Craig Rajgopaul took silk in March 2024, having been called to the bar in 2010. He specialises in employment and partnership law, with additional expertise in commercial law. He previously practised as a solicitor-advocate with two leading City firms. Craig has a wide-ranging employment and partnership practice spanning High Court, Employment Tribunal and appellate work, with additional expertise in the business protection sphere, notably in cases involving allegations of a breach of fiduciary duty and shareholder disputes. He has been involved in many of the most high-profile team move and restrictive covenant cases, from Tullett Prebon v BGC, through QBE v Dymoke to Alesco v Bishopsgate. He is regularly instructed in difficult discrimination and whistleblowing claims.

    Craig is consistently rated as a leading barrister by Chambers and Partners and Legal 500: he is recognised as a leading silk and was ranked in Band 1 by both publications for a number of years as a senior junior. His experience includes working on commercial and partnership matters in the County Court and High Court, in numerous multi-day claims in the Employment Tribunal, including complex discrimination claims, in High Court team move, restrictive covenant and confidential information cases and in education matters across different courts and Tribunals. Craig also has good experience of litigation in the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal, and regularly acts on high profile (and high value) claims.

    Craig prides himself on the quality of his written and oral advocacy, and has received plaudits for the clarity and persuasiveness of his submissions. He particularly enjoys cross-examination.

    Craig uses his experience as a solicitor to bring a commercial, client-focused approach to his work, and likes to think that he is approachable, down to earth and enjoyable to work with. Comments from clients include: "not afraid of a good old fashioned scrap in our client’s best interests”; "really did a number on the [other side’s] witnesses in cross-examination”; "He is tenacious, well-prepared and fights to the end. A joy to work with", and "He is very responsive, robust in the positions he takes, really user-friendly and willing to help." (the final two were cited in Chambers & Partners).

    Experience

    Shortlist

    Employment

    Craig is recognised as a leading silk in employment law by Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, and he was ranked in Band 1 as a leading junior for a number of years. The directories have recently described him as follows: (i) “he's the best of the best. He is extremely intelligent, grapples quickly with complex issues, is ready to discuss his advice and have it questioned, works collaboratively and is loved by clients. He is a formidable advocate and very impressive on his feet” (C&P 2024); (ii) “He really is the full package, combining a razor-sharp intellect with a very personable manner and a hardworking nature. His advocacy is superb.” (L500 2024); (iii) “an incredible and very strategic cross-examiner” (C&P 2023); and (iv) “His advocacy, intellect, strategy and commerciality combine to give clients everything they could want in a barrister. He is wonderfully easy to work with, client friendly, and someone clients always want to have on their team with the most difficult of cases” (L500 2023). He was shortlisted for the Legal 500 Employment Junior of the Year in 2023.

    In addition to his extensive employee competition expertise (see the separate section below), Craig has been instructed on numerous complex, multi-day discrimination and whistleblowing claims, and has a thorough knowledge of the different strands of discrimination law, and of whistleblowing, TUPE, employment status, unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions issues. He has particular expertise in disability discrimination and whistleblowing claims – he has acted (for both Claimants and Respondents) on numerous whistleblowing interim relief applications in recent years. Craig regularly obtains strike outs, deposit orders and costs awards in the Tribunals.

    Craig has extensive experience of litigation in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeals Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal. He is also regularly instructed to carry out sensitive investigations, grievances, disciplinary hearings and appeals (including by solicitors firms in respect of their partners).

    Craig frequently gives talks and training on, and has written extensively on, all aspects of employment law, including as co-author of two chapters in Bloch & Brearley on Employment Covenants & Confidential Information.

    In his previous role as a solicitor-advocate, Craig acted on a number of high profile discrimination claims (e.g. a £19 million sex discrimination claim in the EAT and Court of Appeal) and on Burlo v Langley and Carter in the EAT ([2006] ICR 850) and the Court of Appeal ([2007] ICR 390).

    “Craig is a fantastic advocate who provides wonderful client service.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2025

    “Craig leaves absolutely no stone unturned.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2025

    “Craig is brilliant.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2025

    “He is a stellar lawyer, a dynamic and charismatic force in any litigation team. Very user friendly with clients but formidable on his feet.”

