Daniel practises in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice of the London office as Of Counsel. He joined Mayer Brown in 2001 from another city firm. He not only has considerable experience of litigating in the courts, but also of using various other methods of dispute resolution (including mediation, arbitration, "med-arb" and expert determination). His wide-ranging practice includes the following:Cross-border disputes and issues:
Daniel has particular experience in advising on disputes involving an international element. He focuses on issues which arise in an international business context, both when negotiating contractual terms and when disputes arise. These include:
- Jurisdiction and parallel proceedings (under the Brussels Regulation (44/2001), the Lugano Conventions and/or the common law).
- Service of proceedings on foreign defendants both in and out of the jurisdiction (including pursuant to the EU Service Regulation (1393/2007) and the 1965 Hague Convention).
- Governing law (including pursuant to Rome I (Regulation 593/2008) and/or Rome II (Regulation 864/2007)).
- International enforcement of judgments and arbitration awards (pursuant to the Brussels Regulation, the Lugano Conventions, the European Enforcement Orders Regulation (805/2004), the European Orders for Payment Regulation (1896/2006), reciprocal enforcement treaties/understandings and/or national law, and pursuant to the New York Convention).
- Obtaining international evidence (including under the EU Regulation (1206/2001) and the 1970 Hague Convention).
- Obtaining interim/protective relief to assist with foreign proceedings.
- Sovereign immunity issues.
Reported cases in this area:
- UBS AG, London Branch and another v. Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH  EWHC 2566 (Comm): successfully defending an application to contest the jurisdiction of the English Court - a leading case on the provisions of the Brussels Regulation (44/2001), in particular:
- Articles 22(2) and 25 ("exclusive" jurisdiction) and their operation and interaction with Article 23 (jurisdiction clauses), applying:
- JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and another v. Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des Offentlichen Rechts  EWCA Civ 390; and
- Depfa Bank plc v. Provincia di Pisa  EWHC 1148 (Comm); and
- Article 30 (the determination of the "court first seised" and its operation as regards parallel proceedings pursuant to Articles 27-28 - as approved in Debt Collect London Limited and another v. S.K. Slavia Praha-Fotbal A.S.  EWCA Civ 1250).
- Mölnlycke Health Care v. BSN Medical Ltd  EWCA Civ 988 (CA);  EWHC 3370 (Pat): successfully defending an application (and subsequent appeal) for an order from the English Court to stay and/or decline jurisdiction in favour of the Swedish Courts in which parallel proceedings were on foot – a leading case in relation to Articles 27 and 28 of the Brussels Regulation. It included consideration of whether the respective proceedings were "between the same parties" and whether they "involved the same cause of action", and was a case in which an English Court for the first time liaised with a Court in another EU State in this respect.
- Cinnamon European Structured Credit Master Fund v. Banco Commercial Português S.A.  EWHC 3381 (Ch): successfully defending a Portuguese bank's application to contest jurisdiction in relation to claims under two contracts – one containing a non-exclusive English jurisdiction clause and the other a service of process clause. This is a leading case on the interpretation, scope and effect of such clauses which distinguished the judgment on service of process clauses in Deutsche Bank v. Sebastian Holdings  EWHC 2132 (Comm) and concerned Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation (and also Articles 2, 5, 27 and 28).
- Hewden Tower Cranes Ltd v. Wolffkran GmbH  EWHC 857 (TCC): successfully defending an application to contest jurisdiction in relation to a tortious claim. This is a leading case on the scope of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation which (jurisdiction in matters relating to tort), and the question of whether there was an agreement on jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 23).
- Aerotel v. WaveCrest Group Enterprises Ltd and others  EWHC 104 (Pat): successfully obtaining an order for security for costs against an Israeli claimant for an amount considerably in excess of the additional costs of international enforcement, thereby distinguishing the leading Court of Appeal authority of Nasser v. United Bank of Kuwait  1 W.L.R. 1868 (CA).
Disputes involving banking transactions and commercial contracts: advising in relation to disputes concerning complex banking transactions and other commercial contract disputes in various other industry sectors including chemicals, telecoms, IT, pharmaceuticals, on-line betting, aviation, travel and sport. These involved various issues including: the interpretation and effect of contractual terms, causation of damage, remoteness and quantum of loss and appropriate remedies (including damages, injunctions, declarations and specific performance).
Post-acquisition/investment disputes: advising in relation to complex disputes following the acquisition/sale of businesses, companies and groups of companies (domestic and global) in various sectors including market research, pharmaceuticals, telecoms/IT, on-line financial services and the automobile industry. These have included: claims for breach of contract, disputes in relation to completion statements, and claims for breach of warranty and/or misrepresentation.
Commercial agency disputes: advising on disputes concerning sales agency contracts, including in particular, claims on termination and the effect of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (or the equivalent enacted in other EU Member States in accordance with the Council Directive 86/653/EEC).
Corporate and Shareholder disputes: advising on corporate and shareholder disputes (including in relation to the rights of minority shareholders).