David has a broad commercial practice, including litigation and arbitration. He has experience in a range of matters, such as banking and finance (including funds management, FX trading and cryptocurrencies), insurance, civil fraud and conspiracy, shipping, international arbitration, partnership disputes, contractual, fiduciary and trusts issues, and proprietary and tracing claims. David frequently assists with the day-to-day carriage of significant commercial claims and arbitrations. He also advises regularly on commercial disputes.

David has a particular interest in cryptoassets, for which he is ranked in Chambers & Partners. He acted (unled) to obtain one of the first asset preservation orders over cryptocurrency in the Commercial Court. He is also ranked in Legal 500 for International Arbitration.

David’s current and recent cases include:

• Robertson v Persons Unknown: Obtained ex parte and maintained one of the first asset preservation orders in the Commercial Court over Bitcoin stolen via a spear phishing attack and obtained permission to serve claim out of the jurisdiction — claim raised the nature of cryptocurrencies as personal property, the proprietary claims available to recover them, the appropriate jurisdiction and the principles of claims against persons unknown (for Claimant, unled)

• Breytenbach v Grobler: Obtained ex parte and maintained at initial return an asset preservation order over cryptoassets and other company property, in an application in the Chancery Division under s 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of foreign insolvency and substantive proceedings (for Claimant liquidators, unled)

• Phones4U v EE: Chancery Division claim for alleged anticompetitive agreements by mobile network operators to cease supply to indirect distributor and alleged unlawful means conspiracy and procuring breach of contract (for Third Defendant, led by Marie Demetriou QC and David Scannell QC) — [2021] EWHC 2879 (Ch) (decision on expert evidence)

• Allianz Global Investors v Barclays Bank: Commercial Court claim for damages for breach of statutory duty in relation to alleged anticompetitive FX conduct, including recent strike-out application and appeal to Court of Appeal on Defendants’ pass-on defences (for First Defendant, led by Dinah Rose QC, Mark Hoskins QC, Rosalind Phelps QC and Daniel Piccinin) — [2020] EWHC 626 (Comm) (decision on disclosure); [2020] EWHC 2187 (Comm) (case management); [2021] EWHC 399 (Comm), [2021] 4 CMLR 18 (first instance decision on strike-out of pass-on defences, Court of Appeal decision reserved) [2022] EWCA Civ 353 (Court of Appeal decision on strike-out of pass-on and avoided loss defences)

• LMAA shipping arbitration: Claim for amount due under charterparty resisted on basis of defence of illegality (for Claimant, unled)

• High-value oil and gas dispute: ICC arbitration involving allegations of fraud, breach of contract and termination for repudiation (for Respondent, led by Colin Edelman QC and Shaen Catherwood)

• Arcadia Petroleum and others v Bosworth and others: Commercial Court claim for fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance/knowing receipt arising from alleged West African oil trading fraud, with lengthy jurisdiction challenge raising issues of the scope the “individual contract of employment” provisions Lugano Convention (for Claimants, led by Fionn Pilbrow QC) — Ruling of Supreme Court dated 27 March 2020 (permitting Claimants to take point on individual contract of employment but remitting factual issue); [2020] EWHC 2757 (Comm) (first instance decision for Claimants on remitted factual issue); [2021] EWCA Civ 687 (Court of Appeal dismissal of further appeal in jurisdiction challenge, with Supreme Court refusing permission to appeal); [2021] EWHC 1126 (Comm), [2021] 4 WLR 72 (refusal of application for further fortification of undertaking as to damages supporting freezing injunction)

• RSM Corporate Finance v EcoTechnilin Holdings: Queen’s Bench Division claim for amounts due under contract or otherwise (appeared for Claimant in hearing on disclosure, unled)

• Mozambique v Credit Suisse International: Commercial Court claim for rescission of State guarantees for loans of over US$1 billion for alleged bribery and fraud, raising issues of attribution and circumstances in which bribery may lead to rescission or termination of contracts (acted for Credit Suisse defendants, led by Helen Davies QC and Tony Singla)

