The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon
Work 020 7183 8950
Fax 020 7183 8951

A highly-regarded central London boutique firm, focused on the protection of reputation across an array of arenas.

The firm:  Specialist media law and litigation firm.  The firm acts predominantly for high profile individuals, professionals, HNWIs and SMEs, but also counts charities, trade bodies (including the Law Society and Association of British Bookmakers), a Premier League football club, and local authorities amongst its clients.

Types of work undertaken: The firm has two departments.  The media law/communications department specialises in defamation, privacy, harassment and data protection (with a particular focus on online publications).  This work is predominantly, but not exclusively, claimant-focused.  The litigation, regulatory and disciplinary department undertakes privately-funded criminal defence work (including serious fraud) regulatory/disciplinary work, asset forfeiture and general litigation (especially civil fraud).

Defamation: The firm acted in two of the most important cases involving online publication: The Law Society & Ors v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB) (successful action on behalf of the legal profession to close down the infamous website Solicitors from Hell), Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (established that Google Inc could be liable as a publisher at common law in relation to material posted on its Blogger platform).  Recent libel successes at trial include Singh v Weayou [2017] EWHC 2102 (QB) (a false and defamatory complaint in the workplace) and Guise v Shah [2017] EWHC 1689 (QB) (an attack website).

Privacy: The firm acts for individuals seeking to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of confidential/private information or seeking redress following infringements. These cases are brought against the press, individuals and government departments.  The firm is known for its pioneering work tackling ‚Äėrevenge porn‚Äô and regularly acts in cases involving the leak of confidential medical information.

Data protection: The firm has long been instructed in respect of data protection issues as a complementary practice to its defamation and privacy work.  Over recent years the firm has acted for a large number of individuals, including many high-profile figures/business leaders, seeking to enforce their data protection rights against search engines such as Google LLC (‚Äėthe right to be forgotten‚Äô/‚Äėright to erasure‚Äô).  The firm has been at the forefront of the development of the law in this area and its partners are regularly asked to provide expert comment to the media and legal press.

Harassment: Examples include QRS v Beach [2014] EWHC 3319 (QB) (representative proceedings brought by a chairman on behalf of the workforce against a disgruntled former client) and similar proceedings brought on behalf of a local authority.

Committal:  The firm brings and defends High Court committal proceedings.  Recent examples include Galloway v Ali-Khan [2018] EWHC 780 (QB) (failure by the respondent to comply with undertakings to the court).

Regulatory/Disciplinary: The firm advises and represents professionals in investigations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, General Medical Council and General Dental Council. It also represents companies and individuals in investigations conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority, Trading Standards and other regulatory bodies.

Criminal Defence: The firms‚Äô expertise in this area is reflected in the broad nature of its private practice.  Typical clients are professionals or high-profile individuals facing prosecution for the first (and probably only) time in their lives, for whom the prospect of a criminal record and the ensuing stigma can sometimes be more terrifying than any potential sentence. The firm has particular expertise in dealing with highly sensitive allegations of a sexual nature.

NCA and asset forfeiture: The firm deals with claims brought by the NCA under both parts 5 and 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (ie property freezing orders and civil recovery orders in the High Court).  It has been involved in many of the most high-profile cases in this field (see, for example, Sanam v National Crime Agency [2015] WLR 2015, National Crime Agency v Saleh [2018] EWHC 1012).

Serious fraud (criminal): The firm is regularly instructed in connection with allegations of serious fraud including bribery and corruption. Recent cases include the largest ever crypto-currency fraud and a corporate defendant being prosecuted by the SFO for corruption extra-territorially.

Civil litigation:  The firm acts in commercial disputes for both claimants and defendants.  In particular, it has been involved in various civil fraud claims before the Chancery Division for misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, as well as claims under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Examples include a claim for restitution for funds invested in an unauthorised collective investment scheme (O‚ÄôNeil v Gale [2013] EWCA Civ 1554). The firm regularly deals with cases involving freezing injunctions and, in the criminal context, restraint orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

  • Number of UK partners: 3
  • Number of other UK fee-earners: 8
  • Breakdown of work %
  • ‚Ä©
  • Civil fraud: 10
  • Defamation/privacy: 60
  • General crime: 10
  • Regulatory: 10
  • Serious/white-collar crime: 10


Above material supplied by Brett Wilson LLP.

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 ‚Äėcentre of life test‚Äô 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 ‚ÄúRegulations‚ÄĚ). 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 ‚Äúa¬† majority shareholder in the overseas business‚ÄĚ.
  • 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 ¬†‚Äėpreviously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules‚Äô,¬† 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 (‚Äúthe 2014 Act‚ÄĚ) 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 ¬†(‚Äúthe 2002 Act‚ÄĚ). 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.