Justin Nimmo

Partner, Dispute Resolution

Clients – both corporate and individual – and fellow legal professionals turn to Rosenblatt’s Dispute Resolution team for incisive action on contentious commercial issues. The team has acquired an outstanding international reputation for its success in litigation, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, and for its skill in smoothing the path to a positive outcome.

Justin Nimmo joined Rosenblatt in 2008  after previously working for Simmons & Simmons, where he qualified in 1997.

He has extensive experience of commercial disputes, including company/shareholder disputes, contractual disputes, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Justin also has extensive experience in administrative law and broadcasting law having acted for Ofcom’s forerunner, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), for over three years.

Recent work includes:
  • Advising a Defendant in a multi-billion pound claim brought by the Danish Tax Authority in relation to dividend withholding tax reclaims.  The claim currently comprises circa 100 defendants and the trial is expected to be heard in 2023.
  • Bott & Co vs Ryanair [2019] EWCA Civ 143 – Advising on a claim in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court examining in what circumstances solicitors have the benefit of an equitable lien for payment of their costs out of any settlement monies received.
  • Goel and another v Grant and another (Re Meem SL Limited) [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch), advising a shareholder on a claim involving an assessment unfair harm to creditors/shareholders under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.
  • Global Energy Horizons 2015 EWhC 2232, advising a Canadian corporation in respect of a detailed enquiry and account of profits following a judgment that a defendant was in breach of fiduciary duty, with the court ruling that a principal may elect to take the value of assets rather than the assets themselves following a breach of fiduciary duty, and that the burden of proof lies with the fiduciary to prove that he or she has no interest in an asset.
  • Acting for a Canadian corporation in a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against one of its shareholders – Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2012] EWHC 3703 (Ch). Subsequent to securing a successful judgment on liability, the defendant was ordered to account for benefits accrued from his breach, which has required highly complex investigative proceedings in England, the USA and the Seychelles.
  • Acting for a government-backed investment fund and its private equity management company in seeking injunctive relief and damages against management directors of a bridging loan company that had defrauded investors in a highly complex fraud – Hemsley & Anor v Graham & Ors [2013] EWHC 2232 (Ch) (31 July 2013).
  • Acting for a private equity claimant against the management of a recruitment company in which it was the major shareholder, the company’s management having engaged in a conspiracy to acquire the company in breach of their contractual obligations.