Alexander Brown KC

Alexander has substantial expertise in public and regulatory law, built through a diverse range of high-profile litigation and advisory work. His practice encompasses judicial reviews, regulatory challenges, and cases involving statutory interpretation and governmental decision-making.

Recently, Alexander has been acting for Boots in complex litigation against the NHS, addressing significant public law issues arising from NHS guidance and communications during the COVID-19 lockdown, with wider implications for regulatory decision-making and healthcare policy. In 2020-2021, he was engaged in a high-stakes dispute in the water industry, scrutinizing the regulatory framework and enforcement powers of Ofwat.

Alexander’s experience is further strengthened by his time on secondment at key public authorities, including Ofgem and the Financial Services Authority (FSA), where he gained first-hand insight into regulatory decision-making and enforcement processes.

• Boots v NHS (2023-2024). Acts for Boots in a claim against the NHS, relating to payment for ophthalmic services provided during the first COVID-19 lockdown. The case raises difficult public law issues concerning the interpretation of NHS communications and guidance during the lockdown.
• Castle Water Limited v Thames Water Utilities Limited [2020] EWHC 1374 (TCC) – acted for Thames in this dispute arising out of Thames’ sale of its non-household retail water business to Castle. Involved issues around the Water Industry Act 1991 and regulation by Ofwat. Named by The Lawyer as one of the top 20 cases of 2020.
• Acted for the producers of a major television show in resisting a potential decision by the Gambling Commission to revoke its licence and force it off the air. Successfully persuaded the Commission not to take such an action.
• Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd v The Gambling Commission [2012] EWHC 2391 (Admin). Appeared with Susanna FitzGerald KC for 51 Community Interest Companies (CICs) in resisting Camelot’s application to review the Gambling Commission’s decision to licence the Health Lottery. The case involved issues of regulatory discretion, statutory interpretation and delay in bringing claims for judicial review.
• Advised (with David Wolfson KC) the Financial Services Authority on potential actions to be taken against a high street bank and how the FSA should respond to challenges to its decisions.

Alexander is a leading practitioner on the law of agency, with extensive experience advising and representing both principals and agents in complex disputes. His expertise covers all aspects of agency law, including the formation, termination, and duties of agents, as well as disputes over commission, breaches of fiduciary duty, and restrictive covenants.

Alexander is also a leading practitioner on the Commercial Agents Regulations, having advised numerous principals and agents on every aspect of the Regulations. He has acted in some of the most significant cases in this area, including representing the successful defendant in the largest commercial agency claim ever brought (UNCITRAL arbitration). He also appeared for the successful defendant in Monk v Largo, a key case defining the scope of the Regulations and the duties imposed on a principal, and for the successful defendant in the landmark decision of Kompaktwerk v LivePerson, which clarified the application of the Regulations to computer software. His strategic approach and deep regulatory knowledge make him a go-to counsel in high-stakes agency disputes.

• Kompaktwerk v LivePerson [2024] EWHC 2278 (Comm). Acted for the Defendant in Commercial Court proceedings concerning whether the “software-as-a-service” (SaaS) model for computer software constitutes a sale of goods, and thus whether the Regulations could apply. Landmark decision in the Defendant’s favour.
• UNCITRAL arbitration (2019-2021), acted for the successful respondent in a dispute between two of the world’s largest alcoholic beverage producers, concerning the largest commercial agency claim ever brought. Alexander successfully argued that the Regulations did not apply, and so no compensation was payable.
  • Acting for several agents in an international commercial agency concerning the sale of wines across Europe.
• LCIA Arbitration (2018-2020), acted for the successful defendant in resisting a claim for breach of an agency contract. The proceedings involved several issues under the Regulations, as well as issues concerning implied terms and fiduciary duties.
• Monk v Largo [2016] EWHC 1837 (Comm) Appeared (leading Stephanie Wood) for the Defendant in a 5-day Commercial Court trial defending claims in breach of contract and under the Regulations. The claimants argued that the Defendant had to act in good faith in deciding whether to terminate the contract. In a significant ruling on the meaning and application of good faith in the commercial agency context, Foxton J held that the Defendant had an unfettered right to terminate and dismissed the claim.
• Advised (with Daniel Toledano QC) a major principal on the interpretation and application of the Commercial Agency Regulations to thousands of agency contracts and how best to limit their liability for claims thereunder.
• Acted for a property acquisitions agent in a claim for breach of contract against his principal following a high-profile property purchase in London for $160m. The claim involved issues related to implied terms, expert evidence on industry standard practices, contractual interpretation and quantum meruit.
• Acted for a factoring company in a claim for breach of contract against a supplier of goods. One of the key issues was whether the supplier was responsible for the actions of its agents in preventing performance of the contracts.

