James Drake QC is an experienced advocate specialising in commercial and chancery litigation and arbitration, with extensive experience across a number of jurisdictions.

Before coming to the Bar in 1998, James was with the international firm of Baker & McKenzie in both the Sydney and New York offices and then became a partner in Owen & Davis, a New York law firm which has since merged with Fulbright & Jaworski. James moved to the London Bar in 1998 and took silk in 2011.

The core areas of James’s practice are: aircraft and ship sale disputes; arbitration (international and domestic); commercial disputes; distributorship/ franchise disputes; insurance and reinsurance; partnership disputes; and all related interlocutory and jurisdictional issues.

James has appeared in courts and before arbitral tribunals in London, Sydney, New York, BVI, Antigua and Bermuda and maintains rights of audience in these jurisdictions.

University of South Australia: BA (1980)
University of Adelaide: LL.B (Hons) (1985)
Columbia University of New York: LL.M (1992)

James is a member of the London Court of International Arbitration, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, a Fellow of the Australian Centre for International Arbitration, and a Chartered Arbitrator. James accepts arbitral appointments in both international and domestic arbitrations.

James also holds appointment as an Examiner of the High Court and regularly sits as such in examinations conducted pursuant to Letters of Request from US courts or by the consent of the parties.

• Arbitration
• Aerospace & Aviation
• General Commercial Disputes
• Distributorship and Franchise
• Insurance & Reinsurance
• Jurisdiction/Conflicts of Laws
• Partnership
• Shipping Commodities and International Trade

James is a member of the London Court of International Arbitration, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, a Fellow of the Australian Centre for International Arbitration, and a Chartered Arbitrator. James appears as counsel in a variety of arbitrations, both international and domestic and also accepts arbitral appointments.

Selected cases:

• Insured Bank v Insurers [2011]: James represented the insured bank purchaser (in the secondary market) of promissory notes issued in the context of a forfaiting transaction on a claim under a trade finance policy of insurance. The matter was the subject of a hearing under LCIA rules in London.
• B v A [2010]: James acted for the buyer of a jet aircraft in a dispute with the manufacturers and sellers as to the termination of the sale and purchase agreement. The matter was subject to ICC arbitration in London. It settled (favourably) before the hearing.  
• Insurers v Solicitors [2010] (Arbitration): James represented one partner in a two partner firm in confidential arbitration proceedings before Mr Leaver QC brought by professional indemnity insurers seeking (a) declarations of liability (b) return of defence costs and (c) investigation costs. The claim was that one partner had been involved in a long series of mortgage frauds and that the other had condoned that fraud. The matter involved difficult questions of construction of the insurance policy and of requirements for “condonation”.
• Hudson v Stellar [2010] (Arbitration) and [2010] EWHC 2985, Hamblen J. James acted for the US shipowners against Dubai charterers for failure to perform COA and ancillary guarantee obligations (with Statute of Frauds questions).
• S v V [2010] (Arbitration): James represents the claimant in this confidential London arbitration in which the claimant, a renowned Greek ferry operator, is pursuing claims against the buyer of one of its ferries, principally for breach of the non-compete covenant. James was successful in the recent hearing on liability.
• Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited v John Emmott [2008/9] (Arbitration): Led by Anthony Boswood QC, James represented the claimant law firm in long-running London arbitration proceedings on claims for the dishonest breach of fiduciary duty by a member of the firm by, amongst other things, the illicit diversion of corporate opportunities.
• BSL v TTS (Arbitration): James acted for the Italian buyers under an MOA of a crude oil/ chemical tanker in successful arbitration proceedings against the sellers as to the condition of the Vessel when delivered to the buyers. 

Selected cases:

• Celestial Aviation v Andalus Linea Aereas [2010] (Commercial Court): James acted for the owners of two aircraft leased to the defendant, a regional airline based in Malaga, Spain in a dispute with the lessees; injunctive relief; difficult questions as to the role of the English court in support of foreign proceedings under s25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
• B v A [2010]: James acts for the buyer of a jet aircraft in a dispute with the manufacturers and sellers as to the termination of the sale and purchase agreement. The matter was subject to ICC arbitration in London. The matter concerned the proper construction of the purchase agreement, including in particular the ability of manufacturers/ sellers to retain purchase price instalments. The dispute was settled (favourably) before the hearing.  
• Mohamed v Dassault Aviation SA [2010]; James acted for the buyer of a Falcon jet aircraft against the manufacturers, Dassault Aviation SA, the French aircraft manufacturer, in relation to the repudiation of the agreement.
• James has also represented British Airways with respect to a number of matters concerning their insurance and reinsurance programme.  