    Legal 500, 2025

    “Craig is an incredible and very strategic cross-examiner.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2023

    “Craig has an incredibly incisive mind. His advocacy, intellect, strategy and commerciality combine to give clients everything they could want in a barrister. He is wonderfully easy to work with, client friendly, and someone clients always want to have on”

    Legal 500, 2023

    “He is very astute, extremely responsive and has an excellent communication style.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2022

    “He is exceptionally bright, has remarkable attention to detail and is superb on his feet.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2021

    “Outstanding - he is exceptionally bright, develops an excellent rapport with clients, has remarkable attention to detail, and is superb on his feet.”

    Legal 500, 2021

    “He has a strong grasp of the commerciality of the case as well as the legal technicalities”

    Legal 500, 2021

    “An excellent barrister who is extremely commercial and good on his feet.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2020

    “A star of the future who combines user-friendliness with a razor-sharp intellect and incisiveness”

    Legal 500, 2020

    “He is incredibly thorough in his preparation, excellent with clients and effective on his feet.”

    Legal 500, 2017

    “He leaves no stone unturned and is a terrier in cross-examination.”

    Legal 500, 2016

    Cases

    Grid view
    List view

    • C v Z(2023 – 2024)

      Craig was instructed by the Respondent in a highly sensitive disability discrimination claim, where the Claimant has ASD and was bringing a raft of different claims, from alleged discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, through harassment and victimisation, to allegedly automatically unfair dismissal for raising health and safety concerns. Following robust pleadings and successful navigation of a wide range of interlocutory issues, the claim settled on very favourable terms for the Respondent shortly before trial.

    • B v AB(2023 – 2025)

      Craig is instructed by the Respondent in defending the Claimant’s claims of (amongst other things) alleged whistleblowing detriment and discrimination. The Claimant brought an application in the Tribunal for interim relief, which Craig successfully resisted. The lengthy trial is listed in 2025.

    • X v A LLP(2023 – 2025)

      Craig is instructed by the Respondent law firm resisting claims by a (now) former senior member: (i) of disability discrimination (in the Tribunal); and (ii) alleging breach of the LLP agreement (litigated in the High Court). Involving sensitive mental health issues, and complex diagnostic and forensic medical issues, a two-day PH on disability is listed in late 2024, with the trial to take place in 2025.

    • M v Financial Institution2021 – 2023

      Craig acted for a large financial institution resisting claims of alleged disability discrimination, religion or belief discrimination (relating to alleged ethical veganism) and race discrimination. Following Craig’s cross-examination, the (professionally represented) Claimant was found not to be disabled by reason of either asthma or oral allergy syndrome, as a result of which the Claimant withdrew all her claims.

    • S v X Plc2021 – 2023

      Acted for the Respondent bank defending claims of whistleblowing and discrimination.  Craig worked with his solicitors to produce a robust Grounds of Resistance, and has obtained: (i) withdrawal of the entirety of the discrimination claims (in the face of an application for strike out); and (ii) a deposit order in relation to one of the whistleblowing claims.  The claim settled on favourable terms shortly before the two week trial.

    • Black v Imagination & Ors2020 – 2024

      Craig is acting for the former CEO of Imagination Technologies in his whistleblowing claim in relation to his high profile dismissal – widely reported in the press - which followed allegations he made relating to national security concerns about a proposed boardroom coup by appointees of the Chinese Government.  The Respondents have instructed a Silk.  Craig has successfully resisted before the Tribunal an attempt by the Respondents to argue that various communications were privileged from disclosure.  The four week trial due to commence in September 2022 was bumped just before trial due to a last minute change in position by the Taking of Evidence Unit as to whether one named Respondent could give evidence from Hong Kong: it has been re-listed for 2024.

    • Z v B2019 - 2022

      Acting for a senior trader bringing whistleblowing claims (arising out of protected disclosures relating to bribes) during his employment and leading up to its termination.  The Respondent instructed a Silk. The case was heard over 6 weeks in September and October 2021.  Craig cross-examined 28 witnesses.  The case was widely reported in the press and the written judgment (received in October 2022) ran to more than 230 pages. 