• The Software Incubator Co Ltd v Computer Associates UK Ltd: Reference from Supreme Court to CJEU on whether “sale of goods” in the Commercial Agents Directive (86/653/EEC) extends to a sale of software distributed via download without tangible media (for Respondent in reference, led by Jasbir Dhillon QC) — Case C-410/19: ECLI:EU:C:2020:1061 (Advocate General’s Opinion); ECLI:EU:C:2021:742 (CJEU judgment)

• Oil and gas partners’ dispute with claim of US$250 million: LCIA arbitration under UNCITRAL rules involving contractual dispute in relation to lubricant base oil production (for Claimant, led by Mark Howard QC, Neil Calver QC, Stephen Midwinter QC and Charlotte Thomas)

• Palladyne International Asset Management v Upper Brook (A): Claim in Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, appeal to Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands and application to Privy Council for permission to appeal challenging validity of shareholders’ resolutions as breach of the Libyan sanctions, and unauthorised under Libyan law, in relation to US$700 million sovereign fund investments via Cayman Islands investment vehicles (for Plaintiff, assisted Mark Hapgood QC, Richard Millett QC, Brian Kennelly QC and Maya Lester QC in pre-trial applications and at trial in Grand Court of Cayman Islands, assisted David Pannick QC and Brian Kennelly QC on appeal and application for permission to appeal) — CICA Appeal No 5 of 2019 (Court of Appeal judgment)

• Richards v Metropolitan Police: Successful application in Queen’s Bench Division to strike out vexatious claim and for civil restraint orders (for 19^th Defendant, unled) — [2017] EWHC 560 (QB)

• Harb v Aziz: Contractual claim in Court of Appeal, raising fact appeal and claim of apprehended bias (assisted Charles Hollander QC) — [2016] EWCA Civ 556

• Versloot Dredging v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung: Successful Supreme Court appeal on the scope of the fraudulent claims rule in insurance law (assisted Richard Lord QC and Victoria Wakefield, for insured party) — [2016] UKSC 45, [2017] AC 1

• Comic Enterprises v Twentieth Century Fox Film: Trademark infringement claim and challenge in Court of Appeal to compatibility of “series” trademark registrations with the Trade Marks Directive (assisted Nicholas Saunders) — [2016] EWCA Civ 455, [2016] Bus LR 849

David has appeared in several County Court trials and applications for summary judgment and strike-out, and in applications to wind-up companies in the Chancery Division.

David regularly advises on commercial law issues. Recent instructions have included advice on:

• Contemplated claims for substantial failure to deliver business-critical IT-systems under a contract

• The appropriate venue and claims for cryptoassets in the context of a winding-up

• The appropriate government entity to enter into a contract overseas

• The interpretation and application of a material adverse change clause relating to sanctions

• Actual and apparent authority in the context of contractual variations

• Dealings with unincorporated associations

• Implication of terms of good faith into commercial contracts

• Termination of employment contracts and claims by employees

• Possible sanctions breaches or implications of commercial transactions, including vessel charters, relevant sanctions regimes, geographical scope of sanctions instruments 

David has worked on high-profile and important public law cases, as recognised by his ranking in Administrative and Public Law in both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500.

He appears for and advises both Claimants and Defendants/Interested Parties. He has worked on cases involving EHCR and EU law proportionality, rationality challenges, consultation challenges, direct and indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, EU-related judicial review, and human rights claims under the European Convention on Human Rights and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. David regularly acts pro bono, both pursuant to private instructions and via Advocate (formerly the Bar Pro Bono Unit). Current and recent cases include:

• Liberty and Privacy International v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Security Service (MI5 Technology Environment) (Investigatory Powers Tribunal Claim No IPT/20/01/CH): Claim seeking amongst other relief quashing of bulk interception and related warrants, and redress for unlawful holding of data, due to defects or absences of safeguards in MI5 systems that were not disclosed to decision-makers or oversight bodies (for Privacy International and Liberty, led by Tom de la Mare QC, Ben Jaffey QC and Daniel Cashman) — procedural rulings include finding that Defendants waived privilege over certain material and requiring MI5 witness to attend for CLOSED cross-examination

