Edward Cumming KC

Barrister at XXIV Old Buildings

Speaker

Edward – “a superstar in the making“, who was one of the youngest-ever QCs upon his appointment in February 2018 – specialises in most areas of chancery and commercial work as part of his busy practice.

Edward is recommended as a ‘New Silk’ in seven categories in Chambers and Partners (2019) which ranks him for commercial chancery, traditional chancery, and offshore disputes as well as for commercial litigation, civil fraud claims, company law and aviation disputes. Having long been recognised as “a lion in court,” Edward is said, in its latest edition, to be “wonderfully talented, very nice and someone with a brain the size of a planet. His energy and ability to grab a case in nanoseconds are astonishing“. He is also described as “immensely clever and very, very effective“, “a very smooth advocate, who is persuasive, articulate and nimble on his feet“, and “ferociously hard-working, always a delight to deal with, energetic and good at quickly getting to the nub of a problem“.

Legal 500 ranks him as a ‘New Silk’ in eight categories (in its latest 2018 edition), saying that he is “punching the lights out as he proceeds on his meteoric rise“, “the antithesis of an inaccessible advisor in an ivory tower“, and “so bright, you get the feeling that there isn’t anything that he doesn’t know“. Edward “combines superb advice with excellent legal knowledge and bucketloads of charisma” and “particularly stands out for his ability to relay advice in a client-friendly way” (although he is also “not afraid to make his views very clear to difficult clients“). His chancery expertise is recognised by his recommendations for private client: trusts & probate, company & partnership, insolvency and offshore work. His commercial expertise is recognised by his recommendation for commercial litigation, civil fraud, aviation, and banking & finance.

Solicitors praise him further as “a formidable advocate and masterful in designing strategies“, a “great team player who combines intellect with great enthusiasm” and “a human dynamo – always available for a call and ready to assist“. He is said to be “technically gifted, very approachable and always willing to go the extra mile“, “absolutely one to watch” and “excellent with clients… his quality of work is exceptional.” “He has huge energy and is incredibly proactive in cases, which is useful when you’re dealing with long, drawn-out matters“ and is a “formidable advocate” who has “a fearlessness that makes him fight hard for his clients“.

Edward read Law at Downing College, Cambridge where he was President of the Cambridge Union. After leaving Cambridge he was a Thouron Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, studying at both the Law School and Wharton Business School. He then became director of a group of engineering and property management companies, acquiring a practical understanding of the commercial realities of business and, in particular, company law, before completing pupillage at XXIV Old Buildings.

Highlights of his recent work include:

• Advinia Care Homes Limited v Bupa Care Homes Investments (Holdings) Limited & others [2018] EWHC 2963 (Ch) and (ongoing): Edward acts for Bupa, the well-known not-for-profit international healthcare group, in this ongoing multi-million pound dispute arising from the takeover of various care homes by another healthcare provider.
• In the matter of the X Trusts [2018] SC (Bda) 56 Civ and (ongoing): Edward appeared in the Supreme Court of Bermuda on behalf of trustees of a trust structure (said to be worth in the region of £5 billion) in a – failed – attempt by a group of beneficiaries to remove the trustees (or their directors).
• Yukos International UK BV and others v Merinson [2018] 2 WLR 1541, [2018] EWHC 335 (Comm), and (ongoing): Edward acts for Mr Merinson in this claim – said to be an unjust and improper attempt to punish him for trying to “blow the whistle” regarding wrongdoing by those in charge of the Yukos Group – in which Mr Merinson is alleged to have received “kickbacks” amounting to millions of pounds from financial institutions with which he negotiated the Yukos Group’s banking arrangements. A recent first instance decision upon Mr Merinson’s jurisdiction challenge – to be considered by the Court of Appeal in early 2019 – provides the only judicial consideration to date of the meaning of the phrase “after the dispute has arisen” in article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, the Brussels I Regulation (Recast).
• Lehtimäki v The Children’s Investment Foundation Fund (UK) & others [2018] 3 WLR 1470, [2018] EWCA Civ 1605: Edward acts for the defendant to these proceedings well-known philanthropist, Jamie Cooper, on this appeal concerning the extent of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise the administration of charities, and the duties of members of a company limited by guarantee (alongside Lord Pannick QC and Simon Taube QC). The Supreme Court’s determination of an application for permission to appeal is awaited.
• In the matter of Z [2018] EWHC 1488 (Ch): Edward appeared on behalf of the brother of a successful businessman (Z) in complex and substantial proceedings in the Court of Protection concerning Z’s capacity to manage his property and affairs, the validity of various powers of attorney (and whether they had been validly revoked), who should manage Z’s property and affairs, and questions regarding Z’s contact with his wider family.
• Wood v Sureterm Direct Ltd & Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173, [2015] EWCA Civ 839 and [2014] EWHC 3240 (Comm): Edward appeared as sole counsel in the Supreme Court, before Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge, in what is now the leading authority on the proper approach to the interpretation of contracts, having acted throughout on behalf of Capita in the underlying multi-million pound dispute that arose from Capita’s takeover of a leading specialist insurance broker.
• Libyan Investment Authority v Goldman Sachs International [2016] EWHC 2530 (Ch) and [2014] EWHC 3364 (Ch): Edward, led by Roger Masefield QC and Philip Edey QC, acted for the LIA in relation to its claim that, during the Gaddafi era, Goldman Sachs procured the LIA to enter into derivative investments of around US$1.2 billion by undue influence and/or that the investments were unconscionable bargains. The case – which was heard at a two-month trial in the Chancery Division in mid-2016 – was chosen by The Lawyer as one of the top 20 cases of 2016.
• Viscount Weymouth v Parry & others (2015-2016): Edward, initially as sole counsel and subsequently led by Alan Steinfeld QC, acted on behalf of Viscount Weymouth in his claim to remove one of the trustees of the trusts of the famous Longleat Estate.
• Libyan Investment Authority v Société Générale SA & others [2017] EWHC 390 (Comm), [2015] EWHC 550 (Comm) and (ongoing): Edward, led by Mark Howard QC, Roger Masefield QC, Craig Orr QC and Andrew George QC, also acts for the LIA as lead junior on its claim to set aside various derivative investments of around US$2.1 billion made during the Gaddafi era and said to have been procured by a fraudulent and corrupt scheme. The case has been chosen by The Lawyer as one of the top 20 cases of 2017.
• Crociani and others v Crociani and others (2015) 17 ITELR 624, [2014] UKPC 40, [2014] All ER (D) 287 (Nov), [2014] JCA 095, and [2014] JCA 089: major trust litigation in both Jersey and Mauritius, involving claims for more than US$100 million for alleged breaches of trust. In October 2014 Edward appeared in the Privy Council on behalf of the former and present trustees, resulting in the leading decision on jurisdiction clauses in trust instruments, a judgment which STEP has described as “landmark” and as having “far-reaching implications for trust lawyers“.
• Fox v Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 794, [2014] All ER (D) 78, [2014] EWHC 2747 and [2014] EWCA Civ 930: Edward acted as sole counsel for the successful defendant (the son-in-law of an Oscar-winning actor). The claim concerned (a) alleged harassment said to arise from the defendant’s own earlier pursuit of harassment proceedings and a complaint to the police regarding the claimant’s attempts to recover an alleged debt, and (b) whether, in fact, any debt was owed. The final judgment, given after a week-long High Court trial, praised Edward’s “forceful and skilful cross-examination” as well as the “skill and courtesy” with which he successfully presented the defendant’s case.
• Key Homes Bradford Ltd & others v Patel [2015] 1 BCLC 402: a ground-breaking recent decision of considerable practical importance. Edward successfully persuaded the High Court to find that section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006 allows a claimant to serve a company director with proceedings at the director’s registered address in the UK without seeking the court’s permission and regardless of whether (a) the proceedings concern that company or (b) the director resides outside the jurisdiction.
• ACG Acquisition XX LLC v Olympic Airlines SA (in special liquidation) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 658, [2013] EWCA Civ 369 and [2012] EWHC 1070 (Comm): the first case to consider the meaning of ‘airworthiness’ of an aircraft. Edward, led by Philip Shepherd QC, represented Olympic Airlines both in the Court of Appeal and at the Commercial Court trial of this US$17million dispute over a Boeing 737-300 which was found to have been unairworthy at the time that it was delivered to the Greek flag carrier airline.