    • Various Claimants v Tesco Plc2019 - 2020

      Instructed by a major FTSE 100 company in defending claims of wrongful dismissal in the High Court and unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal involving the dismissal of some of the most senior individuals in the business relating to serious accounting irregularities with a raft of interlinking claims being brought in the High Court by shareholders and criminal proceedings by the Serious Fraud Office.  Amongst other things Craig, led by Stuart Ritchie KC, represented Tesco before the EAT (UKEAT/0068/20/AT) and succeeded in a novel argument relating to “procedural irregularity” regarding the ET’s refusal to consolidate two claims.

    • M v X LLP2019 - 2020

      Acting for a partner in a major international law firm bringing claims of sexual orientation and disability discrimination against the Firm.  Following hard-fought interlocutory battles, the case settled on confidential terms that Craig’s client was very happy with shortly before the Hearing.

    • S v L LLP2019 - 2020

      Acted for the Claimant member of the LLP bringing race discrimination claims against the Firm relating to her expulsion. The Respondent instructed a Silk. The claim settled shortly before trial on favourable terms.

    • Davis v P2CG2017 - 2021

      Craig acted for the successful Claimant in respect of his disability discrimination claim in a multi-week hearing that stretched over two years.  Following Craig’s cross-examination, the Respondents were found to have falsified a document for the purposes of concealing their discrimination.  The Respondents instructed a Silk to appeal to the EAT, where Craig successfully resisted the appeal, and the EAT upheld the finding of the creation of a fraudulent document – (EA-2019-000762-AT; [2021] 9 WLUK 257).  The Respondents were also refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

    • O’S v M2017 - 2019

      Craig acted for the Respondent in this multi-day Employment Tribunal discrimination claim against a Silk. The Claimant withdrew his claim mid-trial just before Craig’s cross-examination started, and Craig was subsequently instructed in relation to a successful High Court application for injunctive relief against the employee to obtain the return of confidential information.

    • Roberts v Wilsons Solicitors(2016 – 2018) [2016] IRLR 586; [2018] I.C.R. 1092.

      Acted for the Respondent firm of solicitors in relation to the significant issue of the extent to which an LLP member can claim post-termination losses through a whistleblowing claim when they have purported to accept a repudiatory breach of contract (which was ineffective as a matter of law). The Court of Appeal’s judgment (with important clarification as to the causation test for whistleblowing claims) is reported at [2018] I.C.R. 1092 and [2018] I.R.L.R. 1042.

    • S v Large Financial Institution2017

      Acted (against a Silk) for the Claimant, a very senior banker, in his claim alleging breach of FCA obligations. Craig acted throughout (drafting the pleadings, advising and appearing at a hearing on various interlocutory matters, working on the witness statement and assisting with the negotiation of settlement). The claim settled for a seven figure sum just before the first day of the 10-day hearing.

    • B & D v B2017

      Acted for the successful inter-dealer broker respondent resisting a claim (said to be worth considerably more than £1million) by two former employees who alleged that they had been automatically unfairly dismissed for blowing the whistle.

    • D v P2017

      Acting for the Claimant (a former director of the Respondent) in a high value disability discrimination claim. The claim is currently part-heard, with evidence due to finish at the end of December 2017, and submissions completed in January 2018.

    • F v Large Insurance Company2016

      Acted (against a Silk) for the Claimant in respect of a 15-day whistleblowing and victimisation claim involving allegations of breach of FCA obligations. Craig acted throughout (drafting the pleadings, and advising on various interlocutory matters). The claim settled on the morning of the first day of trial.

    • D v Large Insurance Company2015

      Acted (against a Silk) for the Claimant in a 15-day sex and pregnancy discrimination claim. The claim settled on day 10, after some of the Respondent’s witnesses had admitted under Craig’s cross-examination that their actions had been sexist.

