The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Mishcon de Reya LLP

Living Wage
Work 020 3321 7000
Fax 020 7404 5982
London, New York

Mishcon de Reya LLP is a law firm with offices in London and New York. Founded by Victor Mishcon in a one-room office in Brixton in 1937, it now employs more than 900 people, with over 500 lawyers offering a wide range of legal services to companies and individuals. Mishcon de Reya services an international community of clients and provides advice in situations where the constraints of geography often do not apply. The work the firm undertakes is cross-border, multi-jurisdictional and complex.

We appreciate the privilege of sitting alongside our clients as a trusted advisor. Building strong personal connections to our clients and their businesses is important to us. It is for these reasons we say ‘It’s business. But it’s personal’.

The firm: Mishcon de Reya LLP is one the UK’s fastest growing law firms, having doubled its turnover in the last five years.

Mishcon de Reya prides itself not only on the diverse range of legal services that it offers as a practice, but also on the diverse range of people who provide those services. The central role played by the Academy, the firm's in-house place of learning, development and new thinking, and the active and innovative social impact strategy are reflected in its place in The Sunday Times ' 100 Best Companies to Work For list of 2019, the twelfth consecutive year that Mishcon de Reya have featured.

Types of work undertaken: Mishcon de Reya has acted in some of the most high-profile and ground-breaking cases in the industry. Some of our recent experience includes:

The corporate department advised Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Inc on the sale of UK insurance subsidiary Canopius for $952 million and Capco on the sale of the Empress State Building for total cash consideration of £250 million to The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. They also advised the management team of UK Power Reserve on the £216 million sale alongside Inflexion Private Equity and Equistone Partners to Sembcorp Industries, the Singaporean-based energy group.

The competition group represented Sainsbury's supermarkets in relation to its damages claim against MasterCard in the UK high court in relation to the overpayment of multilateral interchange fees.

The litigation department acted in a multi-billion dollar securities fraud against one of Forbes’ top 10 richest individuals. This was the first instance of an English Freezing Injunction being imported into the state of Florida and resulted in the first example of a treble measure of damages being claimed under a US racketeering statute.

The private department acted for Signia Wealth and philanthropist John Caudwell who recently succeeded in their shareholder dispute against former Chief Executive Nathalie Dauriac.

The employment department represented Pimlico Plumbers at the Supreme Court in a case that is currently the highest authority on worker status. The department also advised Carrie Gracie and is advising a number of other journalists at the BBC in high-profile allegations of equal pay and sex discrimination against the Corporation.

The family department continues to act on Thakkar v Thakkar on behalf of the wife of Africa’s so-called ‘youngest billionaire’, who originally disclosed assets worth less than £500,000.

The real estate department continues to act for Delancey, APG, Qatari Diar and Oxford Properties on their ongoing programme of development for East Village, the former Olympic Village in Stratford, East London, on all property and asset management, the construction and financing of new development plots, retail lettings and planning matters. East Village is a multi-million pound development and is the first major commitment of scale to the private rented sector since this investment opportunity opened up.

  • Number of UK partners: 127
  • Number of other UK fee-earners: 400+

Above material supplied by Mishcon de Reya LLP.

Legal Developments by:
Mishcon de Reya LLP

  • 400,000,000 Facebook fans can’t be wrong

    The way we use the internet haschanged. It is no longer merely a digital reference library. As the internet has grown and the amount of information available has expanded, people have developed a new way of accessing this information in a way that is relevant to them. The ‘new’ internet, or ‘Web 2.0’, is a network of relationships where users interact and share knowledge with each other. Virtual friends become the custodians of knowledge, recommending products and services through their blogs and on other social media sites. By seeing what your like-minded friends find interesting, you are better able to decide what information you wish to ‘consume’.
    - Mishcon de Reya

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.