Mark James > Temple Garden Chambers > London, England > Barrister Profile
Temple Garden Chambers Offices
1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple
LONDON
EC4Y 9DA
England
- Set Profile
- Go to...
Mark James
Position
Barrister with extensive experience in insurance-backed litigation including personal injury, insurance contract disputes and claims for fire and subsidence damage to property and business (including subrogated claims). He has developed a specialism in asbestos-related and other disease claims. His personal injury work is spread evenly between claimants and defendants. He also undertakes construction work, general commercial work and professional negligence matters. He is recognised as an expert in the field of costs and has appeared In some of the leading cases on champerty and solicitors’ retainers as well as providing advice on many aspects of the Jackson reforms. He frequently appears in applications for wasted and non-party costs. He Is commonly asked to advise in cases that raise complicated legal and technical issues and has a reputation for providing incisive and practical advice. Cases include: AB v Ministry of Defence [2012] UKSC9, [2013] 1 AC 78; Tibbles v SIG [2012] EWCA Civ 518, [2012]1WLR 2591; Patterson v MoD [2012] EWHC 2767, [2012]162 NLJ 1349; Lake v Hunt Kidd [2011] EWHC 766, [2011] 6 Costs LR 948; Lavelle v Noble [2011] EWCA Civ 551; Drake v Harbour [2008] NPC 11, CA.
Career
Called 1987; Middle Temple; publications include ‘Expert Evidence: Law and Practice’ (3rd ed 2010) and numerous articles on expert evidence.
Memberships
PIBA.
Education
Oxford University (MA).
Leisure
Cricket, opera, theatre, cinema.
Lawyer Rankings
London Bar > Costs and litigation funding
(Leading Juniors)Ranked: Tier 3Mark James –Temple Garden Chambers ‘Mark is a real expert on costs-related issues. He is remarkably easy to work with and is able to explain and address costs matters in a succinct and simple way.’
Temple Garden Chambers has a strong reputation for its experience handling significant costs disputes arising from collective redress and commercial litigation, with members also regularly sought after for their advisory knowledge by solicitors, litigation funders and insurers. In the High Court case of Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital, Mark James acted for the claimants in an application to vary an order for security for costs; raising difficult questions about the extent to which a judge could reopen a previous order. James Laughland represented the respondent in Mundy v TUI Ltd, an appeal to the High Court on how to approach a case where parties make Part 36 offers of a different nature and each consider themselves successful.