• R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal: Successful intervention for Liberty in Supreme Court appeal on whether ouster clause in s 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 excluded all judicial review of Investigatory Powers Tribunal decisions (led by Martin Chamberlain QC) — [2019] UKSC 22, [2020] AC 491

• Big Brother Watch, 10 NGOs and Bureau of Investigative Journalism v United Kingdom (Application Nos 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15): Grand Chamber reference in European Court of Human Rights challenging UK’s previous bulk interception regime in Part 1 Chapter 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (successfully represented 10 Non-Government Human Rights Organisations in Grand Chamber hearing, led by Ben Jaffey QC) — Grand Chamber Judgment of 25 May 2021

• R (Liberty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department — Wide-ranging and long-running challenge to secret surveillance powers for national security purposes, including bulk interception and bulk equipment interference (ie bulk hacking), under Investigatory Powers Act 2016, on basis of EU law and ECHR rights to private life and journalistic expression (for Liberty, led by Martin Chamberlain QC and Ben Jaffey QC) — EU-law challenge to Part 4 of the Act [2018] EWHC 975 (Admin), [2019] QB 481 (DC); procedural judgment arising from Defendants’ late filing of skeleton argument and evidence [2018] EWHC 976 (Admin) (DC); ECHR Articles 8 and 10 challenge to all impugned provisions heard in June 2019 [2019] EWHC 2057 (Admin), [2020] 1 WLR 243 (DC); permission to appeal (and ECHR incompatibility) recently conceded on certain points in light of ECtHR decision in Big Brother Watch

• R (Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain) v Mayor of London and Transport for London: Challenge to imposition of London congestion charge on private hire vehicles as indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and disproportionate interferences with ECHR Article 8 and A1P1 rights or discrimination under Article 14 (for successful Mayor of London (Defendant) and Transport for London (Interested Party), led by Martin Chamberlain QC (first instance) and Marie Demetriou QC (appeal) and Malcolm Birdling) — [2020] EWCA Civ 1046, [2020] 4 WLR 112 (Court of Appeal); [2019] EWHC 1997 (Admin), [2019] 4 WLR 118 (Administrative Court)

• R (Uber London Ltd) v Transport for London: Challenge to English language requirement imposed by TfL on private hire vehicle drivers and voice contact requirement imposed on private hire vehicle operators, on basis of EU-law freedom of establishment and indirect discrimination under Equality Act 2010, and successful appeal to Court of Appeal as to voice contact requirement (for Transport for London (Defendant), led by Martin Chamberlain QC and Tim Johnston) — [2018] EWCA Civ 1213, [2018] LLR 603 (Court of Appeal); [2017] EWHC 435 (Admin), [2018] LLR 185, [2017] ACD 54 (Administrative Court)

• Kolleva v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames; Blackman v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames: Settled claim and successful claim before Valuation Tribunal for discretionary council tax reductions following refusal by Council (for Applicants, unled)

• Charnwood Borough Council v Hurst: Claim by Council in County Court for possession of public housing on basis of incorrect statement made when housing was obtained — successfully resisted on basis that ordering possession was not reasonable, including by reference to rights of Defendant’s children (for Defendant, unled)

• MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company plc v Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No ARB/13/32) and Croatia v MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company plc (PCA Case No 2014-15): ICSID and PCA arbitrations, addressing issue of admissibility of documents obtained under international, EU and domestic criminal mutual legal assistance treaties and laws, also raising data-protection issues (for MOL, led by Maya Lester QC)

David advises regularly on public law issues. Recent instructions have included advice on:

• Privilege and disclosure issues arising from leaked government documents for a potential claimant

• Lawfulness of proposed consultation materials

• Application of competition law and the effect of the subsidies provisions in the the UK–EU Withdrawal Agreement and Trade and Cooperation Agreement to a potential road user charging scheme

• Appropriate government entities to enter into a contract overseas

• Jurisdictional scope of the right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and related customary international law in the context of the death penalty

• Proper purposes and permissible considerations for licensing decisions and possible application of EU competition law to licensing activities

• Drafting of statutory instruments

• Compliance with, and journalistic exceptions to, objectivity and conflict disclosure requirements under the EU Market Abuse Regulation

• Scope and application of EU and UK Overseas Territory sanctions regimes

David’s MPhil thesis examined the legal basis of the UK government’s power to make contracts. He has a keen interest in non-statutory executive power.