James has acted in a wide range of general commercial matters in this area, both domestic and international.

Selected cases:

• X v Y [2012]: James represents a Canadian joint venturer in a dispute involving the performance of the joint venture to exploit software, with allegations of misappropriation of funds and corporate resources.
• Icon SE LLC v SE Shipping Lines Pte Limited [2011-12]: James represents the defendant shipowners in a dispute with lenders pursuant to the terms of a loan facility in respect of the purchase of newbuild vessels. The matter concerns the proper construction of the loan facility and the tit-for-tat allegations of repudiation.  
• A v Z [2011-12]: James represents an options trader against a high street brokerage house for claims that the house unlawfully closed down the put options positions for failure to pay margin. The matter involves the proper construction of the terms and conditions and the proper measure of damages in contract and conversion.  
• Jennington International Inc & Ors v Assabauyev & Ors Insurers v Solicitors [2010] (Chancery: Vos J): James represented one of the defendants (sellers) in this complex $450 million dispute as to the sale of a Kazakh gold mine. James appeared before Vos J on a number of difficult interlocutory applications including (a) whether a party should be subjected to medical examination in order to test his failure to adhere to court orders and (b) the disclosure of CCTV footage.  
• Avrahami v Biran [2009] EWHC (Chancery): James represented the defendant in these proceedings against whom a claim has been brought by investors and joint venture partners (in a property development in the Farringdon Road) for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
• Rosenberg v Nazarov & Ors [2008] EWHC 293 (Chancery). James appeared for the Second and Third Defendants in a dispute as to the (notorious) Tajik aluminium smelter. This particular outing was a successful application, pursuant to CPR 25.13(2)g), for security for costs against an individual.
• Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited v John Emmott [2008/9] (Arbitration): Led by Anthony Boswood QC, James represented the claimant law firm in long-running London arbitration proceedings on claims for the dishonest breach of fiduciary duty by a member of the firm by, amongst other things, the illicit diversion of corporate opportunities.
• Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited v Temujin International Ltd & Ors [2007/8] (BVI): In long-running proceedings in the BVI Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, in claims by the law firm against various defendants in fraud and/or dishonest assistance and/or knowing receipt, James represented the claimant law firm on various interlocutory applications, eg freezing injunctions, appointment of receivers, contempt, fortification of undertaking as to damages, cross-examination of the claimant’s principal; summary judgment and strike out applications. The matter included the following reported decisions of the Caribbean courts: Norgulf Holdings Ltd v MWP, Court of Appeal (July 2007); Norgulf Holdings Ltd v MWP, Court of Appeal (Oct 2007); MWP v Temujin, Supreme Court (Dec 2008); MWP v Temujin, Supreme Court (11 Aug 2008); MWP v Temujin, Supreme Court (25 Aug 2008).
• Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited v Robert Nicholls [2007/8] (NSW) Led by Matthew Walton QC, James represented the claimant law firm in proceedings against two former solicitors (and their corporate vehicles) for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy. 

James has a long history of acting in these types of matters and has in the past represented the likes of Revlon, Century 21 and 7-Eleven.

Selected cases:

• Raylia Designs, Inc v The Bridal Consortium [2009] (QBD): James is currently acting for US distributor against UK agent for breach of distribution agreement and related personal guarantees. The matter is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Toprise Fashions Ltd v Nik Nak Clothing Ltd [2009] EWHC 1333: James advised and appeared for the Hong Kong manufacturer and exporter of garments against UK agent.
• Jackson Distribution Limited v Tum Yeto Incorporated [2010] EWHC and EWCA: This was a dispute between a US distributor of skate board clothing (etc) with its UK agent. James was brought in for the UK agent for the purposes of the appeal by the defendant to the Court of Appeal.
• Engineered Medical Systems v Bregas AB [2003] EWHC 3287: James advised and appeared for the US manufacturer and supplier of resuscitation equipment with respect to a dispute with its Swedish/ UK distributor. Successful application for a mandatory injunction in support of London arbitral proceedings. 

