Year of Call: 1995 Year of Silk: 2012
Hugh is recognised as a leading silk at the Chancery Commercial Bar. He has a broad commercial and chancery practice, with a particular emphasis on cases involving fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and confidential information. He is highly recommended by the leading directories in all his principal practice areas.
He has been involved in some of the most significant fraud cases of recent years. Currently he is co-leading for the claimant in Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan & ors, a claim for in excess of US$800m arising out of alleged bribery of the former Director General of the Kuwaiti State Pension and Social Security Fund. Hugh is also leading a defence team in Jinxin v Aser Media Pte Limited & ors, a US$660m claim for rescission or damages arising out of alleged deceit in the purchase by a Chinese fund of a controlling interest in a leading sports media rights group. He previously acted in Vale v Steinmetz, a £1 billion-plus claim relating to a mining joint venture in Guinea. Vale, the Brazilian mining giant, has brought a claim against various directors and controllers within the BSGR group to set aside a joint venture for fraudulent misrepresentation. He is also currently acting in Ballacorey Wheat v Brown & ors, a fraud claim commenced in 2019 in the Isle of Man (relating to asset management) and in Athene v Siddiqui & ors, a claim commenced in Bermuda involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance relating to confidential information in insurance and private equity.
In 2019 and 2020, Hugh represented Charles Saatchi in proceedings against a former trusted advisor in relation to misappropriations relating to Mr Saatchi’s famous art collection. In 2019, Hugh acted for the film and music business Entertainment One in fraud proceedings relating to secret commissions paid to senior employees. Between 2018 and 2019, he was involved in Arcelormittal v Essar Steel, a huge claim arising out of efforts to enforce an underlying arbitration between two steel manufacturing giants. In 2018 he led one of the defence teams in Accident Exchange v McLean & ors, a £127 million conspiracy claim brought by a firm of credit hire providers against experts and solicitors previously involved in litigation against the credit hire providers.
Examples of Hugh’s cases are listed under “Areas of Expertise” below, but to give an idea of the range and depth of his practice, the following is a selection of the issues dealt with in recent cases not already mentioned:
For many years, Hugh was principally involved in the BTA Bank v Ablyazov litigation, culminating in leading his client's defence in a 14 week trial in the Commercial Court reported at [2013] EWHC 510 (Comm)).
Hugh's offshore caseload spans insolvency, fraud and breach of director’s duties (Isle of Man and Bermuda), trusts and banking (Jersey and Guernsey) in recent years.
Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan & ors [2021 ongoing]: a claim for in excess of US$800m arising out of alleged bribery of the former Director General of the Kuwaiti State Pension and Social Security Fund.
Jinxin v Aser Media Pte Limited & ors [2019 ongoing]: a US$660m claim for rescission or damages arising out of alleged deceit in the purchase by a Chinese fund of a controlling interest in a leading sports media rights group.
Vale v Steinmetz [2019-2020]: £1 billion-plus claim relating to a mining joint venture in Guinea. Vale, the Brazilian mining giant, has brought a claim against various directors and controllers within the BSGR group to set aside a joint venture for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Athene v Siddiqui & ors [2020 onwards]: Bermudan proceedings against former officers of Athene and one of its owners, the private equity giant Apollo, relating to their rival business set up shortly after they left Athene and Apollo. The claims involve issues of confidential information, breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance.
Ballacorey Wheat v Brown & ors [2019 onwards]: Isle of Man proceedings against former fiduciaries relating to series of payments made to a senior employee of an investment management firm, based on allegations of fraud.
Saatchi v Gajjar [2019-2020]: Complex set of proceedings brought in late 2019 by Charles Saatchi against a former trusted advisor in relation to misappropriation relating to the storage and transportation of Mr Saatchi’s hugely valuable art collection. Permission to bring derivative proceedings was given after a hard-fought battle to resist.