David has worked on both investor–state and private commercial arbitrations (ICC, LCIA, ICSID and UNCITRAL rules), often involving State-owned entities. His work has encompassed contractual disputes involving interpretation, termination and breach; fraud claims; allegations of repudiatory breach and estoppel; claims for specific performance and other mandatory remedies; quantification of loss requiring complex modelling; admissibility of documents and disclosure in the arbitral context; proof and application of foreign law by expert evidence; and assistance with and presentation of other expert evidence. David is ranked in Legal 500 for international arbitration. 

Current and recent cases include:

• High-value oil and gas dispute: ICC arbitration involving allegations of fraud, breach of contract and termination for repudiation (for Respondent, led by Colin Edelman QC and Shaen Catherwood)

• Ministry of Defence & Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran (MODSAF) v International Military Services: Appeal to Court of Appeal on effect of “no claims” provision in EU Iran sanctions regime on interest accruing under existing ICC arbitral award, in context of UK arbitral enforcement proceedings (for MODSAF, led by David Anderson QC) — [2020] EWCA Civ 145, [2020] 1 WLR 1726, [2020] 2 All ER (Comm) 1003

• LMAA shipping arbitration: Claim for amount due under charterparty resisted on basis of defence of illegality (for Claimant, unled)

• Multi-billion dollar international contractual arbitrations: Claims for very substantial damages for breach and repudiation of gas sale and purchase agreement raising effect of international sanctions on counterfactuals (for Respondent, led by Maya Lester QC)

• Oil and gas partners’ dispute with claim of US$250 million: LCIA arbitration under UNCITRAL rules involving contractual dispute in relation to lubricant base oil production (for Claimant, led by Mark Howard QC, Neil Calver QC, Stephen Midwinter QC and Charlotte Thomas QC)

• MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company plc v Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No ARB/13/32) and Croatia v MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company plc (PCA Case No 2014-15): ICSID (investor–State) and PCA (State–investor) arbitrations, addressing issue of admissibility of documents obtained under international, EU and domestic criminal mutual legal assistance treaties and laws, also raising data-protection issues (for MOL, led by Maya Lester QC)

David’s book, Non-Discrimination and the Role of Regulatory Purpose (co-authored with Andrew D Mitchell and Caroline Henckels), examines national treatment and most-favoured nation provisions in international investment treaties, which commonly give rise to investor–State arbitrations, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) treaties.

David has expertise and a keen interest in UN, EU and UK sanctions, as recognised by his ranking for Sanctions in Chambers & Partners. He has been involved in several major sanctions cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Grand Court and Court of Appeal in the Cayman Islands and the EU General Court. He advises regularly on the scope and application of EU and UK sanctions regimes, including Russia/Crimea, Libya, Belarus, Zimbabwe and Myanmar regimes, the UK's new Global Human Rights sanctions regime and the EU Blocking Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96). He has advised on sanctions issues arising in the context of transactions such as large transfers of funds and transactions with/derivatives relating to precious metals, charterparties, acquisitions of interests in companies and indirect acquisitions of property banking and financial transactions.

Current and recent cases include:

• Ministry of Defence & Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran (MODSAF) v International Military Services: Appeal to Court of Appeal on effect of “no claims” provision in EU Iran sanctions regime on interest accruing under existing ICC arbitral award, in context of UK arbitral enforcement proceedings (for MODSAF, led by David Anderson QC) — [2020] EWCA Civ 145, [2020] 1 WLR 1726, [2020] 2 All ER (Comm) 1003

• Palladyne International Asset Management v Upper Brook (A): Claim in Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, appeal to Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands and application to Privy Council for permission to appeal challenging validity of shareholders’ resolutions as breach of the Libyan sanctions, and unauthorised under Libyan law, in relation to US$700 million sovereign fund investments via Cayman Islands investment vehicles (for Plaintiff, assisted Mark Hapgood QC, Richard Millett QC, Brian Kennelly QC and Maya Lester QC in pre-trial applications and at trial in Grand Court of Cayman Islands, assisted David Pannick QC and Brian Kennelly QC on appeal and application for permission to appeal) — CICA Appeal No 5 of 2019 (Court of Appeal judgment)