Alexander has extensive experience in international arbitration, acting as counsel in a broad range of high-value and complex disputes across multiple industries, including energy, construction, finance, and technology. He has appeared in dozens of arbitrations under various institutional rules, including ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, ICDR, and SIAC, and has significant experience handling cases involving parallel court proceedings, enforcement issues, and emergency relief.

In addition to his advocacy in arbitration, Alexander has played a key role in shaping the jurisprudence surrounding arbitration law in England, having appeared in several of the most significant cases before the English courts concerning the operation of the Arbitration Act 1996, such as UniCredit v RusChemAlliance, VTB v Antipinsky and Gerald v Timis. His cases have addressed fundamental issues such as the scope of arbitral jurisdiction, the interplay between court powers and arbitrators’ authority, and the enforcement of arbitral awards. This combination of deep arbitration expertise and court advocacy makes him a highly sought-after counsel for complex international disputes.

• UniCredit v RusChemAlliance [2024] UKSC 30, a landmark Supreme Court case worth €2 billion concerning Russian sanctions and the powers of the English Court to intervene in foreign arbitral proceedings. Alexander made oral submissions in the Supreme Court across two days on two novel points of law. This is now the leading case on the grant of anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions, and the relationship between the Court and any prospective arbitral tribunal.
• ICC Arbitration (2017-2024), acted for the claimant in highly complex claim concerning an alleged conspiracy to exclude the Claimants from the successful tender to run the mobile phone network of Iran. This case was politically sensitive and involved numerous difficult points of law, including fraud, oral agreements, jurisdiction, good faith, fiduciary duties, loss of a chance and limitation.
• UNCITRAL arbitration (2020-2022), acted for the defendant in a dispute between two of the world’s largest alcoholic beverage producers, concerning the largest commercial agency claim ever brought. Alexander successfully argued that the Commercial Agents Regulations did not apply, and so no compensation was payable.
• LCIA arbitration (2024-), acting for the claimant and respondent in two related arbitral proceedings concerning the telecommunications industry in Ghana. Evidentiary hearing scheduled to take place in June 2025.
• LCIA arbitration (2023-), acting for the claimant in two related arbitral proceedings under LCIA rules arising out of the operation of a mine in Sierra Leone.
• Ad hoc arbitration (2018-2020), acted for the successful defendants in ad hoc arbitral proceedings concerning the management and control of a substantial business. Involved difficult and unresolved points of company law and election law.
• VTB Commodities Trading v Antipinsky Refinery [2020] EWHC 72 (Comm), acted for the successful defendant in the second leading case on the application of s.44 Arbitration Act 1996, and the circumstances in which the English Court can intervene in arbitral proceedings. Phillips LJ held that the Court must be satisfied in each application that it is entitled to act, and cannot simply rely on a prior assertion of jurisdiction by an earlier Judge.
• UNCITRAL arbitration, acted for the claimant and respondent in parallel High Court and arbitration proceedings concerning the sale of train parts. Numerous causes of action pursued, including a multi-million fraud.
• SIAC Rules (2017-2019), acted for the claimant in arbitration proceedings concerning the purchase of a property in Singapore.
• Gerald v Timis [2016] EWHC 2327 (Ch), acted for the successful defendant in the first leading case on the application of s.44 Arbitration Act 1996, and the circumstances in which the English Court can intervene in arbitral proceedings. Confirmed that the Court’s powers under s.44 are engaged only where the arbitral tribunal is “unable” to act.
• Biotec v Siemens [2015] EWHC 3555 (Comm), acted for the successful defendant in defending wide-ranging fraud and conspiracy claims relating to the sale of medical devices in Serbia. The claimant subsequently sought to set aside the Award under s.68 Arbitration Act; Alexander successfully resisted that application and secured an indemnity costs order in Siemens’ favour.