EOL v Monex & Others [2019]: Bribery claim in the Chancery Division arising out of commissions secretly paid to senior people in the treasury department of Entertainment One, a major player in the film and music production industry, resulting in large losses on foreign exchange trades with Monex
Arcelormittal v Essar Steel [2018-2019]: A $billion plus claim arising out of efforts to enforce an underlying arbitration between two steel manufacturing giants. Numerous key issues relating to the ambit of worldwide freezing orders were determined by Mr Justice Jacobs
Accident Exchange Limited v Autofocus and others [2016-2018]: A £127 million conspiracy claim brought by a firm of credit hire providers against experts and solicitors previously involved in litigation against the credit hire providers. Hugh acts with Dan McCourt Fritz for some of the solicitor defendants in ongoing litigation.
Ozerk v Uzun [2017 - 2018]: confidential information and fraud claim relating to the misappropriation of software and related property. Extensive interim relief was obtained.
Webinvest v Prokofyeva [2017 onwards]: A part of the Schlossberg litigation seeking to set aside the transfer of a ski chalet.
China Metals v Chun [2017 onwards]: Large international fraud case relating to the alleged misappropriation of assets in China / Hong Kong. Hugh is acting for the daughters of the alleged fraudster in relation to a proprietary injunction over valuable assets that they hold in London.
FM Capital Partners Ltd v Frederic Marino [2014-2015]: Alleged breaches of duty and fraud relating to the investment of the Libyan sovereign wealth fund.
Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Limited v Confiance Limited and others [2015-2016]: Acting for trustee and corporate defendants in a claim relating to the holding companies in a London property development business (including allegations of deceit).
Coca Cola Enterprises v Corry and others [2013-2014]: Led the successful recovery of all losses suffered by the Claimant drinks company as a result of bribes paid to a senior manager.
Otkritie v Urumov & others [2012]: Advised a potential defendant in a well-publicised banking fraud.
BTA Bank v Ablyazov & others [2011-2013] EWHC 510 (Comm): Multi-billion pound commercial fraud claim concerning the management of a Kazakh bank. 12-week trial concluded in February 2013.
Cherney v Neuman & others [2007-2009] EWHC 1743 (Ch): Acting unled for one of the world's richest men (as claimant) in a £10 million breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence claim arising out of dealing from 2005 to 2008 in the London property market.
Antonio Gramsci v Recoletos and others [2008-2010] EWHC 1134 (Comm): Latvian commercial fraud worth approximately US$90 million. Secured a freezing order followed by an order for a payment into court of approximately US$40 million.
Tarkett kkft v Knowles [2010]: Ancillary freezing injunction for €5 million relating to a Hungarian fraud, acting unled for the Hungarian subsidiary of a huge European flooring and textiles company against an associate of the managing director of the subsidiary.
Pre-2010:
Al-Khudairi v Silva: Acted from start (successful freezing injunction) to finish (8 day trial involving lengthy crossexamination of Defendants and securing judgment for nearly £2million) against a series of Defendants involved in the financial services industry who defrauded an elderly couple originally from Iraq, and in related professional negligence case against legal advisors who had failed to prevent the original transactions. Instructed by Francesca Kaye at Russell-Cooke, unled.
Pfizer v Jalal: Commercial fraud worth approximately £10 million concerning bribery by large pharmaceutical wholesalers and extensive abuse of Pfizer’s rebate scheme. Settlements worth over £5 million already obtained. Summary judgment obtained on bribery claim in December 2007.
London Strategic Health Authority v Girish Pandya and others [2006-7]: Successful claim brought by the NHS against pharmacists and others in relation to alleged fraudulent claims for reimbursement of prescription charges.
Citibank v Dearsley [2006]: Freezing order (for £800,000) and judgment obtained against an employee who had defrauded the bank.
Central Parking System v Lawrenson & others [2005]: Obtaining a freezing order for £4 million. Fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims and accessory liability. Case settled.
Secretary of State for Health & others v Girgis [2004]: Obtained freezing order against alleged health tourist.
Pershing Securities Limited v Winterflood Securities Limited & others [2004/5]: Defence of £15 million dishonest assistance claim (also allegations of breaches of financial services regulations and duty of care) in the context of market-making on AIM.