• Multi-billion dollar international contractual arbitrations: Claims for very substantial damages for breach and repudiation of gas sale and purchase agreement raising effect of international sanctions on counterfactuals (for Respondent, led by Maya Lester QC)

• Insurance arbitration: Claim raising construction of exemption where providing insurance would violate sanctions (for Respondent, led by Maya Lester QC)

• DenizBank AŞ v Council, VTB Bank PAO v Council and Sberbank v Council: Challenges before EU General Court to listings in and application of EU sanctions on Russia (Council Regulation (EU) 833/2014, as amended) to applicant Turkish bank (on basis of ownership by Russian bank) and applicant Russian banks (appeared in General Court oral hearing, led by Maya Lester QC) — ECLI:EU:T:2018:546 (Case T-798/14: Judgment in DenizBank); ECLI:EU:T:2018:542 (Case T-734/14: Judgment in VTB Bank); ECLI:EU:T:2018:541 (Case T-732/14: Judgment in Sberbank)

• Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Council: Application before the EU General Court for annulment of sanctions re-listings on grounds including right to an effective remedy, absence of legal basis, inadequate reasons, rights of defence and fundamental principles of EU law (assisted Maya Lester QC) — ECLI:EU:T:2017:102 (Joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14: Judgment)

David’s recent instructions on sanctions have included advice on:

• Numerous recent advices on the effect of Russian sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including their effect on ongoing court proceedings

• The differences between the UK post-Brexit sanctions regimes and EU sanctions regimes for a commodities trading company

• Whether certain transactions breached the UK and EU Belarus sanctions regimes

• The effect of the UK Zimbabwe sanctions regime in relation to certain loans

• The interpretation and application of a material adverse change clause relating to sanctions

• The scope and application of the EU Russia/Crimea and Libya sanctions regimes, including their application to transactions such as transfers of funds and transactions with/derivatives relating to precious metals, charterparties, acquisitions of interests in companies and indirect acquisitions of property

• The application of the EU Blocking Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96) in the context of commercial supply contracts

David has extensive competition law experience (including state aids/subsidies), before the English Courts, the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the EU courts. He is listed for Competition in Legal 500

Current and recent cases include:

• Preventx v Royal Mail Group: Successful application in Chancery Division for interim injunction for alleged abuse of dominant position in relation to change to terms of supply of postal services to sexual health testing service (for Claimant, led by Robert O’Donoghue QC) — [2020] EWHC 2276 (Ch) (judgment on injunction application); [2020] EWHC 2647 (Ch) (ruling on costs and permission to appeal)

• Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative v Barclays Bank; Evans v Barclays Bank: Proposed collective proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal for multi-million pound claims for anticompetitive FX market conduct (for First Defendant, led by Dinah Rose QC, Mark Hoskins QC, Rosalind Phelps QC and Daniel Piccinin) — [2020] CAT 9 (procedural judgment on whether CAT would determine carriage dispute as a preliminary issue)

• Phones4U v EE: Chancery Division claim for alleged anticompetitive agreements by mobile network operators to cease supply to indirect distributor and alleged unlawful means conspiracy and procuring breach of contract (for Third Defendant, led by Marie Demetriou QC and David Scannell QC) — [2021] EWHC 2879 (Ch) (decision on expert evidence)

• Allianz Global Investors v Barclays Bank: Commercial Court claim for damages for breach of statutory duty in relation to alleged anticompetitive FX conduct, including recent strike-out application and appeal to Court of Appeal on Defendants’ pass-on defences (for First Defendant, led by Dinah Rose QC, Mark Hoskins QC, Rosalind Phelps QC and Daniel Piccinin) — [2020] EWHC 626 (Comm) (decision on disclosure); [2020] EWHC 2187 (Comm) (case management); [2021] EWHC 399 (Comm), [2021] 4 CMLR 18 (first instance decision on strike-out of pass-on defences, Court of Appeal decision reserved) [2022] EWCA Civ 353 (Court of Appeal decision on strike-out of pass-on and avoided loss defences)

