Alexander Goold

Call: 1994

Alexander has a commercial and chancery practice. He has substantial experience of acting for a range of clients from high-profile international corporations to private individuals private and is regularly instructed in a wide range of cases.

His work spans litigation; international commercial arbitration; commercial mediation; commercial contract; minority shareholder, company and partnership disputes; guarantees and mortgage lending; civil fraud; breach of fiduciary obligations; and professional negligence, in particular that of construction professionals. He has a long-standing specialism in business format franchising and covenants in restraint of trade.

He gives clear and pragmatic advice and is always aware of the commercial aspects of the advice he gives.

He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and an accredited mediator. He accepts instructions on direct access in appropriate circumstances.

Recent instructions

  • An expedited evidentiary hearing on the merits in a long-running LCIA Arbitration. The arbitration had begun in August 2013. The hearing was prepared between November 2020 and March 2021 and held remotely. The electronic bundle consisted of nearly 19,000 pages of material. The claim for damages had been put at nearly £30m and was very substantially defeated after nearly 9 years of proceedings.
  • Advice/settlement of a dispute in the early stages of an arbitration under the CIArb Arbitration Rules 2015 between a London law firm, by then part of a European-headquartered global practice, and its former Managing Partner, the founder of the original London firm, who had left to start a new litigation boutique.
  • On the instructions of professional indemnity insurers, a claim against a solicitor, his firm and his company, brought by the brother of a former client, alleging fraudulent conspiracy between the three of them in order to deny him the fruits of his litigation against his sister by making a ‘sham’ loan to her.
  • Three sets of proceedings being heard together in the Chancery Division, principally concerning the existence of a partnership or joint venture over a number of years and in respect of the development of a number of properties in greater London, the most significant being one near the Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station developments, said to be worth approx £20m. Issues include the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner of a Panamanian company and the use (or abuse) of residential mortgages and leases to raise funds. There is a subsidiary claim is to enforce the terms of an arbitration award, the meaning and effect of which, and whether it is even an award, are contested, and a further claim to recover possession of flats leased and mortgaged in the name of an individual but being occupied and run as a short-term lettings business. There have been contested hearings in all three sets of proceedings throughout 2020 and 2021.
  • An LCIA arbitration concerning the purchase of shares by a Dubai Free Zone entity of a Cyprus company, itself an investor in an Indian property company.
  • Notable Cases

    NWA & Another v NVF & Others [2021] EWHC 2666 (Comm)

    An arbitration claim challenging an arbitral tribunal’s interim award that an obligation to refer a dispute to mediation under the LCIA’s Mediation Procedure prior to any request for arbitration, was not something affecting its substantive jurisdiction to determine the parties’ dispute, if not complied with. The requirement was procedural only, going to the admissibility of the claim and not the tribunal’s jurisdiction. It did not come within the ambit of ‘substantive jurisdiction’ and the court’s supervisory power was not engaged. The case is legally significant because it is one of only two decisions in English law where the court has had to consider that distinction and establishes with some certainty and force that compliance with pre-arbitral conditions is something that will, generally, not deprive an arbitral tribunal of the power to hear the claim, but will give it a discretion about what to do to address the non-compliance.

    NIHL Limited & London Property Asia Limited v Infinite Limited (In Liquidation) & Others [2020] EWHC 3136 (Comm)

    A claim by two BVI companies to enforce the terms of a Tomlin Order agreed at trial two years earlier, in order to compromise proceedings brought by them in the Commercial Court to recover from the guarantors, loans made to their companies. The case is only one of a limited number to consider the meaning of ‘reasonable endeavours’ and ‘best endeavours’ as matters of law; it also considered, in construing the terms of the Tomlin Order and whether the companies had been obliged to use ‘reasonable endeavours’, whether the court was able to admit evidence of the parties’ on-going without prejudice negotiations.

    Old Street Homes Ltd v Chelsea Bridge Apartments Ltd [2018] EWHC 1162 (Ch)

    Appeal concerning the court’s ability to direct a costs judge to determine, on detailed assessment, which party should pay the costs of successive hearings.

    Chelsea Bridge Apartments Ltd v Old Street Homes Ltd [2017] 9WLUK 12

    Relief from sanctions where Particulars of Claim 3 months late and no application for 2 months. Security for costs.

    Al-Baho v BGP Global Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 2494 (Ch)

    The criteria for varying an order for security for costs. Flexibility of the threshold where liberty to apply had been granted.

    Maass v Musion Events Ltd., O’Connell & Rock [2015] EWHC 1346 (Comm)

    Challenge to an arbitrator’s award on jurisdiction in an LCIA arbitration on grounds of serious irregularity causing substantial injustice.

    Ramsay v Love [2015] EWHC 65 (Ch).

    Trial in which the celebrity chef, Gordon Ramsay, claimed he was not bound by a personal guarantee given by him for the rent for his hotel and restaurant, The York & Albany, in Regent’s Park. Issues included the fact that his signature had been made by a ‘Ghostwriter’ machine, allegedly without his knowledge and authority, estoppel by representation, including estoppel by negligence, and whether a person could be a successor in title to an estoppel. Led by Romie Tager QC.

    Dream Doors Ltd v Lodgeford Homes Ltd. & Lodge [2012] EWCA Civ 1556

    Appeal against the court’s decision of its own motion to strike out a claim on an application for an interim injunction; whether it is appropriate to equate the test of no serious question to be tried on an interim injunction and no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a); and the evidence to be taken into account on a claim for rectification, whether for common or unilateral mistake. Led by Nigel Jones QC.

    Holloway v Chancery Mead [2007] EWHC 2495 (TCC)

    Posner v Shah [2005] EWHC 1063 (Ch)

    Compere Associates Ltd v Halsey & others [2004] EWHC 1317 (Ch) Kidd v Axa Equity & Law Life Assurance Society plc [2000] IRLR 301

    Central London Commercial Estates Ltd. v Kato Kagaku Ltd. [1998] 4 All ER 948