Chris Quinn

According to Chambers and Partners, Chris “is often the first port of call in high-value City disputes and is particularly recommended for injunctive relief cases”.

His reputation has been gained over many years and sees him instructed in a large number of such applications. A particular advantage that he enjoys is his expertise in both employment and commercial litigation. Chris is rare in that he is ranked as a leading junior by Chambers & Partners in both fields.

Chris has extensive experience of both applying for and opposing applications for freezing relief, search orders and enforcement of restrictive covenants and fiduciary duties. His work regularly involves intellectual property and other tangential areas.

Many but by no means all of these cases will result in speedy trials.  In respect of these, Chambers and Partners describes him as being “A tremendous cross-examiner and effective fighter” who “produces clear, crisp and persuasive arguments”.

As is illustrated by cases such as Lonmar and Towry Chris has particular expertise in the trials that sometimes do follow from such applications from interim relief and a record of succeeding in the same.

Chris' recent freezing injunction work includes the making of a successful application to vary an injunction so as to allow for the payment of legal fees in FSA v St Clair and others (November 2012).

Chris’ recent High Court trials include the Rubicon hedgefund dispute, Towry EJ Ltd v Bennett and others, Yousefi v SJ Solicitors, Lonmar Global Risks Ltd v West and Others, Utopia v Wright and others and G Attwood Holdings v Woodward. 

He has a track record of success in all these trials.

His successful defence of the First Defendant in the three week £2.5 million High Court Lonmar trial came despite not calling his client to give evidence. The judgment of Mr Justice Hickinbottom was the latest word on the duty of fidelity and the required elements of the torts relevant to these cases.

Such trials often, but not always, result from an initial application for injunctive relief: as to which please see “Injunctions”. The exceptions to this are illustrated by cases such as El-Hajjali which involved consideration of penalty clauses in contracts of employment.

Many of Chris’ cases arise from a commercial relationship other then one of employment. He recently acted for a management company against a celebrity chef and was also instructed in the first case to consider the status of monies paid under a telephone direct debit scheme.

His expertise in High Court trials generally is reflected by his success in a solicitor's negligence claim in Yousefi v SJ Solicitors.

Chris also has extensive experience before the Court of Appeal. In 2009 he succeeded in the land-mark case of Booth v Oldham MBC which is now the leading authority on the inter-relationship between the Disability Discrimination Act and the Local Government Pension Regulations

Chris has been instructed in many of the most noteworthy City discrimination claims on behalf of both Claimants and Respondents and he continues to be. One recent example of such a case is his representation of the former parliamentary sketcher writer for the Daily Telegraph, Andrew Gimson.

Historically, the most well-known of these is probably the “Gay Banker” case (Lewis v HSBC) in which Chris was instructed alone against both Andrew Hochhauser QC and Thomas Linden QC. This may be followed closely by his successful appeal in Serco v Redfearn which established that members of the British National Party could not rely upon the Race Relations Act.

He is frequently instructed in such high-value claims and has acted both for and against many of the leading City institutions.

Chris’ credentials in discrimination cases are reflected by his instruction in Booth v Oldham MBC (inter-relationship between DDA and Local Government Pension Regulations) and in GMB v Allen where he succeeded in establishing that a trade union had discriminated against its female members on the ground of their sex.

In 2010 Chris acted successfully for a major law firm resisting two high-value discrimination claims. In 2011 he was instructed in four similar cases, twice on behalf of the Claimant and twice on behalf of the Respondents. A similar pattern occurred in 2012. One of these cases was his successful defence of a six-figure victimisation claim brought by a previously successful claimant in Saiger v General Healthcare Limited.

Chris has extensive experience of statutory employment claims in the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, most recently in the successful appeal in Bates van Winklehof v Clyde & Co LLP which establsihed that LLP members cannot bring whistleblowing claims.

He acts for both Claimants and Respondents in all areas of statutory employment claims. His recent appellate cases reflect the breadth of his expertise ranging as they do from a successful TUPE appeal in Nationwide Building Society v Benn [2010] IRLR 922 to a successful appeal against a finding of unfair dismissal in Celebi v Compass.

Chris is instructed in a large number of whistle-blowing claims- an area which often calls for extensive cross-examination skills given the issue of good-faith which is so frequently fundamental to such claims.

Applications for Interim Relief are another specialism.

Chris is regularly instructed in a broad range of civil disputes including a number of disciplinary and regulatory claims where a robust approach is sought by solicitors and their clients.

Chris is also regularly instructed in sports, media and entertainment cases and his experience extends to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Geneva. He has appeared in many of the domestic sporting tribunals. Recent cases include Lawrie Sanchez v Barnet FC in which he successfully defended a football club against a claim of unfair dismissal.

Chris' expertise also leads to him being instructed on behalf of solicitors, law firms and even barristers on their own behalf.