Call +44 207 306 0102 or contact us


Call: 2003    QC: 2016

+44 (0)20 7306


Jonathan is consistently ranked in Chambers Global and Chambers & Partners UK Bar for his civil fraud and offshore work. 

In relation to the former, Chambers and Partners quotes include “Incredibly sharp and very user-friendly.” (2022) “Extremely bright, energetic and a very good advocate.” (2021) “He is technically excellent”. “Very personable and level-headed in his advice.” (2020) “very user-friendly. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of insolvency-based fraud issues”. “Very dependable and really knows his stuff. He’s on the ball and deeply analytical in his approach to complex matters.” (2019)

In relation to the latter, Chambers and Partners states that “He is a titan when it comes to anything relating to trusts. He has a real in-depth knowledge of all the case law and he is great to deal with. He has got an incredible brain and can distil issues for the trustees.” “He is incredibly sharp and very clever but also incredibly user-friendly and super enthusiastic about everything.” (Chambers & Partners 2022, Offshore); “Jonathan is an extremely commercial and savvy trusts operator. He’s really passionate about his subject and knows it inside out”. “He’s a creative thinker and very clever.” (Chambers & Partners 2020, Offshore).

Jonathan is also ranked for Offshore work in The Legal 500 who, in the most recent edition, states that he is “sharp, focussed and a genuine team player – a real asset to have on board for a team assisting with larger cases.”

A significant amount of Jonathan’s work concerns business and commercial disputes, particularly those relating to:

  • Civil fraud
  • Asset tracing
  • Financial services
  • Regulatory issues
  • Insolvency
  • Company and partnership issues

Jonathan’s work in these areas frequently overlaps with his offshore and trusts practices, many of these disputes having an international element, involving fraud or heavy factual disputes, and involving fiduciaries acting in a financial services context. He also has significant experience on the domestic side of the Upper Tribunal’s financial services jurisdiction and financial services judicial review.

On the civil fraud side, to take some recent examples:

  • He is involved in a number of large ongoing currently confidential offshore cases across a range of jurisdictions involving allegations of fraud and other linked wrongdoing.
  • He has been involved in obtaining injunctions in offshore asset recovery proceedings.
  • He has been involved in a number of pensions liberations fraud and tracing cases, such as the landmark Pensions Regulator v PAYAE & ors (2018) case.

Previously, by way of examples:

  • He acted successfully as part of the claimants’ team in ITS v GP Noble [2009-2013], which involved fraud proceedings in a number of jurisdictions, a number of significant hearings and parallel criminal proceedings.
  • He acted successfully as part of the claimants’ team in the Court of Appeal in ITS v Susan Morris [2011-2013] in tracing the proceedings of fraud into a divorce settlement.
  • He was involved in litigation concerning the largest alleged fraud in recent Latvian history.

On the regulatory side, for example:

  • He has been involved in the recent leading cases before the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) concerning the limits of the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal in financial services matters.
  • He often acts in relation to regulatory investigations.
  • He has been involved in a number of pieces of financial services judicial review matters, including in relation to the life insurance industry.

As far as insolvency is concerned, much of his pensions work takes him into the insolvency arena, and he frequently advises alongside or acts together with insolvency counsel. Examples of his reported insolvency cases include:

  • Nortel & Lehman v TPR [2010-2013] (first instance, CA and SC- when a statutory debt ranks as a provable debt or expense).
  • Singer & Friedlander [2013] (calculation of debts in insolvency).
  • Gleave v PPF (proof for s.75 debts in insolvency).