Alexander is recognized as a leading barrister in civil fraud, with an extensive track record of success in high-profile, high-value international fraud cases. His practice spans complex, multi-jurisdictional disputes, including claims involving deceit, conspiracy, asset recovery, and emergency injunctive relief, such as worldwide freezing orders and anti-suit injunctions.

Regularly instructed in some of the most significant fraud litigation before the English courts and in arbitration, Alexander is known for his razor-sharp advocacy, meticulous strategic approach, and exceptional cross-examination skills. His experience includes acting in multi-billion-pound disputes, allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, breaches of trust and fiduciary duty, and asset-tracing actions spanning multiple jurisdictions.

Alexander also frequently advises clients on fraud investigations, forensic asset-tracing strategies, and recovery actions across multiple jurisdictions, often working alongside forensic accountants and investigators. His ability to navigate intricate corporate structures, offshore entities, and sophisticated fraud schemes makes him a go-to advocate for claimants and defendants facing high-stakes fraud litigation.

• Bourlakova v Bourlakov, acting for the Claimants in a high-profile $3 billion fraud claim in relation to an alleged conspiracy to defraud Mrs Bourlakova of a share of family assets. 12-week trial listed to take place in 2027.
• Xenfin v GFG [2025] EWHC 172 (Ch), acting for the claimant in pursuing complex claims arising out of the collapse of the Dolphin Group, involving serious allegations of fraud and conspiracy. The case involves difficult issues relating to directors’ duties, attribution of knowledge, limitation, and jurisdiction.
• ICC Arbitration (2017-2024), acted for the claimant in highly complex claim concerning an alleged conspiracy to exclude the Claimants from the successful tender to run the mobile phone network of Iran. This case was politically sensitive and involved numerous difficult points of law, including fraud, oral agreements, jurisdiction, good faith, fiduciary duties, loss of a chance and limitation.
• Rajeh v Project 1 Auto [2024] EWHC 1010 (KB), acting for the Claimant in a fraud and conspiracy case concerning the new Mercedes Hypercar, involving difficult issues of trust law and proprietary claims.
• Holliday v Holliday, acted for the Defendants in a complex derivative action relating to the ownership and control of a multinational, multi-million pound business. The case concerned whether the First Defendant had fraudulently abused his position as a director of the company to make a secret profit.
• Ocado v McKeeve [2022] EWHC 2079 (Ch), acted for the Claimants in very high-profile committal proceedings against a former partner of Jones Day, relating to his deliberate interference with a search order. The proceedings were successful and resulted in an unprecedented criminal conviction against the solicitor for intentional interference with the administration of justice.
• LPCM v Uktan (2020-2021), acted for the claimant in exceptionally complex fraud claim worth in excess of $60 million. Obtained a freezing order, search order, and a passport seizure order from Foxton J, which was upheld at subsequent hearings by Bryan J and Andrew Baker J.
• VTB Commodities Trading v Antipinsky Refinery [2020] EWHC 72 (Comm), acted for the successful defendant in resisting a $225 million freezing order relating to the delivery of oil and accusations of fraud.
• Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm), acted for D10 in complex fraud and conspiracy proceedings worth in excess of $300 million, arising out of the collapse of a Russian bank. Alexander appeared as sole counsel for D10 and persuaded Andrew Baker J that there was no arguable case against D10.
• FSDEA v dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm), acted for D2 in successfully discharging a $3 billion WFO which had been obtained on the basis of an alleged fraudulent conspiracy between the Defendants to take control of the Angolan sovereign wealth fund. Popplewell J set aside the injunction for breaches of the Claimants’ duty of full and frank disclosure.
• Fortress Value v Blue Skye [2013] EWHC 14 (Comm), appeared (with Craig Orr KC) for D4 and Part 20 Claimant (Stepstone) in a €200 million fraud claim relating to the control of Italian assets. The case involved numerous complex issues of fact and law, including those relating to jurisdiction, applicable law, corporate restructuring, assignment and economic torts, plus several issues of Luxembourg law. A 10-week trial was listed for May 2014 and was named one of the top 20 cases of 2014, but the case settled shortly before the trial was due to commence.