James has acted in a wide range of insurance and reinsurance cases. James was also seconded to the Financial Services Authority’s Enforcement Division in 2005, where he advised on insurance and reinsurance related matters, and now advises a number of clients in relation to FSA’s regulatory requirements for the carrying on of insurance / reinsurance business and FSA matters generally.

Selected cases:

• Starlight Shipping Company v Allianz Marine & Aviation [2011] EWHC 3381 (Burton J): James represented the insured shipowners in a jurisdictional battle with insurers in respect of Greek proceedings brought by the shipowners arising out of the misconduct of insurer representatives in procuring evidence. The matter involved the parameters and purpose of a Tomlin order and the court’s jurisdiction to give effect to the order, the construction of settlement and jurisdiction agreements, and the ambit of Article 28 of the Brussels Regulation. It is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal in late 2012.  
• Disney [2010]: James has been advising (led by Jonathan Gaisman QC) the Disney group in relation to the proper construction of their “World Policy” of insurance.
• Insurers v Solicitors [2010] (Arbitration): James represented one partner in a two partner firm in confidential arbitration proceedings before Mr Leaver QC brought by professional indemnity insurers seeking (a) declarations of liability (b) return of defence costs and (c) investigation costs. The claim was that one partner had been involved in a long series of mortgage frauds and that the other had condoned that fraud. The matter involved difficult questions of construction of the insurance policy and of requirements for “condonation”.
• In the Matter of Sompo Japan Insurance Inc [2010] (Chancery): James represents French aircraft and space insurers in relation to an application by their reinsurers (Sompo) to the Chancery Court under Part VII of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 for the Court’s approval of the proposed transfer by their business to a UK subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.
• Cotesworth Action Group [2007-2010]: James acted for the Names on Syndicates 535 and 536 in relation to the loss suffered by them as a result of the use by their managing agent of so-called “finite” or “financial” reinsurance (that is, a loan facility dressed up to look like reinsurance) by which the agent was able to manipulate the performance of the syndicates over a number of years. The Names issued High Court proceedings followed by a claim against the Lloyd’s Members Compensation Scheme, and a related complaint to the Lloyd’s Ombudsman. The matter was settled favourably (in mediation) in late 2009.
• Eagle Star v Cresswell [2003] EWHC 2224 and [2003] EWCA 602: In both the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal, James represented (led by the then Julian Flaux QC) reinsurers in a dispute as to the proper construction of a claims co-operation clause in a reinsurance contract.
• Markel Capital Limited v Rhine Reinsurance & Ors (Gross J): James acted for the insured (led by Gavin Kealey QC) in claims reinsurers and brokers on a treaty covering energy construction risks.
• Axa Colonia Versicherung v Codan (HHJ Kershaw QC): James acted for Axa in what was a dispute involving a reinsurance pool and a claim brought against another pool member; difficult question of the place of performance under Article 5.1 of the Brussels Convention.
• Unum Life Insurance Co v. The Israel Phoenix Assurance Co. [2002] Lloyd's Rep IR 374 (Andrew Smith J). James acted for defendants. The principal issues related to the nature and extent of the authority of the leading underwriter and the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in a reinsurance contract.
• HIH Casualty & General v. The Chase Manhattan Bank [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 483 (CA), [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 30 (Aikens J): James was led by the then Jeremy Cooke QC in these film finance insurance proceedings, acting for the insurers. James also represented insurers in the Red Corner and Paramount film finance actions.
• DAR International FeF Co v Aon Limited (Mercantile Court and Court of Appeal): James acted for a Saudi concern in a claim against London insurance brokers for commission due on introduction of aviation insurance business.
• James has also acted in a number of confidential insurance and reinsurance arbitrations, the most recent of which was for the state-owned Iran reinsurance company, Bimeh Iran, in relation to long-tail reinsurances of Equitas.
• Led by the then Julian Flaux QC, James also acted for the reinsurers in Gold Medal v Hopewell (Bermuda arbitration) in the long-running Bermuda arbitration against retrocessionaires in respect of the illegal application of pesticides to agricultural produce and the consequences on the legality of the distribution and sale in the US.
• James is currently appearing as an expert on English law in Florida proceedings brought by yacht owners against their producing and placing brokers.

Jurisdictional questions permeate almost every dispute in London.