    • Gaughan v Ashridge Trust2015

      Acted (against a Silk) for the successful Respondent (a higher education institution) in a multi-day sex and age discrimination claim. Following Craig’s cross-examination, the Claimant was found by the Tribunal not to have been telling the truth in many respects.

    • Menzies Distribution Limited v MendesUKEAT 0497 13 (2014)

      Acted for the successful Appellant in an unusual bias appeal where the EAT overturned the ET Judge’s findings (on disability) because of apparent bias. Lewis J described Craig’s “persuasive submissions” in his judgment.

    • BGC v MooreUKEAT 0211/14 (2014)

      Acted for the successful Appellant in an appeal against a Tribunal’s decision where the Tribunal was – unusually – found to have failed to identify the relevant principles of law, and impermissibly to have substituted its own opinion for that of the employer.

    • Masson v Commissioner for the Metropolis2013 - 2014

      Acted (against a new Silk) for the Claimant in a 10-day race and dis- ability discrimination and whistleblowing claim against the Metropolitan police. The case involved crossexamination of a number of senior police officers and arguments about the correct approach to the doctrine of judicial immunity. 

    • J v S2012 - 2013

      Acted for the (successful) Respondent in this multi-day disability discrimination PHR, focussing on the correct approach to the meaning of disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, cross-examination of a vulnerable witness and submissions as to the weight to be given to expert and other medical evidence.

    • R v Readers Offers2011-2012

      Acted for the successful Claimant in a 10 day indirect sex discrimination, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal claim. Craig cross-examined 11 witnesses whose evidence was found (inter alia) to be “evasive”, “unhelpful” and “contrived”.

    • H v News International2011-2013

      Multi-day disability discrimination remedies hearing (led by Clive Freedman QC) where the Claimant claimed close to £1 million, and there were complex issues of causation (with three expert witnesses) and potential double-recover, including settling an appeal to the EAT in relation to the issue of apportionment of losses.

    • O v O2011

      Five day race discrimination, unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claim, settled on confidential terms on day three because, in the Claimant’s words, Craig had “destroyed” his case in cross-examination.

    • Southampton CC v BurnettEAT 2012

      Acted for the Respondent. HHJ Peter Clark described Craig’s skeleton argument and submissions as “excellent”, and praised his forensic skills as an advocate.

    Shortlist

    Employee Competition

    Craig has particular expertise in restrictive covenant/confidential information/team move claims, and has acted for the poacher, the gamekeeper and the employees involved in such claims.

    Chambers & Partners Guide has described his "in-depth familiarity with … restraint of trade issues” as one of the foundation stones of Craig’s practice.

    With a strong practice in obtaining injunctive relief, Craig is also frequently instructed in large team move claims involving a speedy trial. Craig works closely in partnership with his instructing solicitors and those he is leading. He regularly acts for inter-dealer brokers, insurance agents, insurance brokers, recruitment companies, financial institutions and companies in the scientific field obtaining injunctions followed by further relief including springboard relief arising from a team move. He is also adept at without notice injunctions, having obtained, by way of example: (i) a without notice garden leave injunction for a leading insurance broker; and (ii) without notice relief requiring preservation of documents, compliance with restrictive covenants and confidentiality clauses in contracts of employment and the provision of information by way of Affidavit for an insurance company.

    Craig is also experienced in litigating employee competition cases through arbitration. For example, he recently successfully obtained arbitral injunctive relief enforcing covenants in an LCIA arbitration for a partnership against a departing partner, and then worked with Singaporean lawyers to obtain an Order from the Singaporean court in support of that injunction.

    Although many of these claims settle prior to reaching a full hearing, a selection of claims Craig has acted on which are in the public domain are below:

    “Lauded by respondents for his technical skill and unrivalled client service. He … has a well-deserved reputation for the high quality of his advocacy”

    Chambers and Partners, 2016

    Cases

    Grid view
    List view

    • Guy Carpenter v Howden[2023] EWHC 1114 (KB)

      Blockbuster team move speedy trial, in which Craig’s reinsurance broker clients (Howden) took a team of 38 individuals across Europe from one of its main rivals, Guy Carpenter. The case threw up a raft of novel issues, including: (i) complex foreign law and jurisdiction disputes; (ii) an admission by Craig’s clients that they had entered into an unlawful means conspiracy, with consequential disputes as to the nature and extent of any injunctive relief to which the Claimants were entitled; and (iii) management of a claim with more than 50 witnesses and a trial bundle running to more than 100,000 pages and a six-week speedy trial. The case was widely reported in the insurance press – when settlement was reached on the first day of trial, the insurance press suggested that it was the highest settlement ever paid in a team move claim (see e.g. Insurance Insider).

