Andrew Spink QC
To find out more, contact David Smith (+44 (0)20 7427 4905) or call us on +44 (0)20 7353 6381 for a confidential discussion.
Our professional clerking staff can help you identify the right barrister for your case.
Year of Call:
Andrew Spink QC is a highly respected advocate with 30 years’ experience at the Bar, of which 14 years have been as a successful QC.
Andrew has a broad-based business law practice, specialising particularly in disputes relating to the interpretation or breach of most types of commercial contract and trust deed, claims for breach of fiduciary duty, freezing injunctions and asset recovery, CPR Part 8 claims as well as hostile CPR Part 7 claims for damages and other relief in the context of pensions and other commercial trusts, banking and financial services, and professional negligence claims. As well as appearing as an advocate, he is highly sought after for the provision of expert technical and strategic advice to clients both in relation to complex commercial civil disputes and in non-contentious situations (corporate mergers or takeovers, or in relation to the many issues arising in the administration of large occupational pension schemes, including dealing with the UK Pensions Regulator, advising on pensions issues in the area of corporate insolvency, or over issues of contractual interpretation in day-to-day commercial business life).
Andrew is also experienced in cases involving mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution, together with regulatory cases in front of the Determinations Panel of the Pensions Regulator and the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). This is a relatively new and fast-developing pensions jurisdiction where Andrew has been involved in several of the most significant recent cases. Andrew’s clients include individuals, partnerships, companies (including financial institutions), pension scheme trustees / employers / members, Government departments, and participants in multiparty group actions.
Andrew is ranked in the top tier (Band 1) for Pensions in Chambers & Partners, which also notes that “He is an extremely well-respected silk, winning glowing praise from market sources for his exceptional advocacy skills and client-focused approach”.
Over the years, Andrew has been variously described in the legal directories as “terrifyingly good in court”, “highly valued”, “seriously good”, “reliable, commercial and pragmatic” and “very personable and down to earth.” “[He is] Terrifyingly good and incisive” and “He has a very good client manner; he puts clients at ease and always seems in control.” The Legal 500 adds that he is “definitely someone you want on your side…he has extensive expertise and is a real pleasure to work with.”
Andrew is joint head of Outer Temple Chambers and Head of the Business Department.
Commercial & Chancery
Commercial – Cases
Mengiste & anor v Endowment Fund For The Rehabilitation Of Tigray & Ors (“EFFORT”) (2012 – 2016)
Two strands: (1)  EWHC 599 (Ch) (2)  EWHC 857 (Ch),  EWHC 1087 (Ch),  EWCA Civ 1003;  P.N.L.R. 4
Strand 1: Chancery commercial claim seeking to have judgments obtained in Ethiopia by the Defendants set aside and damages awarded on the grounds of an alleged fraudulent conspiracy in the prosecution of the original claims. Raised complex issues of Ethiopian law (including issues about the ambit of restitutionary causes of action) as well as an important jurisdictional forum issue as to whether a claimant in civil proceedings against defendants with alleged links to the Ethiopian government could expect to receive a fair trial of his action in Ethiopia or whether the action should be tried in England. Andrew’s cross-examination of the other side’s Ethiopian law expert, described by the Judge as a “thorough and comprehensive destruction”, was instrumental in securing a resounding victory for his clients. In 2015, the claimants sought to have the stay of their action imposed in 2013 lifted. Their application was unsuccessful at first instance but is now proceeding to the Court of Appeal, for hearing in 2016.
Strand 2: Application for wasted costs by successful Defendants on Strand 1 against solicitors representing unsuccessful Claimants on grounds that Strand 1 claims were effectively an abuse of process owing to fundamentally inappropriate expert evidence relied on by Claimants to which solicitors should not have leant their support. Went to Court of Appeal on decision of Strand 1 trial judge not to recuse himself and on his substantive stage 1 wasted costs decision. A leading decision on both recusal and wasted costs.
X v Y (Law Firm) (2014 – 2015)
Andrew acted for an international law firm in a claim against it for injunctive relief concerning whether it should be permitted to continue to act for a party to an international commercial arbitration in London on the grounds of conflict and/or having come into possession of confidential/privileged information. He also gave advice to that party concerning English legal and procedural issues arising in the context of related commercial litigation in New York.