Close Brothers v Robbins [2006]: Defending allegations of accessory liability and obtaining consensual discharge of injunction.
Blake v Blake [2006]: Defending allegations of fraud where ex parte freezing order obtained. Settled at mediation.
Metropolitan Police v Jackson [2005 - 2006]: Defending proceedings for fraudulent misrepresentation (including freezing order). Case settled.
Bowthorpe Holdings v Hills [2004]: Defending fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claim involving offshore trusts.
Pratt v Couch: £1 million undue influence case involving disputed share transfers.
Secretary of State for Health & others v Norton Healthcare Limited & others [from 2004]: Part of a team representing the NHS in claims in excess of £100 million for losses arising out of an alleged cartel in the market for generic drugs.
Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan & ors, [2021 ongoing]: a claim for in excess of US$800m arising out of alleged bribery of the former Director General of the Kuwaiti State Pension and Social Security Fund.
Jinxin v Aser Media Pte Limited & ors [2019 ongoing]: a US$660m claim for rescission or damages arising out of alleged deceit in the purchase by a Chinese fund of a controlling interest in a leading sports media rights group.
Vale v Steinmetz [2019 onwards]: £1 billion-plus claim relating to a mining joint venture in Guinea. Vale, the Brazilian mining giant, has brought a claim against various directors and controllers within the BSGR group to set aside a joint venture for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Athene v Siddiqui & ors [2020 onwards]: Bermudan proceedings against former officers of Athene and one of its owners, the private equity giant Apollo, relating to their rival business set up shortly after they left Athene and Apollo. The claims involve issues of confidential information, breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance.
Arcelormittal v Essar Steel [2018-2019]: A $billion plus claim arising out of efforts to enforce an underlying arbitration between two steel manufacturing giants. Numerous key issues relating to the ambit of worldwide freezing orders were determined by Mr Justice Jacobs.
Greenhouse v Paysafe [2018-2019]: An international commission dispute in the context of an online payment system and its use by online poker playing.
Accident Exchange Limited v Autofocus and others [2016-2018]: A £127 million conspiracy claim brought by a firm of credit hire providers against experts and solicitors previously involved in litigation against the credit hire providers. Hugh acts with Dan McCourt Fritz for some of the solicitor defendants in ongoing litigation.
Zayo v Ainger [2017]: a summary judgment application involving issues of service and contractual limitation / notification periods.
Dubai Bank v Galadari [2017]: commercial banking case relating to the enforcement of a guarantee for approximately US$80m.
FM Capital Partners Ltd v Frederic Marino [2014-2015]: Alleged breaches of duty and fraud relating to the investment of the Libyan sovereign wealth fund.
Deutsche Forfait v Alaghband [2015]: Proceedings to enforce a promissory note involving difficult issues of German law.
Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Limited v Confiance Limited and others [2015]: Acting for trustee and corporate defendants in a claim relating to the holding companies in a London property development business.
Scotting v JCT600 [2014 - 2015]: Issues of contractual construction arising out of a Share Purchase Agreement after the sale of a car dealership.
AOS v Kelway [2014-2015]: Breach of confidence claim arising out of the purchase of an IT company.
Ash Regeneration Incorporated v Celtic Energy Limited [2013-2015]: A dispute relating to the terms of a restructuring of a series of coal mines in South Wales.
Macquarie v EPIC [2012 onwards]: Multi-million-pound contractual dispute.
BTA Bank v Ablyazov & others [2013] EWHC 510 (Comm): Multi-billion pound commercial fraud claim concerning the management of a Kazakh bank. The 12-week trial concluded in February 2013.
Antonio Gramsci v Recoletos and others [2010] EWHC 1134 (Comm): Latvian commercial fraud worth Secured approximately US$90 million. A freezing order followed by an order for a payment into court of approximately US$40 million.
Tarkett kkft v Knowles [2010]: Ancillary freezing injunction for €5 million relating to a Hungarian fraud, acting unled for the Hungarian subsidiary of a huge European flooring and textiles company against an associate of the managing director of the subsidiary.
