Jonathan Gaisman QC was Chambers and Partners’ Commercial Litigation Silk of the Year 2009, and was short-listed for the 2009 “Barrister of the Year” award by The Lawyer Magazine. He was included in The Lawyer Magazine’s “Hot 100” in 2006, and was named Chambers and Partners’ Insurance Silk of the Year in 2006.

Jonathan Gaisman practises primarily as an advocate. He specialises in commercial litigation and arbitration in the broadest sense, and is happy to expand his areas of practice into any field where his skills as an advocate may be of use. He is equally experienced in short cases before first instance or appellate tribunals arguing points of law, and lengthy commercial trials and arbitrations, demanding in terms of long-term preparation, tactical planning, cross-examination of factual and expert witnesses and detailed mastery of complex facts - or any case falling in between these extremes. He believes that commercial advocates owe a duty to their client to concentrate absolutely on the case in hand; he avoids making professional commitments which conflict with the fulfilment of that duty.

Jonathan Gaisman’s practice also involves a significant advisory component. He places emphasis on the client’s need for realistic, down to earth advice in a commercial context.

Jonathan Gaisman also accepts appointments as arbitrator in a wide range of commercial and international disputes, including ICC arbitrations.

He has appeared in some of the largest and most high-profile trials of recent years. Starting with the Gooda Walker action, the first and most successful of the Lloyd’s Names actions, he subsequently acted for auditors Deloitte & Touche in the claim against them brought by the liquidators of Barings, and for Ernst & Young in Equitable Life’s attempt to hold its directors and auditors liable for its misfortunes. In neither case did the claimant make any recovery from its auditors. In 2008, Jonathan Gaisman acted for the lead claimants in the Buncefield explosion litigation, against whom the principal defendant, Total, ultimately conceded most issues and failed on the rest. Among other long cases in which Jonathan Gaisman has been involved are the 80 day NRG claim against its actuaries, accountants and advising bank arising out of a company take-over, and a recent 66 day hearing (and a 10 day appeal) in accountants’ disciplinary proceedings before the JDS. Going back further in the reports, Jonathan Gaisman appeared in well-known authorities such as Banque Keyser Ullmann v Skandia – the Gemstones litigation, and Henderson v Merrett, both of which went to the House of Lords.

Jonathan Gaisman was born in 1956. He read modern languages and then law at Oxford, gaining 1st class honours in Finals in 1977. He became Bachelor of Civil Law in 1978. He was called to the Bar in 1979, and was pupil to Jonathan Mance. He became a member of Chambers in 1980 and has since practised at 7 King’s Bench Walk full-time. He took Silk in 1995.

Jonathan Gaisman is a Bencher of the Inner Temple. He was formerly a Recorder of the Crown Court.

He is a director of the International Musicians Seminar, Prussia Cove and of Streetwise Opera. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Reasonable French and German.

Jonathan Gaisman accepts appointments as arbitrator in a wide range of commercial and international disputes, including ICC, LCIA and Bermuda Form arbitrations.

• Banking and Finance
• Insurance & Reinsurance
• Professional Negligence
• Arbitration
• Shipping
• Jurisdiction/Conflicts of Laws
• Entertainment & Sport
• General Commercial Disputes

In the banking and financial sector, Jonathan Gaisman advised SRM, shareholders of Northern Rock, in relation to their rights against HM Government arising out the nationalisation of the bank under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008. He was retained in 2009 to appear in the Supreme Court in Deutsche Bank v Highland, a (subsequently compromised) dispute concerning the sale and subsequent decline in value of US real estate collateralised loan obligations. He has just finished a Commercial Court trial acting for Calyon Bank against a Polish aircraft manufacturer in relation to a dispute over FX derivatives. He recently acted in the case of Luxe v Midland, a case which concerned a disappointed buyer's right to seek proprietary remedies in an international context against the proceeds of sale of a Ukrainian steel group, where it alleged that the seller had wrongfully sold to a subsequent buyer at a higher price. Other recent clients include BNP Paribas and HBOS. He acted for the majority shareholders of First Investment Bank of Bulgaria in the expedited trial of a dispute between shareholders in relation to an IPO of the bank’s shares. Among many other investors’ claims, he acted for ANZ Bank in relation to common law and FSMA claims against it by investors arising out of loss in value of Russian investments. His role in the massive Barings trial involved a detailed analysis and critique of the bank’s management, operational systems and conduct of derivatives trading. He is currently acting in relation to the collapsed Millennium hedge fund and advising Hermitage Capital Management.

