Chambers of Howard Stevens KC

Katharine Bailey has a busy and varied practice spanning Chambers’ core practice areas, with particular focus on commercial and insolvency, constitutional and administrative law (including appeals to the Privy Council), employment, and travel (including aviation).

Katharine is recognised in the Legal 500 as a Rising Star (Tier 1) ‘The English Bar (Offshore)’, which describes her as “extremely clear”, “incredibly bright”, and willing to “go above and beyond to respond to any queries put to her”.

Katharine is instructed as sole counsel in trials and interlocutory hearings, and has also acted as part of counsel teams in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Privy Council. Katharine’s recent experience includes:

• Matrix Receivables Limited v Musst Holdings Limited (on-going) – as junior counsel for Musst (led by Peter Knox KC). This is a financial services sector dispute in the Business & Property Courts (Business List); Matrix claim for a share (in contract or quantum meruit) of Musst’s management and performance fees derived from managed funds which follow a specific investment strategy (to invest primarily in synthetic asset-backed securities). This litigation is linked to the on-going dispute between Musst Holdings Ltd v Astra Asset Management UK Ltd (see below).

• Musst Holdings v Astra Asset Management UK Ltd (on-going) – as junior counsel for Musst (led by Peter Knox KC). This is another financial services sector dispute which arises out of a three-week trial before Mr Justice Freedman in 2021 ([2021] EWHC 3432 (Ch)). Musst claims it is entitled to management/performance fees arising from further funds managed by Astra which follow a specific investment strategy. Peter and Katharine successfully resisted Astra’s application for strike out of and/or summary judgment on this claim ([2023] EWHC 432 (Ch); [2023] 2 WLUK 448). Peter and Katharine also acted for Musst in the Court of Appeal (successfully resisting Astra’s appeal) ([2023] EWCA Civ 128; [2023] 2 WLUK 191).

• Chong & Ors v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited [2024] EWHC 3374 (Admin) – acting (with Rowan Pennington-Benton) in a challenge by judicial review to a decision of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited in the context of offering compensation to applicants with potential claims against SIPP operators pursuant to section 27 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Adams v Options UK Personal Pensions LLP [2021] EWCA Civ 474

• Ervin Dean v Bahamas Power & Light [2024] UKPC 20 – acting (led by Dywan Rogers, Meridian Law Chambers (The Bahamas)) for BPL the government corporation providing electricity to all of the Bahama Islands, except Grand Bahama) in an appeal to the Privy Council concerning the scope of the principle of ‘unjust dismissal’ (contractual and/or common law), as distinct from statutory ‘unfair dismissal’, in the context of an Industrial Agreement between BPL and its workforce.

• Dhoray v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2024] UKPC 28 – acting (led by Anand Ramlogan SC, Freedom Law Chambers (Trinidad & Tobago) and Robert Strang in this significant challenge to the constitutionality of primary legislation: the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority Act, Act. No. 17 of 2021, pursuant to which the Government introduced new body corporate, the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority, which would assume responsibility for tax assessment and collection. This decision contains an important ruling on the rationale for Chapter 9 of the Constitution, vesting in the Public Service Commission the power of appointment and removal over officers employed in the service of the government. 
  

• Innovate Pharmaceuticals Limited v University of Portsmouth Education Corporation [2023] EWHC 35 (TCC) – as junior counsel (led by Thomas Roe KC, Deputy Head of Chambers). This was a four-week trial in the Technology & Construction Court in which Thomas and Katharine acted on behalf of Innovate who succeeded in their claim for breach of contract against the University of Portsmouth. The dispute arose from a contract to evaluate the efficacy of a new drug and involved complex patent value and pharmacology expert evidence.