Pfizer v Jalal: Commercial fraud worth approximately £10 million concerning bribery by large pharmaceutical wholesalers and extensive abuse of Pfizer’s rebate scheme. Settlements worth over £5 million already obtained. Summary judgment obtained on bribery claim in December 2007.
Pershing Securities Limited v Winterflood Securities Limited & others [2004/5]: Defence of £15 million dishonest assistance claim (also allegations of breaches of financial services regulations and duty of care) in the context of market-making on AIM.
DRC v ULVA [2006-2007]: Commercial trial concerning contractual construction in the context of exclusive supply contract for insulation material and exploring legal issue of loss suffered by a non-contracting group member under a contract.
Bowthorpe Holdings v Hills [2004]: Defending fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claim involving offshore trusts.
Secretary of State for Health & others v Norton Healthcare Limited & others [from 2004]: Part of a team representing the NHS in claims in excess of £100 million for losses arising out of an alleged cartel in the market for generic drugs.
Timmins v Wolverhampton CC [2005 – 2006]: Commercial dispute relating to waste disposal. Obtained judgment and partial indemnity costs for approximately £1 million.
Misys International Banking Systems Limited v Morgan Laboratories Inc [2004-2006]: Breach of contract claim for approximately £1 million in the context of a chain of indemnities relating to business software licensing and development.
Vedatech v Crystal Decisions [2000 – 2004]: (Westlaw 2004 WL 1959749) Originally a contractual /restitutionary claim relating to software licensing in Japan. Later obtained an anti-suit injunction.
Conoco Phillips v Snamprogetti [2002 - 2003]: Year-long construction trial concerning an offshore gas compression project.
Phillips Petroleum United Kingdom Limited and others v British Gas Trading Limited [1999]: £70 million contractual dispute concerning the operation of a gas plant in Norfolk.
British and Commonwealth Holdings plc v Atlantic Computers [1998]: Large professional negligence and misrepresentation action.
Accident Exchange Limited v Autofocus and others [2016-2018]: A £127 million conspiracy claim brought by a firm of credit hire providers against experts and solicitors previously involved in litigation against the credit hire providers. Hugh acts with Dan McCourt Fritz for some of the solicitor defendants in ongoing litigation.
Confidential litigation and mediation [2011-2012]: involving the fall-out from the collapse of a leading law firm.
Cherney v Neuman & others [2008 onwards]: Acting unled for one of the world's richest men (as claimant) in a £10 million breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence claim arising out of dealings from 2005 to 2008 in the London property market. Trial in March 2011 (unled).
British and Commonwealth Holdings plc v Atlantic Computers [1998]: Large professional negligence and misrepresentation action.
Confidential litigation and mediation [2011-2012]: involving the fall-out from the collapse of a leading law firm.
Rosenblum v Rosenblum [2017-2018]: A claim in the Chancery division involving issues concerning the enforcement of an equitable charge over valuable shares.
Webinvest v Prokofyeva [2017 onwards]: A part of the Schlossberg litigation seeking to set aside the transfer of a ski chalet.
Perczynski v Perczynski & others: Protracted Jersey trusts litigation.
Pratt v Couch: Undue influence case involving disputed share transfers.
Carr v Sen-Isard: Trial in Chancery Division in Oct-06 concerning severance of joint ownership by mutual wills in a valuable property in Kent.
Athene v Siddiqui & ors [2020 onwards]: Bermudan proceedings against former officers of Athene and one of its owners, the private equity giant Apollo, relating to their rival business set up shortly after they left Athene and Apollo. The claims involve issues of confidential information, breach of fiduciary duty by directors and dishonest assistance.
Ballacorey Wheat v Brown & ors [2019 onwards]: Isle of Man proceedings against former fiduciaries relating to series of payments made to a senior employee of an investment management firm, based on allegations of fraudulent breach of fiduciary duty by directors.
Saatchi v Gajjar [2019-2020]: Complex set of proceedings brought in late 2019 by Charles Saatchi against a former trusted advisor in relation to misappropriation relating to the storage and transportation of Mr Saatchi’s hugely valuable art collection. Permission to bring derivative proceedings was given after a hard-fought battle to resist.