• JPMorgan Chase & Co v Commission: Challenge before EU General Court to Commission’s findings of competition law infringement by rigging of EURIBOR interest rate benchmark and other EIRD market conduct, brought on substantive and procedural grounds, and challenge to Commission decision to publish infringement decision in circumstances of alleged breach of presumption of innocence and associated applications for interim relief and appeal to CJEU (for Applicants, led by Dinah Rose QC, Maya Lester QC and Daniel Piccinin) — Case T-106/17 (application for annulment of substantive infringement decision); Cases T‑420/18 and C-1/19 P(R) (application for annulment of decision to publish infringement decision and interim relief and appeal to CJEU) — ECLI:EU:T:2018:724 (Order of 25 October 2018 on interim relief); ECLI:EU:C:2019:230 (Order of 21 March 2019 on interim relief); and Case C-883/19 P HSBC Holdings plc v Commission (intervention before CJEU in relation to alleged anticompetitive object of EIRD market conduct) — ECLI:EU:C:2020:561 (Order of 16 July 2020 permitting intervention)

• Vodafone Group Services v Infineon Technologies: Stand-alone and follow-on damages claim in Chancery Division arising from Vodafone’s purchase of SIM cards incorporating cartelised smart card chips (for Vodafone claimant entities, led by Mark Hoskins QC and Tony Singla) — [2017] EWHC 1383 (Ch) (CMC judgment)

• Part 20 Claims against Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG: Part 20 claim against Commission Decision addressees arising from follow-on damages claims by National Grid and Scottish Power in relation to power cables cartel (for Part 20 Defendant, led by Maya Lester QC)

David advises regularly on competition law issues. Recent instructions have included advice on:

• Application of post-Brexit competition law and the subsidy control provisions of the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement to a public authority in relation to a potential road user charging scheme

• Application of EU competition law in relation to abuse of a dominant position (Article 101) to delistings of a cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) from an exchange

• Possible application of EU competition law to licensing activities of a public authority and consequences of this

‘Proof: Investment Arbitration’, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Procedural Law (January 2020, with Klaus Reichert, Michael Swainston, Edward Ho and Zahra Al-Rikabi)

‘The Power of Government to Make Contracts’ (MPhil Thesis, St John’s College, University of Oxford, Trinity Term 2015, supervised by Prof Anne Davies)

Non-Discrimination and the Role of Regulatory Purpose (2016, Edward Elgar, with Andrew D Mitchell and Caroline Henckels)

‘Carnduff, Al Rawi, the “Unfairness” of Public Interest Immunity and Sharp Procedure’ (2015) 34 Civil Justice Quarterly 182

‘Bias and Previous Determinations: Four Recent Decisions’ (2015) 34 Civil Justice Quarterly 160

‘The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: The Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function’ (2010) 31 Michigan Journal of International Law 559 (with Andrew Mitchell)

(2009) 33 Melbourne University Law Review (Editor-in-Chief with Luke Pallaras and Anna Zhang)

Professional Experience and Qualifications:

2015: Called to the Bar of England and Wales

2012–13: Associate, Boston Consulting Group, Melbourne

2011–12: Associate (Judicial Assistant) to the Hon Justice Hayne AC, High Court of Australia (Australian final appellate and constitutional Court)

2010–11: Solicitor / Graduate, King & Wood Mallesons, Melbourne — Rotations in Banking and Tax teams

2010: Admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of Supreme Court of Victoria and High Court of Australia

Education:

2014–15: MPhil (Distinction), St John’s College, University of Oxford — Thesis on “The Power of Government to Make Contracts”, supervised by Professor Anne Davies

2013–14: Bachelor of Civil Law (Distinction), St John’s College, University of Oxford

2009: Summer Academy on International Trade Regulation, World Trade Institute, University of Bern

2004–09: Bachelor of Laws (First Class Honours, top-ranked student), Bachelor of Arts (Major in German), Diploma of Modern Languages (Indonesian), The University of Melbourne, Australia

Scholarships and Prizes:

University of Oxford / St John’s College, Oxford:

2015 Eldon Law Scholarship (most promising Oxford graduate intending to practise at the Bar)

2014 Clifford Chance Civil Procedure Prize (BCL), Sir Roy Goode Prize (best St John’s College results in BCL)

2013 Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Scholarship in Law (Australian scholarship for BCL and MPhil)

University of Melbourne, Australia:

National Scholarship for Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Laws at University of Melbourne (scholarship to undertake undergraduate studies)

Supreme Court Prize 2009 (first-ranked student of 404 in Bachelor of Laws) and EJB Nunn Scholarship

Subject prizes in Legal Ethics, Jessup Moot, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Second Place), Property II, History and Philosophy of Law I

Exhibition Prizes in German 1, German 2 and German 3

Advocacy:

2014 JustCite Procedural Justice Moot, University of Oxford, Runner Up

2008–09 Jessup Moot Court Competition, Australian Champion Team and Run-Off Rounds in World Finals

2006–07 ELSA EMC² WTO Moot Court Competition, World Champion Team

2006 Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot, Melbourne, Best Written Submissions

"David is incredibly conscientious; he's on top of everything in the case and always has an answer. He is responsive and knows when to push points and when not to." "He is very astute, enthusiastic and knowledgeable." "He's extremely hard-working; certainly a very committed opponent." (Chambers & Partners 2023)

"An absolute delight to work with, and unrelenting in what he'll do to get things done. Nothing is ever just good enough, and he always follows everything through." (Chambers & Partners 2023)

"He knows the area inside and out he was at the vanguard of this dispute area. He is super user-friendly and talks to clients and solicitors clearly and concisely." "Incredibly hard-working. David will certainly put in the hours and make sure that no stone is left unturned." (Chambers & Partners 2023)

"David is a fantastic junior. He is super-responsive, hard-working and quick to grasp anything new coming in." (Chambers & Partners 2023)

"David is very clever indeed, with a remarkable memory, and an astonishing work ethic. You're really getting two barristers for the price of one. He is also charming and very easy to work with." (Legal 500 2023)

"Impressively hard-working with a gimlet eye for the detail in a case; a real team-player, capable of producing a mass of impressive work and argument in a short space of time." (Legal 500 2023)

"A barrister operating at the highest level, David has an incredible capacity for hard work and great attention to detail. His written work is of an exceptional quality and he is the go-to Counsel for high stakes and value litigation." (Legal 500 2023)

"He's really good at identifying novel arguments and his drafting work is superb." "His attention to detail and sheer capacity for hard work is fantastic." "A brilliant junior barrister for public law." (Chambers & Partners 2022)

"He is excellent on paper work and has an extraordinary capacity for work." (Chambers & Partners 2022)

"He is super quick and gets right down into the details. He is really user-friendly to work with and understands how solicitors work."  (Chambers & Partners 2022)

"Down-to-earth, super-bright and a joy to work with. A huge asset on the most complex and demanding cases." (Legal 500 2022)

"Wonderfully hard working, and a real team player. He has a razor-sharp intellect, but carries it lightly which makes him an absolute pleasure to deal with." (Legal 500 2022)

"Impressively hard-working with a gimlet eye for the detail in a case; a real team-player, capable of producing a mass of impressive work and argument in a short space of time." (Legal 500 2022)

"He's extremely conscientious and his level of knowledge in this area is second to none - he knows everything in incredible detail and can answer any question immediately. He's also very responsive on email and willing to help with anything you ask." "Everything he does is prepared to an impeccable standard - from pro bono work to the highest-value commercial litigation." (Chambers & Partners 2021)

"A superb sanctions lawyer." (Chambers & Partners 2021)

"David is an extremely hardworking and tenacious litigator. He is also very creative, often finding solutions to problems that more senior members of the team miss." (Legal 500 2021)

"A star of the future. He's a go-to in anything with sizeable documentation and complex legal issues, as he has a phenomenal turnaround time." "He is incredibly bright and conscientious and his work is extremely comprehensive. He is also a very friendly and warm barrister who is easy to work with." "He brings an enormous amount of hard work, thought and depth to a case." (Chambers & Partners 2020)

"Extremely intelligent." (Legal 500 2020)