Koen De Puydt

News Article by Leaders in Law Member – Koen De Puydt

Professional Liability of Intellectual professions in the Construction Sector 

Following the ten-year liability insurance for real estate projects for architects, engineering firms and contractors, which was made mandatory by the “Peeters-Borsus Law” since 1 July 2018, another insurance obligation has been introduced within the construction sector by the “Peeters-Ducarme Law” effective 1 July 2019. 

The title of this law is self-explanatory. It introduces “a professional liability insurance for architects, surveyor experts, safety and health coordinators and other service providers in the construction sector relating to construction works and amends various legal provisions regarding civil liability insurance in the construction sector”, as mentioned earlier also called the Peeters-Ducarme Law. 


This title shows that this law has in principle a larger scope than the Peeters-Borsus Law. Where the latter applies primarily to contractors and architects in the context of housing projects and for works that require the intervention of an architect, the Peeters-Ducarme Law introduces a professional liability insurance for all intellectual professions within the construction sector, with regard to all construction work. 

Consequently, the Peeters-Ducarme Law does not apply to contractors, but it applies to all kind of real estate work (and therefore not only with regard to housing projects). Thus, as a result of the execution of all real estate works, the principal will enjoy this protection regardless of the final destination of the property or the possible intervention of an architect. 

Compulsory insurance coverage cannot be lower, per claim, than:

  • € 1,500,000 for damage resulting from physical injuries;
  • € 500,000 for the total material and immaterial damage;
  • € 10,000 for the objects entrusted to the insured by the principal.

The law also provides for a posterior coverage on the basis of which the liability for claims must be covered if the claim is filed within three years after the cessation of the activities of the insured service provider . 

Although it could be expected that the Peeters-Ducarme Law has a larger scope than the Peeters-Borsus Law, we must conclude that it is largely eroded by the exceptions that are provided for in respect of the damage that the insurance must cover. 

For example, Article 5 of the Peeters-Ducarme Law states that damages are not covered if it is the consequence of a failure to comply with one or more contractual obligations or if damages resulting from environmental degradation, claims relating to an inadequate budget, or disputes in relation to fees and expenses.

These exceptions erode the potentially extensive coverage provided by the Peeters-Ducarme Law significantly and therefore the latter offers less protection than might be expected at first sight. 

The Peeters-Ducarme law has been published yesterday (26 June 2019) in the Belgian Official Gazette and will enter into force on 1 July 2019. 

Peeters Law (to be soon Seeds of Law) will be happy to provide you with the necessary advice or assistance in this matter. Please contact us via or by telephone on +32 (0)2 747 40 07.

Koen De Puydt – Toon Delie

Real Estate and Construction Law    Professional Liability     Professional Liability insurance     Intellectual professions     construction sector     architect surveyor expert    safety and health coordinator

City lawyers need to embrace their inner entrepreneur

Ahead of tomorrow’s event, ‘Life on the frontline of the global economy’, White & Case counsel Catherine Andrews looks back on her career in capital markets

Despite fears that global economic growth is slowing, investment into emerging infrastructure markets remains buoyant. According to White & Case counsel Catherine Andrews, the demand for increased spending on roads, ports and energy facilities often follows a so-called “infrastructure funding gap”, where governments look to institutional investors to enable them to realise their extensive energy and infrastructure requirements. Bridging this funding gap, however, is costly and requires external advice and structuring, as Catherine explains:

“There’s only so much funding a government can give for an energy or infrastructure project. So, there’s always a need for private investment and financing — regardless of the state of the global economy.”

As a capital markets lawyer specialising in infrastructure, Catherine advises government entities and corporations on accessing the international capital markets to raise the required funds by way of a bond issuance (effectively a form of debt security). This type of transaction gives investors a steady return of interest and principal over a prescribed period of time, and provides government entities and corporations with a viable and cost effective way of funding large projects as an alternative or complementary source of funding to traditional bank loans. Catherine, along with her team, help prepare the underlying legal documentation, including a bond prospectus which “drills down into the detail” of the project and explains the transaction to investors.