Rosenblum v Rosenblum [2017-2018]: A corporate claim in the Chancery division involving issues concerning the enforcement of an equitable charge over valuable shares.
Ozerk v Uzun [2017 - 2018]: confidential information and fraud claim relating to the misappropriation of software and related property. Extensive interim relief was obtained.
Webinvest v Prokofyeva [2017 onwards]: A part of the Schlossberg litigation seeking to set aside the transfer of a ski chalet.
Blomqvist v Zavarco and Open Fibre [2016] EWHC 1143 (Ch): Hugh acted between 2015 and 2017 for the successful defendant, Open Fibre, a Malaysia company to which a large shareholding in an English company had been transferred. The claimant failed in its application to rectify the register so as to remove the shareholding; related proceedings followed.
Antonio Gramsci v Recoletos and others [2008-2010]: Latvian commercial fraud worth approximately US$90 million. Secured a freezing order followed by an order for a payment into court of approximately US$40 million. Issues of piercing the corporate veil were involved.
Perczynski v Perczynski & others [ongoing from 2001]: Protracted Jersey trusts litigation involving various corporate issues.
Munro/Prosperity 4 v Wiles [2007]: complex chancery case involving issues of corporate management, control and authority.
Bowthorpe Holdings v Hills [2004]: Defending fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claim involving offshore trusts.
McAlpine v McAlpine [2005-2006]: Dispute in relation to interests held in a substantial former home raising complex chancery issues.
Webinvest v Prokofyeva [2017 onwards]: A part of the Schlossberg litigation seeking to set aside the transfer of a ski chalet.
In re Gizmondo [2014 - 2015]: section 238 proceedings arising out of the liquidation of the makers of handheld computer gaming consoles.
In re Foundations Program plc [2013-2015]: Various proceedings arising out of the collapse of an investment scheme in the Isle of Man.
Dubai Bank v Galadari [2017]: commercial banking case relating to the enforcement of a guarantee for approximately US$80m.
Deutsche Forfait v Alaghband [2015]: Proceedings to enforce a promissory note involving difficult issues of German law.
Macquarie v EPIC [2012 onwards]: Multi-million-pound contractual dispute.
INBS v Halabi [2009 onwards]: Acted in a successful claim to recover Jersey bank debt.
Ballacorey Wheat v Brown & ors [2019 onwards]: Isle of Man proceedings against former fiduciaries relating to series of payments made to a senior employee of an investment management firm, based on allegations of fraud.
Saatchi v Gajjar [2019-2020]: Complex set of proceedings brought in late 2019 by Charles Saatchi against a former trusted advisor in relation to misappropriation relating to the storage and transportation of Mr Saatchi’s hugely valuable art collection. Permission to bring derivative proceedings was given after a hard-fought battle to resist.
EOL v Monex & Others [2019]: Bribery claim in the Chancery Division arising out of commissions secretly paid to senior people in the treasury department of Entertainment One, a major player in the film and music production industry, resulting in large losses on foreign exchange trades with Monex.
Ozerk v Uzun [201702018]: confidential information and fraud claim relating to the misappropriation of software and related property. Extensive interim relief was obtained.
Rosenblum v Rosenblum [2017-2018]: A corporate claim in the Chancery division involving issues concerning the enforcement of an equitable charge over valuable shares.
Newmarket Holdings (Guernsey) Limited v Confiance Limited and others [2015-2016]: Acting for trustee and corporate defendants in a claim relating to the holding companies in a London property development business (including allegations of deceit).
Cherney v Neuman & others [2007-2009] EWHC 1743 (Ch): Acting unled for one of the world's richest men (as claimant) in a £10 million breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence claim arising out of dealing from 2005 to 2008 in the London property market.
McAlpine v McAlpine [2005-2006]: Dispute in relation to interests held in a substantial former home raising complex chancery issues.
Athene v Siddiqui & ors [2020 onwards]: Bermudan proceedings against former officers of Athene and one of its owners, the private equity giant Apollo, relating to their rival business set up shortly after they left Athene and Apollo. The claims involve issues of confidential information, breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance.
