James’ practice is primarily concentrated in the areas of professional negligence, insurance and reinsurance, and commercial arbitration (often with an international element).  However, his experience extends to all areas of commercial litigation, including in particular sale of goods, banking and finance, conflict of laws, international trade, commercial fraud, commercial agency, injunctions, and confidentiality and privilege. He has wide experience of advising and acting in relation to all manner of contractual and tortious disputes.

In the professional negligence context, James has acted in cases involving a range of professionals, including accountants, tax consultants, insurance brokers, Lloyd’s members’ agents, bankers, company directors, and solicitors. Much of his work in this area, and in the field of insurance and reinsurance, has been concerned with the financial services sector. His clients include 3 of the ‘big 4’ accountancy firms and several prominent banks and financial institutions.

Arbitration is a significant element of James’ practice, including regular involvement in substantial international commercial litigation. James has also appeared on behalf of clients in a number of professional disciplinary tribunals. In addition, James regularly advises and acts in cases with an international flavour, often involving conflicts of laws issues and matters of international commerce.

James’ practice is evenly balanced between acting on his own and as a junior (in which capacity he is often instructed alongside distinguished commercial silks). He is frequently instructed (both on his own and as a junior) in substantial litigation and is familiar with the particular demands of large-scale court and arbitration proceedings.

If you are interested in instructing James, please contact our clerks for further information as to his expertise and availability.

Selected cases:

• In the first half of 2011, James was involved in a substantial Commercial Court trial concerning issues of product liability, sale of goods and misrepresentation. The case, Kingspan Environmental Ltd. v Borealis, raised many of the same isues as addressed by Clarke J. in Blamoral Group Ltd. v Borealis (UK) Ltd. [2006] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 629, as well as foreign law and conflicts of laws issues.
• James was instructed to act on behalf of the Respondents in the appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, LP v Deutsche Bank AG [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 617. The case concerned issues of jurisdiction and, in particular, the circumstances in which an anti-suit injunction will be issued to prevent concurrent proceedings where the parties have agreed a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. It was compromised after the service of the Respondents’ Case for the Supreme Court.
• James has recently acted in respect of two separate insurance claims made (in arbitration) on behalf of major financial services providers for losses sustained from substantial pensions mis-selling claims. These claims involved complex questions of aggregation and policy construction.
• Jackson Distribution Ltd. v Tum Yeto Inc. [2009] EWHC 982 (QB): James acted on behalf of the successful claimant, seeking damages for wrongful termination of a distribution agreement. The issues raised by the case included the incorporation of implied terms, the circumstances in which early termination may be justified, and the quantification of damages assessed on the basis of a loss of a chance.
• Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst & Young: James acted on behalf of E&Y as part of a team which successfully defended a claim exceeding £2 billion. The case was settled 6 months after the start of the trial on the basis that the claim against E&Y was abandoned.
• Barings Bank v Coopers & Lybrand (main judgment at [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 566; see also [2002] 2 BCLC 410, [2002] 2 BCLC 364, and [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 379): James was part of the team defending Deloitte & Touche in respect of their role as auditors of Baring Futures Singapore. The claim against D&T, which raised issues of scope of duty, causation, contributory negligence, deceit, and reflective loss, was for more than £1 billion. The claimants achieved judgment for just over £1.5 million.

Pembroke College, Cambridge: MA in History, first class (1997)

James obtained high first-class marks in each of his years at Cambridge. During his degree, James won the Hadley History Prize, was awarded a Thornton Scholarship, and was elected a Foundation Scholar.

Inns of Court School of Law, London:    Bar Vocational Course, distinction (1999)
James obtained a distinction and was placed first in his year in the Bar Vocational Course, being made a Senior Scarman Scholar and receiving the Bar Council Certificate of Honour. He was also awarded the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry Prize, together with two prizes awarded by the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators.

1997-1998: Queen Mother Scholarship (Middle Temple)
1998-1999: Astbury Scholarship (Middle Temple)
In October 2009, James was cited by Legal Week as one of the "Stars at the Bar".
Member of Combar.