Pavel Sukhoruchkin & Others v Marc Giebels van Bekestein & Others (Hadar Fund) (2013 – 2014)
A multi-party, multi-jurisdictional high value shareholder dispute concerning various alleged frauds, breaches of fiduciary duties and numerous other claims in respect of an investment fund in the Cayman Islands and its investment manager in the BVI. The case was listed for a five-day interlocutory hearing in July 2014 in the Chancery Division for permission to continue a double-derivative claim (brought by the Defendants in a counter-claim) and a strike out application (of some (but not all) other elements of the counterclaim) by the Claimants. Andrew acted for the directors of the corporate entities central to the dispute.
Gate Gourmet Luxembourg IV SARL v Morby & Other Related Actions (2010 – 2011)
Three related commercial and insolvency matters in the Chancery Division arising out of disputes between companies over alleged breaches of warranty in a share purchase agreement, breaches of fiduciary duty and trust by company directors and preferential payments.
Ruttle v DEFRA / Farm Assist v DEFRA (2002 – 2009)
A series of hard-fought commercial claims against DEFRA in the Technology and Construction Court in which Andrew acted for companies involved in the clean-up works following the 2000 and 2001 outbreaks in the UK of Swine Fever and Foot and Mouth. These raised a large number of complex construction issues in the areas of contractual and statutory interpretation, corporate insolvency, assignment of causes of action, legal professional privilege and quantum. There were two trips to the Court of Appeal, in both of which Andrew’s client was successful, most recently in relation to the recoverability of interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and the Supreme Court Act 1981.
Appointments & Memberships
As of July 2017, Andrew is the new Chair of the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR), having previously served as COMBAR’s Vice Chair as well as Chair of its International Committee, which is responsible for coordinating the Association’s activities in all non-UK jurisdictions.
Before that, Andrew was Chair of COMBAR’s North American Committee and organised the annual North American Meetings for 2012 and 2013.
Internationally, Andrew is a registered advocate at the Dubai International Financial Centre.
In the UK, he sits as a Deputy High Court Judge in both the Chancery and Queen’s Bench Divisions and has been a Civil Recorder since 2005. He was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in the QBD in 2008 and the Chancery Division in 2011.
Andrew was elected as a Bencher of the Middle Temple in 2010.
He is joint head of Outer Temple Chambers and Head of the Business Department.
Andrew has been a Civil Recorder since 2005 and was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in the QBD in 2008 and in the Chancery Division in 2011. He was elected as a Bencher of the Middle Temple in 2010.
Areas of Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Commercial & Chancery
- Disciplinary & Regulatory
- Financial Services
- Pensions & Trusts
- Professional Negligence
“Masters very technical briefs quickly.” Professional Negligence, Legal 500 2017
“A powerful advocate, who has the ear of the court and can be relied on in an emergency.” Pensions, Legal 500 2017
“Any opinion of his carries weight with the other side.” Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2017
“He takes everything into account, thinks outside the box and thinks commercially.” Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2017
“A leader in the field.” Pensions, Legal 500 2016
“He has a very measured type of approach and he is very thorough.” Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2016
“A superb thinker who processes all of the arguments and delivers first-rate analysis.” Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2016
“An excellent barrister who comes up with well-considered, persuasive answers. A good man to use in practice and not just academically. He has the ability to convey incredibly difficult matters clearly, and is terrifyingly good. He is tactically brilliant and is an exceptionally good all-rounder.” Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2015
“Great with clients and as an advocate.” Pensions, Legal 500 2015
“Terrifyingly good and incisive.” “He has a very good client manner; he puts clients at ease and always seems in control.” Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2014
“He has brilliant commercial instincts and extraordinary attention to detail.” Pensions, Legal 500 2014
“Extremely easy to work with, responsive, hard-working and a lawyer who understands the issues clients face.” Noted for having “one of the best attitudes to client service at the Bar”, he received glowing praise from instructing solicitors across the country, who were taken with his “commercial and robust” advice. Pensions, Chambers & Partners, 2013
Andrew Spink QC is “terrifyingly good in court.” Pensions, Legal 500 2013
Andrew Spink QC has demonstrated that “he can mix it with the best, and do so with an easy, commercial manner.” Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2012
Andrew Spink QC demonstrates “great leadership and tactical nous.” Pensions, Legal 500 2012
“Highly regarded as someone who is “not only strong technically, but is also very hands-on and practical.” Especially good when in court, “he has an impressive portfolio of cases.” Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2011
“Definitely someone you want on your side”, “he has extensive expertise and is a real pleasure to work with.” Pensions, Legal 500 2011