Ballacorey Wheat v Brown & ors [2019 onwards]: Isle of Man proceedings against former fiduciaries relating to series of payments made to a senior employee of an investment management firm, based on allegations of fraud.
China Metals v Chun [2017 onwards]: Large international fraud case relating to the alleged misappropriation of assets in China / Hong Kong. Hugh is acting for the daughters of the alleged fraudster in relation to a proprietary injunction over valuable assets that they hold in London.
Dubai Bank v Galadari [2017]: commercial banking case relating to the enforcement of a guarantee for approximately US$80m.
In re Foundations Program plc [2013-2015]: Various proceedings arising out of the collapse of an investment scheme in the Isle of Man.
INBS v Halabi [2009 onwards]: Acted in a successful claim to recover Jersey bank debt.
Perczynski v Perczynski & others [2001-2010]: Protracted Jersey trusts litigation involving various corporate issues.
Civil Fraud (Who's Who Legal, 2020)
Asset Recovery, Civil Fraud (Who's Who Legal, 2023)
Chancery: Commercial, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Fraud: Civil (Chambers & Partners 2018, 2019, 2024) Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery (Chambers Global 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024)
Commercial Litigation, Fraud: Civil, Company (Legal 500 2024) Civil Fraud (Who's Who Legal: UK Bar 2016)
"Hugh Norbury KC is an excellent silk with an expansive commercial practice. He is instructed in high-profile and high-value civil fraud cases involving allegations such as breach of fiduciary duty, bribery and conspiracy." [Chambers and Partners, 2024 (Fraud: Civil - London (Bar)]
"He is an exceptional cross-examiner, who has the ability to think on his feet." [Chambers and Partners, 2024 (Commercial Dispute Resolution client)]
"Hugh provides very strategic insight and has a very modern way of working with everyone in the team." [Chambers and Partners, 2024 (Fraud: Civil client)]
"Hugh is becoming an experienced leader. He has very wide knowledge of the law and a very good courtroom technique." [Chambers and Partners, 2024 (Fraud: Civil client)]
"Pleasant, calm and considered." [Chambers and Partners, 2024 (Chancery: Commercial client)]
"He really knows his stuff, has a really good manner with everyone he encounters, and is very well respected." [Chambers and Partners, 2024 (Chancery: Commercial client)]
"Hugh is a brilliant advocate. His ability to create an impression and hold a courtroom is outstanding." [Chambers and Partners, 2024 (Commercial Dispute Resolution client)]
"Always on a list of first choices for any fraud case. He has a depth and breadth of knowledge and experience that very few can match, and he has great instincts." [Legal 500, 2024 (Civil Fraud)]
"Consistently excellent judgement and the ability to see the real issues in the case and develop effective strategies. He is an effective team leader and gets the best out of his juniors. His advocacy is calm and persuasive, he is not afraid to go into battle on difficult issues, and he reads judges well." [Legal 500, 2024 (Commercial Litigation)]
"Technically brilliant, commercially savvy and exemplary with clients, Hugh’s fierce attention to detail and tireless work ethic mean he is an asset in any instruction" [Legal 500, 2024 (Company)]
"Hugh is consistently excellent in virtually all aspects of his work. He is incredibly bright, has an unparalleled command of detail, fantastic rapport with clients, quickly cuts through complex issues and consistently commercial and pragmatic in his approach." [Legal 500, 2023 (Commercial Litigation)]
"A go to choice for civil fraud cases. Great judgement. Delightful to work with. Polished and very effective advocate. Never shies away from the difficult calls." [Legal 500, 2023 (Civil Fraud)]
"User-friendly and excellent in terms of his strategy and tactics." "Hugh Norbury KC is incredible: he is very engaging, has a great command of the law and is incredibly hard-working." [Chambers Global 2021 (Dispute Resolution: Commercial)]
"He is incredible - very engaging and excellent at dealing with clients. He also has a great command of the law and is incredibly hard-working." "He is really brilliant, approachable and good to work with. He is happy to get stuck into the case." [Chambers Global 2021 (Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery)]
