, including dual nationality and dual citizenship.
  • Applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the Exceptional Talent or Promise Category

    The  Exceptional Talent  and Exceptional Promise categories are for individuals who are recognised leaders or emerging leaders in their field of expertise. There are a number of endorsing bodies for lots of different fields of work, including  artists and musicians ,  architects ,  digital experts ,  scientists  and  academics . While there isn’t an endorsing body for every expert, the growing list means that many individuals could enjoy the flexibility that this category has to offer. 

    Syedur Rahmanconsiders the factors that determine when civil proceedings can go ahead before,or at the same time as, criminal proceedings relating to the same circumstances.
  • Rights of appeal after the Immigration Act 2014

    The Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”) reduced the circumstances in which the refusal of an immigration application will give rise to a right of appeal. The  explanatory notes  to the 2014 Act state that the Act was intended to restructure rights of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. Previously, a right of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal existed against any of the 14 different immigration decisions listed in s.82 of the  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002  (“the 2002 Act”). As explained below, whether or not the refusal of an immigration application currently generates a right of appeal depends on the subject matter of the application rather than its categorisation.

Press Releases in the UK

The latest news direct from law firms. If you would like to submit press releases for your firm, send an email request to