Max Mallin QC
Call: 1993 QC: 2017
+44 (0)20 7306 email@example.com
Max has a well-established reputation as an excellent and experienced commercial litigator and has been recommended by both Chambers UK and The Legal 500 for many years. Clients comment on the fact that he is “very commercially focused” with “a no-nonsense and direct approach” as well as the fact that he achieves results because he is a “tough opponent” and “superb cross-examiner”.
His experience covers a wide variety of commercial and business claims including banking and financial markets cases, contractual, joint venture and IT disputes, breach of warranty claims and company and shareholder disputes. A significant part of Max’s practice involves making or opposing urgent applications for injunctions (particularly freezing injunctions).
Many of his cases include cross-border issues with jurisdiction challenges and disputes as to applicable law. Max’s experience in relation to actions involving banks, financial institutions and financial institutions is dealt with in the “Banking and Financial Services” section of his profile.
Recent significant cases include:
- AC Scout v Ebullio & Ors (Commercial Court) Max acts for the Claimant in this large claim for damages for conspiracy to injure arising out of wrongful trading in Tin futures on the London Metal Exchange. The case is set down for a 3 week trial in July 2017.
- Phillip Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Limited Max acts for the Claimant in this claim for damages for breach of contract in refusing to pay the £7.7 million which the Claimant won gambling at the Defendant’s casino. After a 6 day trial in October 2014, the Claimant’s claim was dismissed but the Claimant was then granted permission to appeal. In October 2016, the Claimant lost the appeal by a majority of 2:1 but was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in March 2017. The hearing of the Claimant’s appeal to the Supreme Court is to be heard in July 2017.
- HTV Limited v ITV2 Limited Max acts for the Claimant in this claim for damages for breach of a TV Production Agreement. The Claimant was successful after a 3 week trial in July 2015 and was awarded about £4 million in damages for lost profits. The Defendant was refused permission to appeal on paper but obtained limited permission at an oral hearing in October 2016. The appeal is listed to be heard by the Court of Appeal in October 2017.
- Re TPD Investments  EWHC 657 (Ch) Max acted for one of the principal respondents to this section 994 Petition. After a 5 week trial in February/March 2017 before Asplin J, the Petition was dismissed as against Max’s client.
- Eminent Energy & Ors v Daxin Petroleum (Commercial Court) Max acted for the Claimant in a claim initially concerned with obtaining release of a cargo of Naphtha held in Latvia. In 2016, he successfully applied for a without notice injunction to prevent disposal of the naphtha by the Defendant (an Estonian company). The Defendant counterclaimed alleging widespread fraud on the part of the Claimant and others. The case settled after Max made a successful application for security for the Claimant’s costs of the Defendant’s counterclaim. The application was vigorously opposed and gave rise to an important judgment which is reported at  EWHC 2585 (Comm).
- Natural Instinct Limited & Ors v Brock & Ors (QBD) Max acted for the Claimants in this claim for equitable compensation for fraudulent misappropriation of company funds by former directors which was set down for trial in 2017. There were also cross-994 Petitions. The claims settled at a mediation in March 2017.
- Re African Safari Club Limited (in liquidation) (Chancery Division) Max acted for the applicant liquidators in this claim for equitable compensation for fraudulent misappropriation of company funds by former directors (one of whom was out of the jurisdiction). The claim was set down for a 5 day trial in April 2017 but settled shortly before trial.
- Nextam v Mughal & Ors (QBD) Max acted for the Claimant in this substantial fraud claim against a former director of the Claimant. Max obtained a number of interlocutory orders including freezing injunctions and passport orders. The Claimant then instructed Max to apply to commit the Defendant for breach of the freezing injunction and the Defendant was committed to prison for 4 months in March 2016.
- Gigsky APS v Vodaphone Roaming Services Sarl Max acted for the Claimant in this substantial claim for specific performance (or damages for breach) of a telecommunications contract. In October 2015, Max obtained an urgent without notice injunction requiring the Defendant (domiciled out of the jurisdiction) to reinstate and maintain its network service to the Claimant. Max held onto the injunction after a significant challenge by the Defendant on the return date and the case settled shortly thereafter.