Alexander is regularly instructed in some of the most complex, high value commercial litigation in London, both in litigation and in arbitration. He has appeared in leading Supreme Court cases (UniCredit v RCA) and landmark High Court decisions (including Kompaktwerk, Ocado v McKeeve, VTB v Antipinsky, FSDEA v dos Santos) across a broad scope of commercial law. Alexander is particularly noted for his advocacy skills, strategic thinking, and ability to lead a team in difficult circumstances.

• UniCredit v RusChemAlliance [2024] UKSC 30, a landmark Supreme Court case worth €2 billion concerning Russian sanctions and the powers of the English Court to intervene in foreign arbitral proceedings. Alexander made oral submissions in the Supreme Court across two days on two novel points of law. This is now the leading case on the grant of anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions, and the relationship between the Court and any prospective arbitral tribunal.
• Boots v NHS (2023-2024). Acts for Boots in a claim against the NHS, relating to payment for ophthalmic services provided during the first COVID-19 lockdown. The case raises difficult public law issues concerning the interpretation of NHS communications and guidance during the lockdown.
• Kompaktwerk v LivePerson [2024] EWHC 2278 (Comm). Acted for the Defendant in Commercial Court proceedings concerning whether the “software-as-a-service” (SaaS) model for computer software constitutes a sale of goods, and thus whether the Regulations could apply. Landmark decision in the Defendant’s favour.
• ICC Arbitration (2017-2024) concerning an alleged conspiracy to exclude the Claimants from the successful tender to run the mobile phone network of Iran. This case was politically sensitive and involved numerous difficult points of law, including fraud, oral agreements, jurisdiction, good faith, fiduciary duties, loss of a chance and limitation.
• UNCITRAL arbitration (2020-2022), acted for the successful defendant in a dispute between two of the world’s largest alcoholic beverage producers, concerning the largest commercial agency claim ever brought, together with other contract claims. Alexander successfully argued that the Commercial Agents Regulations did not apply, and so no compensation was payable.
• Ocado v McKeeve [2022] EWHC 2079 (Ch), acted for the Claimants in very high-profile committal proceedings against a former partner of Jones Day, relating to his deliberate interference with a search order. The proceedings were successful and resulted in an unprecedented criminal conviction against the solicitor for intentional interference with the administration of justice.

• Castle Water Limited v Thames Water Utilities Limited [2020] EWHC 1374 (TCC) – acted for Thames in this dispute arising out of Thames’ sale of its non-household retail water business to Castle. Involved issues around the Water Industry Act 1991 and regulation by Ofwat. Named by The Lawyer as one of the top 20 cases of 2020.
• VTB Commodities Trading v Antipinsky Refinery [2020] EWHC 72 (Comm), acted for the successful defendant in resisting a $225 million freezing order relating to the delivery of oil and accusations of fraud.
• Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm), acted for D10 in complex fraud and conspiracy proceedings worth in excess of $300 million, arising out of the collapse of a Russian bank. Alexander appeared as sole counsel for D10 and persuaded Andrew Baker J that there was no arguable case against D10.
• FSDEA v dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm), acted for D2 in successfully discharging a $3 billion WFO which had been obtained on the basis of an alleged fraudulent conspiracy between the Defendants to take control of the Angolan sovereign wealth fund. Popplewell J set aside the injunction for breaches of the Claimants’ duty of full and frank disclosure.
• Monk v Largo [2016] EWHC 1837 (Comm), acted for the successful Defendant in a 5-day Commercial Court trial. Foxton J dismissed the Claimant’s claim that the Defendant had to act in good faith in deciding whether to terminate the contract.

