Dominic’s commercial practice includes all contractually based claims, guarantees, supply of goods and services, finance and credit transactions, company and partnership disputes.
Dominic has a particular interest in advising on commercial use of novel technologies, including small, unmanned aircraft, on which he wrote a leading article: ‘Drones, Airprox, and the Regulatory Environment: Cause for Concern?’
- Devilling (opinion) in a potential claim of more than one-third of a million pounds, where the issues included illegality, force majeure and frustration during the COVID-19 pandemic (December 2020).
- Devilling for a Silk (draft list of issues, draft opening and draft closing submissions) in an international commercial arbitration under the CIArb Arbitration Rules (Bermuda) 2019, claiming damages of over US $17 million for breach of contract. Emails from Silk, dated 10 November, 22, 21 and 19 September 2020: ‘You’re a star … Very helpful … You never cease to impress me! … Great stuff. You have the magic touch. Huge thanks, as always … Big thanks for all your help. Hugely needed. Dominic is a veritable forensic star. … You will see the extent to which I adopted your very fine work.’
- R & Anor v E – Claim Form and Particulars of Claim following a wedding that did not take place due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming repayment of sums paid pursuant to contract because consideration had wholly failed, alternatively damages paid under the contract, further or alternatively the sums paid pursuant to the contract before the contract was discharged because performance was frustrated, further or alternatively payment of the sums paid under the contract as money had and received. Email from Professional client, dated 10 September 2020: ‘Many thanks for this. It reads very well.’
- P & Anor v P – Claim Form and Particulars of Claim following a wedding that did not take place due to the COVID-19 lockdown, claiming repayment of sums paid pursuant to the contract because consideration had wholly failed, alternatively damages for the sums paid under the contract, further or alternatively the sums paid pursuant to the contract before the contract was discharged because performance became illegal, further or alternatively payment of the sums paid under the contract as money had an received (August 2020).
- Advice in conference following a wedding that did not take place due to the COVID-19 lockdown following the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020/350, where the issues included force majeure, frustration, supervening illegality and consumer protection under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Email from professional client, dated 15 July 2020: ‘Thank you ever so much. It was super helpful and I look forward to working with you again in the near future.’
- Office of the Traffic Commissioner v G – successfully represented a sole trader at one of the first in-person public inquiries after the COVID-19 lockdown, so that, although an operator licence was revoked and a disqualification as transport manager was ordered, there was no disqualification as an operator. In the words of the Commissioner’s written decision: “Normally I would make an equally lengthy disqualification order against an operator with [G’s] record. But I acknowledge that he has made genuine and strenuous efforts to improve compliance since October 2019 (even if there remains some way to go). Exceptionally, I have decided not to make a disqualification order in his case.”
- S v G & Anor – successfully applied for judgment against both defendants for a six figure sum (with interest at three percent); applied for costs in the sum of £17,000; resisted the defendants’ application for an adjournment; resisted the first defendant’s application to file and serve an amended defence; resisted the second defendant’s application for relief from sanctions and permission to extend the time to file and serve a defence and counterclaim; applied for summary judgment against the first defendant on the basis that there was no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial; and requested default judgment to be entered against the second defendant on the grounds that a defence had not been filed and the relevant time limit for doing so had expired. Message from lay client, received by professional client, dated 11 June 2020: ‘I am 100% fully satisfied.’
- K v M – devilling for a Silk, namely researching and drafting the skeleton argument and bundle of authorities in applications before the High Court for general civil restraint orders, and non–party costs orders to be awarded on the indemnity basis (April 2020).
- Advice, letters before claim, and particulars of claim for breach of contract or alternatively money had and received in the sum of £100,000 plus simple interest or alternatively compound interest pursuant to the court’s equitable jurisdiction (February 2020).
- U v E – successfully made an oral application on the day of trial for summary judgment in the sum of about £10,000 (January 2020).
- Office of the Traffic Commissioner v P – successfully represented a company in a public inquiry, considering whether the operator was of good repute and had appropriate financial standing; successfully invited the commissioner to hear from the director of that company, who was not able to verify his identity in accordance with the letter calling that company to public inquiry; successfully made an oral application for a period of grace before a standard national goods vehicle licence for five vehicles and seven trailers was revoked, despite failure to produce original or certified copies of evidence demonstrating financial standing; and successfully avoided regulatory action despite the commissioner finding “a problem with the maintenance documents” (November 2019).
- H v O-B – successfully applied for relief from sanctions, and that the claim be reinstated, despite findings of a serious and significant breach of a court order, for which there was no good reason, and that the application was not made promptly (November 2019).
- S v F & Anor – successfully made an oral application for judgment against both defendants for around £40,000, and costs of about £11,000 in a directions hearing (September 2019).
- Office of the Traffic Commissioner v D & Anor – successfully represented two companies in a public inquiry, considering the fitness of those companies and their directors to hold an operator licence, and then successfully applied for a restricted goods operator’s licence to authorise the use of three vehicles. Email from professional client, dated 5 September 2019: ‘Thank you for your attendance note which I found very comprehensive … I will have another case for you shortly and will advise accordingly’.
- Advice on prospects of defending a claim in the region of £40,000, and counterclaiming in the region of £70,000, upon alleged breach of vacant possession by the seller of a six-bedroom property (June 2019).
- A v S & Two Ors – devilling for a Silk, drafting a skeleton argument for use in proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court (March 2019).
- I v A – successfully made an oral application and was granted relief from sanctions on day one of a multi-track trial re service of the defendant’s Defence, hearsay notice, and witness statement the day before trial. About one-twelfth of the five-figure sum claimed was awarded (plus VAT). Upon making an oral application that the winning party’s costs should be substantially reduced, they were capped to half (March 2019).
- Advised on alleged breaches of data protection legislation by a high street bank, and damages that could be expected from a court award (August 2018).
- Advised film production company on whether an Independent Film & Television Alliance arbitration clause was valid in a claim for around £25,000 (May 2018).