    • Technology Sourcing v Chadli[2022] EWHC 1741

      In the face of an employee who appeared to have taken highly confidential information, deleted information and taken steps to start a competitor business, Craig obtained injunctive relief for the claimant recruitment consultant firm to: (i) protect and obtain the return of its highly confidential information; (ii) obtain information concerning the whereabouts of that confidential information; and (iii) compel compliance with post termination restrictive covenants in the defendant's contract of employment. The claim settled prior to the speedy trial of the issues.

    • Alesco v Bishopsgate & Ors[2019] EWHC 2839 (QB)

      Craig successfully having obtained interim injunctive relief enforcing covenants and on a springboard basis, this was an 18 day team move trial that spanned over three months with complex liability and quantum issues (including expert evidence) with three sets of Defendant Counsel, a huge volume of paperwork and electronic trial bundles. Craig was led by Gavin Mansfield QC.

    • Tradition v Gamberoni & Marex Spectron[2017] IRLR 698

      Multi-day speedy trial in the High Court between two inter-dealer brokers, focusing on the enforceability of post-termination non-compete and non-deal covenants, and springboard relief.  The case is regularly cited in subsequent authorities.

    • QBE v Dymoke & Ors[2012] I.R.L.R. 458

      20-day High Court team move trial relating to the insurance-industry involving complex (and at times novel) legal arguments relating to the application/appropriateness of springboard injunctive relief, pre- and post-termination confidentiality obligations, and the scope of the implied duty of fidelity. The leading authority on the principles applicable to the grant of springboard relief.

    • Tullett Prebon v BGC Brokers[2010] IRLR 600; [2011] IRLR 420

      Acted (as a solicitor) for BGC and its President in this 45 day liability trial in the High Court arising out of a team move between rival inter-dealer brokers, including allegations of misuse of confidential information, breaches of court orders, inducing breach of contract and conspiracy. Also acted on the appeal to the Court of Appeal. The case continues to be cited for a wide variety of propositions in almost every team move claim that is litigated.

    Shortlist

    Partnership

    Craig has extensive experience of acting for partnerships and LLPs in defending claims brought by partners/members, of acting for partners and members in bringing such claims, and of arbitrations in the partnership and LLP context. He has a keen understanding of the partnership- specific nuances of such claims, and the paramount importance of confidentiality. Craig works closely with his solicitors and clients to determine the best strategic approach to each such claim: whether punchy pleadings, interlocutory skirmishes and a focus on a hard fought trial, or the best means of leveraging an appropriate settlement.  

    “Very charismatic, highly commercial and utterly committed to his cases.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2025

    “Craig Rajgopaul gets up to speed so quickly. He is very detailed and very thorough.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2025

    “His technical knowledge and vast practical experience of team move and restrictive covenant disputes make him a go to counsel for this work. He is a real team player, willing to roll up his sleeves to achieve client objectives.”

    Legal 500, 2025

    Cases

    Grid view
    List view

    • X v A LLP(2023 – 2025)

      Craig is instructed by the Respondent law firm resisting claims by a (now) former senior member: (i) of disability discrimination (in the Tribunal); and (ii) alleging breach of the LLP agreement (litigated in the High Court). Involving sensitive mental health issues, and complex diagnostic and forensic medical issues, a two-day PH on disability is listed in late 2024, with the trial to take place in 2025.

    • Confidential arbitration(2022 - 2023)

      Acting for a partnership in successfully obtaining arbitral injunctive relief enforcing covenants in an LCIA arbitration for a partnership against a departing partner. Worked with Singaporean lawyers to obtain an Order from the Singaporean court in support of that injunction.