Alexander’s practice primarily involves heavyweight international commercial disputes, particularly those involving complex jurisdictional issues, conflict of laws, and the interplay between court proceedings and arbitration. Alexander has a deep understanding of both private international law and arbitral frameworks, and is frequently instructed in cases where the governing law, forum, or tribunal is itself contested, and where the resolution of those questions will determine the trajectory of the entire dispute.

• Xtellus v DL Invest, acting for the Claimant in a dispute between a US company and a Polish company. 2-week Commercial Court trial in 2025, where one of the issues is the governing law relating to actual authority, ostensible authority and ratification.
• Xenfin v GFG [2025] EWHC 172 (Ch), acting for the claimant in pursuing complex claims arising out of the collapse of the Dolphin Group, involving serious allegations of fraud and conspiracy. Part of the claim is governed by Guernsey law. The case involves difficult issues relating to directors’ duties, attribution of knowledge, limitation, and jurisdiction. Alexander successfully resisted a jurisdiction challenge by the Defendants in 2025.
• UniCredit v RusChemAlliance [2024] UKSC 30, a landmark Supreme Court case worth €2 billion concerning Russian sanctions, the powers of the English Court to intervene in foreign arbitral proceedings, and the governing law of arbitration agreements. Alexander made oral submissions in the Supreme Court across two days on two novel points of law. This is now the leading case on the grant of anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions, and the relationship between the Court and any prospective arbitral tribunal.
• ICC Arbitration (2017-2024), acted for the claimant in highly complex claim concerning an alleged conspiracy to exclude the Claimants from the successful tender to run the mobile phone network of Iran. One of the key issues was the interaction of Iranian and English law.
• LCIA arbitration (2024-), acting for the claimant and respondent in two related arbitral proceedings concerning the telecommunications industry in Ghana. Alexander had to make submissions to the relevant Ghanaian regulator in order to establish that the LCIA arbitral tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction over the dispute.
• VTB Commodities Trading v Antipinsky Refinery [2020] EWHC 72 (Comm), acted for the successful defendant in the second leading case on the application of s.44 Arbitration Act 1996, and the circumstances in which the English Court can intervene in arbitral proceedings. Phillips LJ held that the Court must be satisfied in each application that it is entitled to act, and cannot simply rely on a prior assertion of jurisdiction by an earlier Judge.
• Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm), acted for D10 in complex fraud and conspiracy proceedings worth in excess of $300 million, arising out of the collapse of a Russian bank. Alexander appeared as sole counsel for D10 and persuaded Andrew Baker J that there was no arguable case against D10.

Alexander has vast experience of commercial injunctions of all forms, including freezing injunctions, search orders and anti-suit injunctions. He recently appeared in the Supreme Court in UniCredit v RCA, which is now the leading case on the power of the English Court to grant anti-suit injunctions. He appeared in the unprecedented Ocado v McKeeve matter, where he successfully obtained the conviction of a senior solicitor for breaching a search order. He obtained one of the only search orders during the COVID-19 lockdown in Ocado v Zelazney. He also appeared in one of the leading cases on the duty of full and frank disclosure (FSDEA v dos Santos), and in several important cases on the precise requirements that must be met in order to obtain a freezing injunction (including Tsareva v Ananyev).