Selected cases:

• Starlight Shipping Company v Allianz Marine & Aviation [2011] EWHC 3381 (Burton J): James represented the insured shipowners in a jurisdictional battle with insurers in respect of Greek proceedings brought by the shipowners arising out of the misconduct of insurer representatives in procuring evidence. The matter involved the parameters and purpose of a Tomlin order made by the English court and that court’s jurisdiction to give effect to the order, the construction of settlement and jurisdiction agreements, and the ambit of Article 28 of the Brussels Regulation. It is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal in late 2012.  
• Celestial Aviation v Andalus Linea Aereas [2010] (Commercial Court): James acted for the owners of two aircraft leased to the defendant, a regional airline based in Malaga, Spain in a dispute with the lessees; injunctive relief; difficult questions as to the role of the English court in support of foreign proceedings under s25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
• Noble Drilling [2009]: James was instructed for a large UK manufacturer of steel cables which had sold mooring cables to a US company for its oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. The US company sued in federal court in Texas for $50m. James was asked to advise on whether or not the US proceedings could be stayed in favour of UK court or arbitration proceedings.
• Axa Colonia Versicherung v Codan (HHJ Kershaw QC): James acted for Axa in what was a dispute involving a reinsurance pool and a claim brought against another pool member; difficult question of the place of performance under Article 5.1 of the Brussels Convention. 

James has represented a number of clients involved in partnership disputes.

Selected cases:

• X v Y [2012]: James represents a Canadian joint venturer in a dispute involving the performance of the joint venture to exploit software, with allegations of misappropriation of funds and corporate resources.
• Avrahami v Biran [2009] EWHC (Chancery): James represented the defendant in these proceedings against whom a claim has been brought by investors and joint venture partners (in a property development in the Farringdon Road) for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by diverting funds to offshore accounts.
• Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited v John Emmott [2008/9] (see above) was, at its core, a dispute between quasi-partners of a law firm operating in Kazakhstan and as to the proper construction of the agreement as between them.
• James also recently represented a UK law firm with an office in NYC in a bitter dispute between partners that played out in the New York courts.  

James has had extensive recent experience, given the state of the current market, in disputes as between buyers and sellers of vessels and also in relation to freight forward swap agreements.

Selected cases:

• Icon SE LLC v SE Shipping Lines Pte Limited [2011-12]: James represents the defendant shipowners in a dispute with lenders purusant to the terms of a loan facility in respect of the purchase of newbuild vessels. The matter concerns the proper construction of the loan facility and the tit-for-tat allegations of repudiation.  
• Hudson v Stellar [2010] (Arbitration) and [2010] EWHC 2985, Hamblen J. James acted for the US shipowners against Dubai charterers for failure to perform COA and ancillary guarantee obligations (with Statute of Frauds questions).
• Flame SA v Worldlink Shipping Limited [2009] (Commercial Court): James advised and appeared for a Swiss coal shipper and trader in £4m claim against Chinese operator on freight forward swap agreement; various interlocutory applications to Commercial Court, including for the cross-examination of the defendant and for contempt.
• INTA Navigation v Ranch Investments [2009] EWHC 1216 (Comm): James represented a substantial Hong Kong shipping concern which was the “middleman” in a contractual string between Turkish sellers and Greek buyers of a crude oil tanker. LMAA arbitration proceedings followed by s69 challenge to the Commercial Court.
• Harrington v Polturak [2009] (Commercial Court and Central London CC): James represented the owners in dispute over charter of luxury yacht in what was a complex matter involving parallel arbitration proceedings, injunction proceedings; application to stay under s9 of Arbitration Act 1996; repudiation of the arbitration agreement.
• S v V [2010] (Arbitration): James represents the claimant in this confidential London arbitration in which the claimant, a renowned Greek ferry operator, is pursuing claims against the buyer of one of its ferries, principally for breach of the non-compete covenant. James was successful in the recent hearing on liability.
• Samho Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Vault Management Company [2009] (Commercial Court): James advised and appearing for a Korean shipyard in dispute with the buyers of 12 vessels (USD40 million each); difficult questions of on-demand guarantees; application for worldwide freezing order.
• BSL v TTS (Arbitration): James acted for the Italian buyers under an MOA of a crude oil/ chemical tanker in successful arbitration proceedings against the sellers as to the condition of the Vessel when delivered to the buyers.

James is an irregular speaker at seminars, has presented at the renowned Sedona Conference in the US and has written various articles including, for example, contributions to the American Bar Association on matters relating to English law and procedure.