• Professional Negligence
• Insurance & Reinsurance
• General Commercial Disputes
• Arbitration
• Jurisdiction/Conflicts of Laws

James regularly advises and acts on behalf of several prominent accountancy firms, together with a number of other categories of professional including tax consultants, insurance brokers, Lloyd's members' agents, bankers, company directors and solicitors.  Issues on which James has recently advised include the availability, in the light of the House of Lords’ decision in Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens [2009] 1 A.C. 1391, of claims against auditors by companies rendered insolvent by fraud on the part of their directors.

Selected cases:

• Claims Direct Plc. v Pricewaterhouse Coopers: James acted on behalf of the defendant tax consultants in defending a claim (now settled) for alleged negligent advice.
• IC Mutual Ltd. v A.P. Robinson & Co.: James acted on behalf of accountants, PKF, in defending a claim for alleged negligence. The original claim was abandoned and the claimants were denied permission to introduce a revised claim by amendment (applying sections 14A and 35(2) Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4).
• Direct 4 x 4 Manufacturing Limited v CGI Insurance Services Limited: James acted for the defendant brokers who were accused of negligence in placing business interruption insurance on behalf of the claimant.
• Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst & Young: James was part of a team representing Ernst & Young in defending a £2 billion claim. The claim was abandoned as against Ernst & Young after the factual evidence had been heard.
• Barings Bank v Coopers & Lybrand (main judgment at [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 566; see also [2002] 2 BCLC 410, [2002] 2 BCLC 364, and [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 379): James was part of the team defending Deloitte & Touche in respect of their role as auditors of Baring Futures Singapore. The claim against D&T, which raised issues of scope of duty, causation, contributory negligence, deceit, and reflective loss, was for more than £1 billion. The claimants achieved judgment for just over £1.5 million.
• James has acted on behalf of accountants appearing before the ICAEW’s Joint Disciplinary Scheme (now replaced by the Accountancy and Actuarial Discipline Board), both at first instance and on appeal.
• James also has experience of appearing on behalf of Lloyd’s members’ agents in proceedings brought under the Lloyd’s Arbitration Scheme.

James is regularly instructed on cases in the areas of insurance and reinsurance.

Selected cases:

• Much of the insurance and reinsurance work on which James is instructed takes place within the context of arbitration. The insurance and reinsurance arbitrations in which James has recently acted and is currently acting span a wide range of issues, including insurable interest, the recoverability of losses sustained by fraud of a joint venture entity, issues relating to multi-year risks, annual re-signing, and the settlement of unascertained losses.
• James has recently acted in respect of two separate insurance claims made (in arbitration) on behalf of major financial services providers for losses sustained from substantial pensions mis-selling claims. These claims involved complex questions of aggregation and policy construction.
• In 2009, James acted on behalf of insurers in an arbitration raising in particular issues of notification and the effect and application of prior notice exclusions (the issues raised closely paralleled a number of the issues in HLB Kidsons v Lloyd’s Underwriters [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8).
• James has recently advised on insurance claims arising out of flooding damage as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. He has also advised in respect of issues of professional negligence concerning the notification of insurance claims arising out of the same events.
• Independent Insurance Co. Ltd. v Chubb Insurance Company of Europe S.A. (17th December 2008, unreported): James acted for the defendant insurance company which was alleged to be liable to contributed to a claim paid by the claimant. The claim against the defendant was dismissed entirely.
• In 2006-2007, James acted in a multi-billion dollar Bermuda form arbitration involving a claim by a large global pharmaceutical company in respect of losses from mass product liability litigation.
• James also frequently provides advice in relation to a wide spectrum of insurance and reinsurance issues.

James' experience extends to all areas of commercial litigation.

Selected cases:

• Kingspan Environmental Ltd v Borealis A/S: James was senior junior on behalf of Borealis in a 16-week trial which concluded in July 2011 (judgment awaited). The case, which was principally concerned with sale of goods and misrepresentation, raised many of the same issues as were addressed by Clarke J. in  Balmoral Group Ltd. v Borealis (UK) Ltd. [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 629.
• Berezovsky v Edmiston & Co. Ltd.: James acted on behalf of the defendant, Edmiston, which succesfully recovered (by counterclaim) commission payable to the defendant as ship broker in the sale by the claimant of a large luxury yacht. (the judgment of the High Court is reported at [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 419. Due to other commitments, James was not able to appear at the trial. The decision was varied as to the amount of commission by the Court of Appeal: [2011] EWCA Civ 431.)
• James was instructed to act on behalf of the Respondents in the appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, LP v Deutsche Bank AG [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 617. The case concerned issues of jurisdiction and, in particular, the circumstances in which an anti-suit injunction will be issued to prevent concurrent proceedings where the parties have agreed a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. It was compromised after the service of the Respondents’ Case for the Supreme Court.
• Jackson Distribution Ltd. v Tum Yeto Inc. [2009] EWHC 982 (QB): James acted on behalf of the successful claimant, seeking damages for wrongful termination of a distribution agreement. The issues raised by the case included the incorporation of implied terms, the circumstances in which early termination may be justified, and the quantification of damages assessed on the basis of a loss of a chance.
• AIC Ltd. v. ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd. (“The Kriti Palm”) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 555: James, together with leader Jonathan Gaisman QC, succeeded in overturning on appeal a finding of fraud made against his client at first instance. The issues raised by the appeal included the requirements and application of section 32 Limitation Act 1980 and limitation as it applies to continuing duties.
• HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd. v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. [2006] 1 W.L.R. 643: James, led by Christopher Butcher QC, appeared on the appeal on behalf of HSBC Rail in a case arising out of the Hatfield rail crash. The appeal raised the question of the title to sue of an owner with a reversionary interest in property and with no immediate right to possession. James and Christopher also acted in related arbitration proceedings concerning damage to rolling stock caused by the Hatfield crash.
• Tonicstar Ltd. v. American Home Assurance Co. [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 32: James acted on behalf of Tonicstar in a successful application to obtain and secure to the continuation of an anti-suit injunction. The case involved issues of choice of law, the effect of arbitration clauses, the proper law of an arbitration, natural forum, and anti-anti-suit injunctions.

Arbitration is a significant element of James’ practice, including Bermuda-form arbitration.

Selected cases:

• James' practice includes a significant involvement in commercial arbitration, including (more recently) cases involving issues of product liability, commercial fraud, and international trade. James' arbitration work often includes an insurance or reinsurance aspect. 

Selected cases:

• In the first half of 2011, James acted as senior junior on behalf of the Defendants in a large-scale Commercial Court trial, Kingspan Environmental Ltd. v Borealis A/S, which involved significant disputes as to proper law. These disputes included issues as to choice of law, the proper law of pre-contractual misrepresentations, and the application of section 2 7 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
• James was instructed to act on behalf of the Respondents in the appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, LP v Deutsche Bank AG [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 617. The case concerned issues of jurisdiction and, in particular, the circumstances in which an anti-suit injunction will be issued to prevent concurrent proceedings where the parties have agreed a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. It was compromised after the service of the Respondents’ Case for the Supreme Court.
• Tonicstar Ltd. v. American Home Assurance Co. [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 32: James acted on behalf of Tonicstar in a successful application to obtain and secure to the continuation of an anti-suit injunction. The case involved issues of choice of law, the effect of arbitration clauses, the proper law of an arbitration, natural forum, and anti-anti-suit injunctions.

James is recommended in Chambers & Partners in the following categories:

Commercial Dispute Resolution;
Professional Negligence;
Insurance.

• Following significant praise from senior market sources, James Brocklebank moves up in this year's rankings. Not only are his written submissions of exceptional quality, he is also considered to be a "terrifically nice chap to work with.”
• Instructions flow freely to James Brocklebank, "a lawyer of flexibility and intelligence," who has been involved in a number of insurance and reinsurance arbitrations. One of his notable highlights has been advising financial service providers on two claims for losses from the mis-selling of pensions.
• James Brocklebank's impressive career continues its upward trajectory: "His fast rise through the ranks is a reflection of his range of talents," say solicitors. He is "extremely bright," "very clear thinking" and "unflappable in court." As one impressed peer stated: "He is a frightening opponent." 
• "absolutely superb, highly meticulous and very bright”
• "incredibly bright, and a committed team player who leaves no stone unturned.”
• "really punches above his weight”
• “outstanding.”
• “a definite star of the future.”
• “Punches well above his weight and is on course for great success”
  
• “an exceptional level of praise for his capabilities.”

In October 2009, James was cited by Legal Week as one of the "Stars at the Bar".

James is a co-author, with Christopher Butcher QC, of the chapter on Accountants and Auditors in Professional Negligence and Liability (ed. M.Simpson).