Alexander Goold > Chambers of Mark Warwick QC > London, England > Lawyer Profile
Chambers of Mark Warwick QC Offices
10 ESSEX STREET
- Go to...
Alexander is a commercial and chancery practitioner, whose work spans litigation, international commercial arbitration and mediation. Recent instructions include: a dispute between shareholders, begun by without notice injunction, in relation to the creation of an additional class of shares and involving a challenge to jurisdiction; a dispute between property developers, begun by without notice application for a freezing order, and a claim for an account, whether on the basis of a partnership, joint venture, or beneficial interest; a claim by the executor and beneficiary of an estate to repayment of substantial sums loaned and an interest in the development of a golf club that was settled at a mediation; a trial concerning the standard of repair to a luxury motor yacht by its manufacturer, together with substantial alleged consequential losses; a franchise dispute, begun by application for interim injunctive relief, to enforce restrictive covenants, and for ‘springboard’ relief, giving rise to allegations of fraud and concerning a related asset sale agreement; an unfair prejudice petition on behalf of the respondent majority shareholder and concerning allegations of quasi-partnership that settled shortly before trial. Featured cases include: Al-Baho v BGP Global Services Ltd (2017) (Ch) LTL 5/7/2017 -The normal criteria for setting aside an order for security for costs, namely a change in circumstances or misleading information, applied also to applications to vary such an order. The threshold could be adopted more flexibly when liberty to apply had been granted. An application to set aside or vary an order for security for costs was refused where it had been made on the final day allowed for paying the required sum into court, with no adequate explanation for the delay and no real change in circumstances. Maass v Musion Events Ltd, O’Connell & Rock  EWHC 1346 (Comm) – An arbitrator’s decision that he had jurisdiction to hear a dispute had breached his duty under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.33(1)(a) to give the parties a reasonable opportunity of putting their case and dealing with that of the opponent. That irregularity was serious because it caused one of the parties a substantial injustice, and that party would be granted relief under s.68. Ramsay v Love  EWHC 65 (Ch) – A celebrity restaurateur failed in his claim that he was not liable under a personal guarantee, which had been given on his behalf by his father-in-law, who was also the chief executive officer of one of his companies. The evidence showed that the restaurateur had conferred a wide authority on his father-in-law to bind him in commercial matters, and that he knew his signature was frequently and routinely placed on legal documents without his express permission, using a signature-writing machine. Dream Doors Ltd. v Lodgeford Homes Ltd & Lodge  EWCA Civ 1556 – In considering a claim for rectification of a franchise agreement, a judge had erred in ignoring evidence as to the wider background leading up to the production and execution of the agreement, and in looking only at the circumstances immediately surrounding its signing.
Called 1994; Lincoln’s Inn. Pupil Supervisor.
Conversational French; working knowledge of German.
FCIArb; Chancery Bar Association; Combar; Professional Negligence Bar Association
MA (Cantab); DiplCArb; Accredited Mediator, ADR Chambers