• UniCredit v RusChemAlliance [2024] UKSC 30, a landmark Supreme Court case worth €2 billion concerning Russian sanctions and the powers of the English Court to intervene in foreign arbitral proceedings. Alexander made oral submissions in the Supreme Court across two days on two novel points of law. This is now the leading case on the grant of anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions, and the relationship between the Court and any prospective arbitral tribunal.
• Rajeh v Project 1 Auto [2024] EWHC 1010 (KB), acting for the Claimant in a fraud and conspiracy case concerning the new Mercedes Hypercar, involving difficult issues of trust law. Alexander sought a proprietary injunction based on the imposition of a Quistclose trust.
• Ocado v McKeeve [2022] EWHC 2079 (Ch), acted for the Claimants in very high-profile committal proceedings against a former partner of Jones Day, relating to his deliberate interference with a search order. The proceedings were successful and resulted in an unprecedented criminal conviction against the solicitor for intentional interference with the administration of justice.
• LPCM v Uktan (2020-2021), acted for the claimant in exceptionally complex fraud claim worth in excess of $60 million. Obtained a freezing order, search order, and a passport seizure order from Foxton J, which was upheld at subsequent hearings by Bryan J and Andrew Baker J.

• Ocado v Zelazney, acted for the claimant in obtaining a search order during the COVID-19 lockdown. Alexander drafted a COVID-19 protocol which sought to ensure that the search could go ahead in accordance with UK government guidance on social distancing. The Court made the order and specifically approved the COVID-19 protocol as a pragmatic and carefully considered document.
• Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm), acted for D10 in complex fraud and conspiracy proceedings worth in excess of $300 million, arising out of the collapse of a Russian bank. Alexander appeared as sole counsel for D10 and persuaded Andrew Baker J that there was no arguable case against D10, and that there was, in any event, no real risk of dissipation.
• Johnson v Basha (2016-2019), acted for the claimant in obtaining a freezing order, search order and a order for seizer of the defendant’s passport. Mr Justice Jay granted the exceptional order given the real risk that the defendant would flee the jurisdiction.
• FSDEA v dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm), acted for D2 in successfully discharging a $3 billion WFO which had been obtained on the basis of an alleged fraudulent conspiracy between the Defendants to take control of the Angolan sovereign wealth fund. Popplewell J set aside the injunction for breaches of the Claimants’ duty of full and frank disclosure.

• Advised (with David Wolfson QC and Richard Mott) the FSA on the application of its rules to a major mortgage provider and the remedial actions which the FSA could and should take.
• Appeared for the Bank of Scotland in successfully seeking an indemnity from a Part 20 defendant, thus preventing any liability falling on the Bank. Also advised on the effect of related Italian proceedings.
• Appeared for Barclays in defending a misrepresentation claim relating to solar panels, which raised issues of the appropriate limitation period and when the cause of action arises in a misrepresentation action.
• Acted for several claimants in bringing claims against major banks for breaches of the FCA rules in the selling of financial products. The claims involved seeking compound interest to reflect the losses suffered by the claimants as a result of the banks’ breaches.
• Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc [2010] EWHC 461 (Comm)
• Assisted Orlando Gledhill in defending a broker in a claim by a sub-broker for unpaid fees allegedly due in respect of a corporate fundraising. The case involved issues of contractual construction, implied terms and the Financial Services Authority rules on introductions and written contracts.
• Assisted Charles Graham QC and Simon Colton in preparing to resist an appeal by an investment bank in a claim for £7 million of unpaid fees under a bridging facility.

Alexander also has extensive advocacy experience in the Bankruptcy and Companies Court, having appeared on winding up petitions, applications to restore a company to the register, applications to register charges out of time, case management hearings on unfair prejudice petitions and section 216 applications to re-use a company name following a liquidation.