"He can roll up his sleeves and get involved in a messy case with murky facts. He never took a bad point." [Chambers and Partners, 2020 (Chancery: Commercial)]
"He has excellent insights, is very good with clients and cuts through issues very quickly." "He's thoughtful and analytical but gives a firm view when needed." [Chambers and Partners, 2020 (Fraud: Civil)]
"Very financially literate, very responsive, great to work with and highly user-friendly." "Hugh is very astute, and has a great capacity for quickly getting to grips with complex cases." [Chambers and Partners, 2020 (Commercial Dispute Resolution)]
“Great to work with, quick response rate at all hours, very bright and persuasive in court.” [The Legal 500, 2020 (Commercial Litigation)]
“'A very user-friendly silk who commands the confidence of the court.” [The Legal 500, 2020 (Fraud: Civil)]
“Very able and excellent to deal with.” [The Legal 500, 2020 (Professional Negligence)]
"Tactical and detailed in his strategy and execution." [Who's Who Legal, 2019 (Civil Fraud)]
"Has a calm exterior in court and comes across as a terribly engaging and pleasant individual. He doesn't cling to bad points and never wastes the court's time." [Chambers and Partners, 2019 (Chancery: Commercial)]
"Very hard-working and a delight to work with. A fantastic team player." "Very sensible." [Chambers and Partners, 2019 (Fraud: Civil)]
"Very astute and has a great capacity for quickly getting to grips with complex cases." "Personable, efficient and user-friendly, he has a very clear thought process." (Chambers and Partners, 2019 (Commercial Dispute Resolution)]
"An excellent communicator and a charming, as well as very able, advocate." [The Legal 500, 2019 (Commercial Litigation)]
"Has a fierce attention to detail, I would hate to be cross-examined by him." [The Legal 500, 2019 (Fraud: Civil)]
"Outstandingly able; a brilliant young silk and a total pleasure to work with." [The Legal 500, 2019 (Professional Negligence)]
"Hugely impressive technically and has a supreme ability to engage with clients. Hugh cuts straight through issues and provides very practical and focused advice." "He's got a very calm, unflappable style in court." [Chambers and Partners 2018 (Chancery: Commercial)]
"An approachable and affable advocate, who provides comprehensive advice in a clear, well-packaged way." "Has a measured and incredibly persuasive style of oral advocacy." [Chambers and Partners 2018 (Commercial Dispute Resolution)]
"He has court presence. The inexorable power of what he will say weighs heavily. He is a brilliant support." [Chamber and Partners 2018 (Fraud: Civil)]
"Hugely impressive technically and has a supreme ability to engage with clients. Hugh cuts straight through issues and provides very practical and focused advice." "He's got a very calm, unflappable style in court." [Chambers Global 2018 (Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery)]
"Rolls up his sleeves and gets stuck in, a delight to work with" [The Legal 500 2017 (Leading silks: Commercial Litigation)]
"Extremely clever, commanding and tenacious in court; he knows how to win fraud cases" [The Legal 500 2017 (Leadings silks: Civil)]
"Very astute" [The Legal 500 2017 (Leading silks: Professional negligence)]
"Extremely good with clients, he always manages to make even the incredibly complex seem simple." "What was impressive was his ability to mix the hard analysis with the difficult practical issues facing the client." [Chambers and Partners 2017 (Commercial Dispute Resolution)]
"He's incredibly dedicated to detail." "He has an understated way of presenting his case which really has you listening to him. He holds the attention of the judge." [Chambers and Partners 2017 (Fraud: Civil)]
"A "very charming" silk with a wealth of experience. He has the skills to handle a variety of matters at the Chancery Bar, but is especially well known for complex civil fraud cases." "Tactically he is right on the money." "He is really quite exceptional and a pleasure to deal with. His arguments are excellent and well-judged." [Chambers and Partners 2017 (Chancery: Commercial)]