    • K v B LLP2022 – 2023

      Acting for a partner in a law firm who is fighting expulsion from the partnership, including: (i) issues relating to the proper construction of the LLP Agreement, the legal effect of decisions taken by the firm in apparent breach of that Agreement, and the civil court remedies available in respect of the same; and (ii) an age discrimination and victimisation claim brought in the Employment Tribunal.  

    • C v Y LLP2022

      Acting for a partner in a law firm accused of professional misconduct and threatened with expulsion from the partnership and reporting to the SRA.  Craig worked with his client and instructing solicitors to produce robust submissions, and pre-action correspondence threatening injunctions relating to breaches by the Firm of the LLP Agreement, following which a mutually agreeable settlement was reached.

    • F v R2021

      Acting for a partner in an international services firm in respect of a claim brought against him to enforce post-termination restrictions contained in the LLP Agreement (with a significant international element, and claims brought against various different individuals in different jurisdictions).  Following a number of interlocutory skirmishes, the claim settled very shortly before trial commenced.

    • M v X LLP2019 - 2020

      Acting for a partner in a major international law firm bringing claims of sexual orientation and disability discrimination against the Firm.  Following hard-fought interlocutory battles, the case settled on confidential terms that Craig’s client was very happy with shortly before the Hearing.

    • S v L LLP2019 - 2020

      Acted for the Claimant member of the LLP bringing race discrimination claims against the Firm relating to her expulsion. The Respondent instructed a Silk. The claim settled shortly before trial on favourable terms.

    • Roberts v Wilsons Solicitors(2016 – 2018) [2016] IRLR 586; [2018] I.C.R. 1092.

      Acted for the Respondent firm of solicitors in relation to the significant issue of the extent to which an LLP member can claim post-termination losses through a whistleblowing claim when they have purported to accept a repudiatory breach of contract (which was ineffective as a matter of law). The Court of Appeal’s judgment (with important clarification as to the causation test for whistleblowing claims) is reported at [2018] I.C.R. 1092 and [2018] I.R.L.R. 1042.

    • LLP v Mr X2018 - 2019

      Acted for a senior member of an LLP who had very serious allegations of sexual misconduct made against him following the #metoo movement.  With careful forensic work and investigation, the taking of witness statements and detailed written submissions to the LLP, Craig assisted his client in persuading the LLP that all of the most serious allegations were unjustified, and Craig’s client ultimately retained his position as a member of the LLP and his seven-figure annual remuneration.

    Shortlist

    Investigations & Inquiries

    Craig is also regularly instructed to carry out sensitive investigations, grievances, disciplinary hearings and appeals (including by solicitors firms in respect of their partners, and into the most serious and sensitive of allegations). Save in unusual circumstances, the nature and contents of such processes necessarily have to remain confidential.

    Cases

    Grid view
    List view

    • Investigation for the Premier League2023

      Instructed by the Premier League to conduct an independent investigation into allegations made by a former consultant. Further details are available here.

    • Investigation for a major law firm

      Instructed by a well-known law firm to investigate allegations that a senior partner had bullied and harassed a number of associates, and to produce a report making findings and appropriate recommendations.

    • Investigation for a household name fashion company

      Instructed to investigate allegations of pregnancy discrimination and harassment brought by a senior female employee, and to produce a report making findings and recommendations.

    • Conducting a disciplinary appeal

      Conducted an appeal against dismissal (involving allegations of disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment) including recommending the appropriate outcome to the employer.

    • Conducting a grievance investigation and hearing

      Conducted an investigation into allegations of bullying, harassment and victimisation made by two different sets of employees against each other making findings and appropriate recommendations.

    Shortlist

    Commercial

    Craig is an experienced advocate and adviser in a broad range of commercial disputes, at all stages from pre-action and interim stages to trials, ranging from insolvency related matters through shareholder disputes to disputes relating to partnerships and business sale/joint venture agreements. He appears in both the High Court and the County Court, as well as in arbitrations.

