A regular presence at the Royal Courts of Justice, Adam has built a positive reputation with judges, Masters, and staff by displaying a commitment to hard work, a quick grasp of the salient concepts and a willingness to go the extra distance.
He has appeared for individuals and banks in PPI-related hearings, post-Plevin, Plevin-plus, early neutral evaluations, dispute resolution hearings and final hearings.
In addition, Adam has drafted hundreds of advices on prospective claims for the rescission of loan contracts on the grounds that a lender had paid a fully secret commission to a broker or procured a broker’s breach of fiduciary duties for the purposes of Sections 140A – 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Similarly, Adam has drafted numerous advices on prospects of success of Plevin/PPI/mis-selling claims for banks and individuals, occasionally assisting with obtaining litigation funding.
Recently, Adam litigated the scope of the legal duty of a recipient bank to check the details of the account sent against its own records to prevent fraud before this became a regulatory matter.
This experience has resulted in him acting on behalf of large companies (on and off panels) and individuals in large money disputes, particularly where there are allegations (or likely to be allegations) of impropriety, dishonesty, or misrepresentation.
Featured Cases:
Shamsan v 44–49 Lowndes Square Management Co Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 436
Appearing in the Court of Appeal (led by Paul Mitchell KC), Adam acted in a case concerning whether a property management company could owe a novel duty of care to a tenant in respect of losses caused by a third party worth £7 Million. The appeal raised difficult questions about the incremental development of duties of care in a contractual matrix and the limits of assumption of responsibility. The case involved high-value losses and required careful navigation of the boundary between contract and tort.
Yousufi v Matharu [2025] EWHC 917 (KB)
This appeal arose from a long-running commercial dispute involving allegations of deceit and unlawful means conspiracy said to have caused significant business loss. Acting for the appellant, Adam addressed the viability and proper formulation of economic tort claims, including the recoverability of loss of a chance and lost profits. The case involved complex questions of pleading and the extent to which such claims should be permitted to proceed.
President Donald J Trump v Level Law Ltd
This case arose out of the unsuccessful first instance decision in President Donald J Trump v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd and concerned a professional negligence claim relating to the conduct of that litigation. Acting for President Trump, Adam was instructed, led by Jacqueline Perry KC, in proceedings concerning the duties owed by legal advisers in the conduct of high-value and politically sensitive claims. The case involved advising on matters particular to heads of state in the context of cross-border litigation.
Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) & Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (LAFICO) v. Kingdom of Belgium - International Arbitration
Adam has advised and represented the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), Libya’s sovereign wealth fund, together with its subsidiary the Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (LAFICO), in a high-profile arbitration against the Kingdom of Belgium. Brought under the 2004 Belgium-Libya Bilateral Investment Treaty, the dispute concerns the Belgian authorities’ prolonged judicial attachment and freezing of approximately €15 billion of sovereign LIA assets held through Euroclear in Brussels.
This exceptionally complex matter sits at the intersection of multiple overlapping legal regimes, including international investment treaty protections, UN sanctions imposed on Libya following the 2011 revolution, principles of sovereign immunity, state responsibility for judicial and prosecutorial acts, and parallel criminal proceedings that included the issuance (and subsequent withdrawal) of Interpol Red Notices against senior LIA executives. The claims allege serious breaches of fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, and protection against unlawful expropriation, raising cutting-edge questions about the safeguards afforded to foreign sovereign wealth funds in the context of international sanctions and cross-border asset recovery.
This high profile arbitration exemplifies the significant challenges faced by sovereign investors in multi-jurisdictional disputes and continues to attract considerable attention in the field of investment treaty arbitration and public international law.