"A calm but powerful presence; you wouldn’t want to be cross-examined by him." [The Legal 500 2016 (Commercial Litigation)]
"A class act and the first choice in a crisis; he is cool and measured with a core of steel." [The Legal 500 2016 (Fraud: Civil)]
"His calm and very powerful presence combined with clear analysis gives him real imposing authority" [The Legal 500 2016 (Professional Negligence)]
"He is just a great pleasure to work with and incredibly experienced. He is hands-on and proves very good in court." [Chambers and Partners 2016 (Chancery: Commercial)]
"A wonderfully creative and hard-working young silk who is a pleasure to work with." "Incredibly bright and particularly good with clients." [Chambers and Partners 2016 (Commercial Dispute Resolution)]
"What was impressive was his ability to mix the hard analysis with the difficult practical issues facing the client." [Chambers and Partners 2016 (Fraud: Civil)]
"His advice is always realistic and he doesn’t raise the temperature unnecessarily." [The Legal 500 2015 (Commercial Litigation)]
"Really good at keeping the team focused on the big picture in a massively complex situation." [The Legal 500 2015 (Fraud: Civil)]
"Energetic, enthusiastic and excellent to work with." [The Legal 500 2015 (Professional Negligence)]
"He is extraordinarily pleasant to deal with and a wonderful team player." [Chambers and Partners 2015 (Commercial Chancery)]
"He's very good with clients and is able to adjust the way he delivers advice according to circumstances." [Chambers and Partners 2015 (Fraud: Civil)]
"Enormous talent for a young silk; amazingly capable and a complete pleasure to work with." [The Legal 500 2014 (Fraud: Civil)]
"Highly regarded for his handling of complex large-scale commercial disputes". "He is extraordinarily pleasant to deal with and a wonderful team player." [Chambers and Partners 2014 (Chancery Commercial)]
"A popular recent silk who has particular expertise in civil fraud cases. Sources particularly appreciate him for his user-friendliness" [Chambers and Partners 2014 (Chancery: Dispute Resolution)]
"He is a fantastic barrister, who is intelligent and legally strong. He has the ability to formulate very good strategy with the end result in mind." [Chambers and Partners 2013 (Commercial Dispute Resolution)]
"Handles very difficult situations in a measured fashion, and doesn't take ridiculous positions." [Chambers and Partners 2013 (Chancery Commercial)]
”Exceptionally calm under pressure, he's very sensible and very commercial." [Chambers and Partners 2013 (Fraud: Civil)]
Hugh is described as "good on his feet", "outstandingly clear with clients" and "able to understand commercial realities." [Chancery Commercial, Chambers and Partners 2012]
Lauded by interviewees for his "strategic foresight and sensible, cool head when under fire." [Fraud, Chambers and Partners 2012]
Has a "deceptively good" cross-examination style [Fraud, The Legal 500 2012]
"A terrific advocate who flourishes in highly technical cases involving a cross-pollination of disciplines" [Fraud, Chambers and Partners 2010]
"A brilliant lawyer and great fun to work with" [Fraud, The Legal 500 2010]
"A great solicitor favourite.....praised for his "superior grasp of commercial issues and ability to devise strategies within cost-effective frameworks." [Fraud, Chambers and Partners 2009]
"Tremendously creative, very focused and direct" and is praised for his "wonderfully clear advice" [Fraud, Chambers and Partners 2009]
"Hugh has also been recognised for his "strategic awareness" and "strong people skills" [Fraud, Chambers and Partners 2008]
'Kaye takes up post as new Chancery Master' (May 2019) - CDR
"He is an exceptional cross-examiner, who has the ability to think on his feet."
"Hugh is a brilliant advocate. His ability to create an impression and hold a courtroom is outstanding."
“Extremely clever, commanding and tenacious in court; he knows how to win fraud cases.”
BA, Worcester College, Oxford
Dip. Law (Distinction), City University, London
LLM, Corporate & Commercial Law (Distinction), Kings College, London
Commercial Bar Association
Chancery Bar Association
Basic Spanish and French
Hugh Norbury appears on the BSB reigster as Hugh Robert Norbury.
701587936