    Craig has particular expertise in commercial disputes in the business protection arena: i.e. those relating to the sale of shares and businesses; shareholder and LLP membership; commercial fraud; and director relations (in addition to his experience in confidential information, restrictive covenant and team move claims referred to in the Employee Competition section above).  The strategic approach he brings to such claims means that he is frequently able to work with his solicitors and clients to obtain favourable settlements, following the issue of punchy pleadings, and hotly contested interim applications.

    Commercial claims on which Craig has acted include:

    • Unfair prejudice disputes, derivative actions and petitions for just and equitable winding up (Craig has acted for both the minority shareholder and the company in respect of such disputes);

    • Commission claims, and claims for breach of warranty/covenant in respect of share sale agreements;

    • Misrepresentation claims (both in respect of business sale agreements, and in respect of joint venture arrangements);

    • Disputes relating to the dissolution/winding up of partnerships, and of the rights of partners (by way of example, Craig has acted at various stages on the long-running dispute in Lie v Mohile, which has been in the County Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal);

    • Commercial fraud disputes (Craig has experience of acting both for the alleged fraudster, and for the victim of such fraud);

    • Errors and omissions claims for a leading insurance broker (both in the County Court and in the High Court);

    • Professional negligence claims against solicitors firms;

    • An LCIA arbitration arising out of a dispute concerning the operation by a Russian bank of a trading account. The dispute involved issues of agency and complex estoppel arguments; and

    • A claim relating to the sale of an aircraft involving conflict of laws issues.

    “An excellent barrister who is extremely commercial and good on his feet.”

    Chambers and Partners, 2020

    “A go-to name for forensic examinations and creative solutions”

    Legal 500, 2018

    “He is incredibly thorough in his preparation, excellent with clients and effective on his feet.”

    Legal 500, 2017
    Shortlist

    Education

    Craig has a long-standing interest in, and considerable experience of, education law, in particular the law relating to special educational needs. 

    Craig has been a Representative for the charity IPSEA (Independent Parental Special Education Advice) since 2002, and has appeared for numerous parents in successful appeals to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (now the First Tier Tribunal). Craig has been a school governor since 2003, so has practical experience of the application of education law in schools (and, as the Chairman of the Personnel committee, of the application of employment law in schools). Over the last 10 years, as a Governor of a state primary school in Wandsworth, he has helped to turn a school in special measures into one which received an Outstanding grade from OFSTED in its most recent OFSTED inspection. Craig was vice-chair of Governors for a number of years, and became Chair of Governors in September 2017. Craig has also worked with autistic children for more than 15 years, taught in a special needs school in Japan, and worked for a few months at the General Teaching Council.

    Craig uses his experience in the education field to bring a practical, analytical and sympathetic approach to the instructions he receives in relation to all areas of education law. 

    Cases on which he acts include: 

    • Appearances before the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal relating to SEN issues 
    • Acting (for both sides) on disputes between universities and lecturers
    • Advising higher education establishments on governance issues
    • Educational negligence claims (both in contract and by way of judicial review)
    • Acting for and against a variety of primary, secondary and tertiary education establishments in relation to exclusion, disability discrimination, SEN and other issues. 

    Achievements

    Education

    Craig grew up, and went to school in, Edinburgh. He then read Modern History at Keble College, Oxford University, graduating with First Class Honours in 2000. 

    Craig spent two and a half years living in Toyota City, Japan (teaching English and studying Japanese), and holds Level 1 in the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (the highest Japanese language qualification). 

    He obtained Distinctions in the GDL and the LPC from BPP Law School. 

    Craig trained and qualified at Ashurst LLP (qualifying as a solicitor in March 2007, and as a Solicitor-Advocate in the same year). He has spent time on secondment to the in-house legal departments at IBM and Abbey. He joined McDermott Will & Emery in September 2008, and moved to the Bar in March 2011.

    Publications

    Craig co-authored two chapters on confidential information and legitimate interests for the latest edition of the leading textbook Bloch & Brearley on Employment Covenants & Confidential Information.

    News

    VAT registration number: 105953223

    Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

    +44 (0)207 5831770

    Clerks

    Staff