Insurance and reinsurance have long been a core area of Jonathan Gaisman’s practice, in recognition of which he was named Chambers & Partners Insurance Silk of the year in 2006. The many insurance cases in which Jonathan Gaisman has appeared include Kuwait Airways’ claim arising out of the theft of its aircraft after the Iraqi invasion, which went to the House of Lords, Bonner v Cox, the Aon 77 energy cover litigation, which established, among other things, that general duties of careful underwriting are not to be implied into excess of loss reinsurance contracts, the Glencore v Metro litigation, Decorum v Atkin, where he acted on a successful yacht insurance claim bought a Russian oligarch, as well as countless other appearances for insureds, insurers and brokers. Jonathan Gaisman has appeared a in a large number of Bermuda Form arbitrations under New York law, covering matters as diverse as Ford sports utility vehicles, malfunctioning weed-killer, Prozac and the Savings & Loans debacle. He regularly appears in English law-governed insurance and reinsurance arbitrations on topics such as the PA LMX spiral, the collapses of Arthur Andersen and Worldcom, KPMG US’s tax shelter vehicles, the operation of the Cuban sugar market, the damage caused by Californian forest fires, Indonesian coal exports as well as more technical reinsurance issues. He has acted in a number of political risks disputes. Current cases include a dispute with the ECGD in relation to the Venezuelan oil industry, and advising in relation to the insurance aspects of disputes involving the Tchenguiz brothers and the Madoff Ponzi scheme.

Professional negligence cases are a particular specialisation. Jonathan Gaisman acted for the successful auditors in two of the largest audit negligence trials, Barings and Equitable Life. Barings raised wide-ranging issues of audit negligence, corporate governance and technical banking and derivatives practice; the decision established auditors' rights to rely on management fault not just as contributory negligence, but as altogether breaking the chain of causation between audit fault and loss to the company; the case also established the right of auditors as company officers to rely on section 727 of the Companies Act 1985 to relieve them of liability. Jonathan Gaisman has appeared in accountants’ disciplinary proceedings before the JDS. He recently acted for Ernst and Young who succeeded on appeal in overturning findings of want of objectivityand independencethat had been made by the first instance JDS tribunal.  He acted for Swiss Bank Corporation in the lengthy (and unsuccessful) action by NRG against its actuaries, accountants and advising bank arising out of a company take-over. He acted for the Names in the Gooda Walker action, in which Lloyd’s underwriters were found liable for negligent underwriting. He acted for the lead claimants in the Buncefield litigation in which negligence in the operation of Total’s Hemel Hempstead petrol tank farm and resulting foreseeable damage were alleged and ultimately admitted. He is currently engaged in claims arising out of the collapse of the Millennium hedge fund, the insolvency of Aero Inventory plc, and the alleged negligence of a reporting accountant in relation to its financial due diligence on an acquisition. He has recently sucessfully applied for pre-action disclosure against PwC, in relation to a potential claim by Cattles Plc alleging audit negligence in the misstatement of impaired loans in its financial statements.  He has been retained by KPMG in relation to a dispute with the AADB over the powers of the latter to call for documents, under the disciplinary scheme, from accountants acting in the capacity of insolvency practitioners.

Jonathan Gaisman is a very experienced advocate in all forms of arbitration, and litigation connected with arbitration. He was Counsel in Westacre v Jugoimport, which is an important Court of Appeal authority on the effect of bribery and fraud on the enforceability of an international arbitration award. He has appeared a in a large number of Bermuda Form arbitrations under New York law, covering matters such as Ford sports utility vehicles, malfunctioning weed-killer, Prozac and the Savings & Loans debacle. He regularly appears in English law-governed insurance and reinsurance arbitrations on topics such as the PA LMX spiral, the collapses of Arthur Andersen and Worldcom, KPMG US’s tax shelter vehicles, the operation of the Cuban sugar market, the damage caused by Californian forest fires, Indonesian coal exports, as well as political risks disputes and more technical reinsurance issues. He has recently successfully argued in the Commercial Court the case of B v S, which decided that the Scott v Avery provision in the FOSFA 54 arbitration clause prevents a claimant in arbitration from applying to the Court for a freezing injunction.

From the early 1980s, with the "New York Star" and the "El Amria" as well-known early appellate cases, shipping has been a core area of Jonathan Gaisman’s practice. Recent clients include Fortescue Metals and the APL and the Transmed shipping groups. In 2009, Jonathan Gaisman argued two expedited trials in the Commercial Court concerning the Boskalis vessel “WD Fairway”, a case which raised questions of abandonment and subrogation in the context of a CTL, as well as issues under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. A third trial in 2010, involving the same vessel, raising questions in relation to an assured’s entitlement to interest on the CTL, was settled during final speeches. Jonathan Gaisman argued the “Kriti Palm”, a case in which the Court of Appeal was persuaded to overturn a finding of deceit against Caleb Brett made by the trial judge, and which raised wide issues on the duties of international cargo inspectors and the status of their certificates. Jonathan Gaisman argued the “Berge Sisar” in the House of Lords, which is the leading authority on the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992. Other House of Lords shipping cases in which he has appeared are the “Boucraa” (on the retrospective power of the power of arbitrators to dismiss claims for want of prosecution, under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) and the “Antonis P Lemos” (on the application of the Admiralty jurisdiction to claims in tort). Jonathan Gaisman has frequently advised on both sides of P&I Clubs’ disputes with members.