• VTB Capital Plc v. Nutritek International Corp [2011] EWHC 3017 (Ch)
  This jurisdiction dispute involved a landmark ruling by Arnold J on the nature and scope of piercing the corporate veil, disapproving an earlier judgment of the Commercial Court where the doctrine had been extended so as to establish English jurisdiction (Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp v Stepanovs [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm). Arnold J’s judgment was upheld on appeal.
• Acting for the Respondents in a wide-ranging unfair prejudice petition arising out of the Petitioner’s exclusion from the management of the company. The case involves issues relating to breaches of directors’ duties, misuse of company information, restraint of trade clauses, EU copyright law and employment law.
• Advised (with Stephen Auld QC) a partnership on the potential claims it had against one of its former members and how best to defend any potential counterclaims. Case settled favourably for the client.
• Acted for the Defendant company in successfully defending a claim based on the allegation that a joint venture partnership had come into existence between the parties.

• Acting for the Respondents (with Neil Kitchener QC) in an LCIA Arbitration, defending wide-ranging claims including unlawful means conspiracy and procuring breach of contract.
• Fortress Value v. Blue Skye [2013] EWHC 14 (Comm)
• This major Commercial Court dispute involved several economic torts, including unlawful means conspiracy, procuring breach of contract and unlawful interference. Several of the claims were governed by Luxembourg law and so it was also necessary to consider the extent to which these economic torts could exist under Luxembourg law and if so how there various elements could be satisfied.
• Acted for the Claimant in bringing claims for breach of contract against the First Defendant and procuring breach of contract against the Second Defendant (a director of the First Defendant). The case involved demonstrating that the Second Defendant could be liable personally in his role as a director. Settled before trial.

• Secondment to the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) (October-December 2010)
  Advised on issues relating to Renewable Obligation Certificates, the implementation of the EU’s ‘Third Package’ legislation and the tender process for offshore wind farms. Gained valuable insight into Ofgem’s operations and the legal issues raised by complex energy deals.
• Acted (with Ian Glick QC) for the National Gas corporation of a South American nation against a major energy company in breach of contract claims seeking damages in excess of $200m.
• Assisted Iain Milligan QC and Orlando Gledhill in a multi-million claim for breach of a ‘farm-in agreement’ in relation to offshore oil exploration. The claim involved complex expert evidence and raised legal issues as to when damages can be claimed for loss of a chance or on the basis applied in Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v. Parkside Homes [1974] 1 WLR 798.

• Acting for the Claimant (as sole counsel) in an ICC Arbitration, bringing claims in professional negligence and breach of contract against a major Russian investment management firm. The reference involves expert evidence on investments in emerging markets and the sale of complex structured notes.
• Acting for the Claimant in a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors for advice relating to a complex loan agreement and property transaction.
• Acting for the Claimant in a professional negligence claim against a firm of valuers in relation to the valuations of several London properties.
• Acted for the Claimant in a misrepresentation and negligence claim against a High Street bank and one of its managers.
• Acted for the Defendant firm of solicitors in successfully resisting a claim for professional negligence and breach of contract in relation to unpaid invoices.

• Gerald v Timis
  Acting for the Defendant in an ongoing dispute, claims against Trust and against the main beneficiary.  The dispute involves several issues of trust law, including Trustee powers, the extent to which transfers made by the Trust are binding, and the rules of discretionary trusts.
• Fortress Value v Blue Skye [2013] EWHC 14 (Comm) 
  Appeared (with Craig Orr QC and Jamie Goldsmith) for the Fourth Defendant and Part 20 Claimant (Stepstone) in a €200 million fraud claim relating to the control of Italian assets. The case involved assets held through a variety of trusts (English, Luxembourg and Italian) and numerous trust law points, including formation of trust, identification of beneficiaries, breach of trust, resulting trusts and constructive trusts.
• Advising in a substanial pre-action dispute as to the governing law of a trust under the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 and the Hague Convention on the law applicable to trusts and their recognition.
• Advised in a claim for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt in relation to a breach of trust.
• Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton
  Alexander appeared (with David Cavender QC) for the claimants in bringing and pursuing a complex conspiracy claim worth £2.2 billion against the Defendants.  The dispute contained several trust law points.