Conflicts of laws and jurisdiction disputes have always been a speciality. Jonathan Gaisman was brought in to appear in the Supreme Court in Deutsche Bank v Highland, a dispute (subsequently compromised) concerning the interaction of anti-suit injunctions and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses. He has recently argued issues of renvoi in the “WD Fairway” trial, and points on articles 22 and 23 of the Brussels I Regulation in Calyon v PZL. He has long experience of jurisdiction disputes, such as the “Bergen”, the “Rewia”, Youell v Kara Mara (another anti-suit injunction case), Source v TUV Rheinland (a case involving the application of the Brussels Convention to a dispute concerning the provision of soft toys from China), IP Metal v Ruote Oz, (a metal traders’ dispute) and the “Nile Rhapsody” (a case where the Judge found an oral exclusive jurisdiction agreement).

In the entertainment field, Jonathan Gaisman has recently acted for BBC Worldwide in a claim brought by it in relation to the exploitation of its archive of rock music. He represented Chris Blackwell in defending a claim brought by Steve Winwood for a shareholding in Island Records. The Disney group is another recent client. He was appointed ICC arbitrator in relation to a dispute about the broadcasting of Premier League football in Africa.

In the field of general litigation, Jonathan Gaisman is assisting Axiom Mining in its dispute with Sumitomo over nickel prospecting rights, which is being fought in the Courts of the Solomon Islands. He is acting for Gulf Keystone in the Commercial Court claim brought against it by Excalibur Ventures, to be tried in October 2012, in relation to Kurdistan oil blocks. He advised Peter Lim in relation to his bid to acquire Liverpool Football Club. Other recent clients have included Peter Munk, the directors of Northern Rock and (in relation to their Russian investments) Hermitage Capital Management and Bill Browder. He is retained by the trustees of the IBM pensions fund in connection with the forthcoming trial in the Chancery division of a rectification dispute concerning the terms of the IBM pension scheme. In the last few years he has been involved in litigation arising out of the Chancery Lane tube crash; he has acted for Total in relation to a Turkish pipeline dispute; he has appeared in the Administrative Court on an application for judicial review, seeking to prevent the disclosure of a confidential document to the FSA. The Buncefield case is, among other things, the leading modern authority on public nuisance.

The following extracts are taken from recent editions of Chambers & Partners, Legal 500, The Lawyer and Legal Week.

• “an incredibly well-regarded senior silk” he “operates within the highest echelons of the market”.
• “Top commercial silk” Jonathan Gaisman QC has a tremendous brain and is “one of the most compelling advocates at the Bar.” His talent and intellect are such that his practice extends across the full range of complex commercial disputes.
• “At the head of his field when it comes to understanding and analysing complex legal issues ... an accomplished and polished advocate who is urbane, funny and devastating in the courtroom.”
• “outstanding commercial barrister”, recommended for handling “very complex and serious cases.”
• “His analytical ability is breathtaking – he distils chaos and disorder into logical points.”
• “A barrister other barristers fear to be against.”
• Regarded by some partners as a “superstar” in his own right, standing out even in a "talent-heavy 7KBW line-up.”
• “Just startling” - one impassioned observer went as far as proclaiming Jonathan Gaisman “the finest advocate in the commercial sphere.”
• “Unbelievable intelligence” combining with “tremendous court craft”, he is famed for “demolishing witnesses in cross-examination.”
• Amazingly committed and down to earth…ferociously organized, incredibly clear and thoroughly attentive to the finer points.
• “A tower of intellectual strength”, Jonathan Gaisman “calls it right from the first moment.”
  
• “A sharp, devastating arguer”, he “says exactly what he thinks, but never steps in without mastering the detail.”
• “Able to hold the tribunal’s interest whilst handling the most labyrinthine of cases…he just keeps getting better and better.”
  
• Jonathan Gaisman “knows insurance inside out.”
• "[A] simply first class advocate.”
• “Assured and always up to date on the law,” he is “a must for accountancy cases.”
• “Thorough and with a very good grasp of detail. Incredibly ferocious …an excellent Court manner that makes the judges sit up and listen.”
• "Brilliant all round, and instructing him is like having a team of barristers rolled into one … superbly analytical.”
• “Extremely good in conference ... an excellent court manner and ... having the respect of the court ... A terrific silk ... to hear him speak is to hear greatness ... a very impressive advocate.”
• “Is this the most cultured barrister in London?”

Jonathan Gaisman was Chambers and Partners’ Commercial Litigation Silk of the Year 2009, and was short-listed for the 2009 “Barrister of the Year” award by The Lawyer Magazine.