In the past year, London-based Catherine has represented a number of high-profile oil and gas and infrastructure clients from the Middle East issue bonds worth billions of dollars. Africa’s capital markets, too, are seeing heightened activity. “Africa is a key area of focus for White & Case — huge infrastructure is on the agenda,” says Catherine, who’s currently advising a Nigerian oil and gas company on its debut capital markets issuance.

But this buoyant practice area remains “extremely sensitive” to shifting geopolitics and market confidence Catherine explains. “The difficulty is that when you’re having to access the markets at a time where there is underlying turbulence or uncertainty, a number of uncontrollable external factors can have an immediate negative impact on market conditions on any given day. This means that ultimately, issuers can be forced to agree to a higher rate of interest on the bonds to be issued in order to successfully close a deal with investors, or risk waiting for market conditions to improve before closing that can cause an unlimited amount of delay.”

Amid ongoing US-China trade tensions, and an increasing use of economic sanctions by governments worldwide, capital markets lawyers must remain aware of what is going on in the world and where the introduction or expansion of sanctions legislation could impact a transaction. “Sanctions were hardly mentioned when I qualified but are now a big part of every transaction we do,” says Catherine, who studied modern history at the University of Oxford.

Being proactive in advising clients aligns with the entrepreneurial mindset typical of lawyers at leading US law firms, such as White & Case. Catherine explains: “It’s about being able to pre-empt challenges and offer advice before market developments hit news headlines, so you can immediately ring up your client and say, ‘I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but it may impact you. Would you like me to prepare some advice for you on this?’”

This readiness to act stems in part from Catherine’s experience of the 2008 financial crash. “I qualified in September 2008 — Lehman Brothers collapsed two months later. The international credit markets were effectively frozen. For us lawyers, it was an extremely difficult time,” recalls Catherine.

The crash signalled an end to the economic boom and the seemingly endless supply of work for City lawyers. “When I entered law, I saw it as a job for life. You could go in, train at a big firm and then you’re set up with a ‘guaranteed’ job. But the economic crisis was a big wake up call to everybody. Work is not guaranteed; you can’t take it for granted.”

Fortunately, Catherine qualified at a magic circle law firm in Dubai, whose economy remained relatively robust during the crisis. “In the fall-out from Lehman, the Middle East, which was traditionally seen as a risky commercial environment, was now regarded as a safe haven for bond investors, and was somewhat shielded from the financial crisis. So, while my colleagues were twiddling their thumbs back in London, I was extremely busy and cutting my teeth on some really interesting and novel deals,” she tells us.

In 2012 Catherine joined White & Case’s Abu Dhabi office, which offered greater opportunities to specialise in government-led project financing. Three years later, she transferred to the firm’s London office.

Despite the long hours and the challenge of overseeing several deals at once, Catherine enjoys the “thrill” of building new client relationships. “When you represent a client on a bond transaction, you have the ability to become their trusted legal advisor. Walking them through the steps of issuing a bond also means you get a real insight into their business, which offers up plenty of opportunities to cross-sell other legal services to them.”

So, what does it take to make it at a big US law firm? Well, according to Catherine, it’s showing that you’re a team player:

“It doesn’t matter how much you know about a practice area; always remember that you are a vital part of a team. Regardless how mundane the work you are set, a whole team of partners and associates deeply rely on you carrying out those tasks extremely well. We can teach you how documents can be drafted, but what we can’t teach is good work ethic.”

Demonstrating such diligence from the get-go is vital. “Trainees should view each seat on a training contract as a six month job interview. By the end of your seat, you should be regarded as someone that’s indispensable in the team and ultimately a safe pair of hands who can be relied on to execute at the highest level,” Catherine advises.



Working at Baker McKenzie

We are different from other law firms in the way we think, work and behave. Global in our outlook from the beginning, for six consecutive years we have been named as the world’s strongest law firm brand by Acritas, underlining our dedication to being the best. We know the value of our talent in sustaining this success and so we’re committed to offering the platform to nurture this talent.

Breach-of-Contract Lawsuit Against Global Payments

Global Payments Inc. may be on the hook for more than $135 million following a jury verdict in a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by an independent sales organization against the Atlanta-based processor.

A jury in the Superior Court of DeKalb County in Georgia found that Global Payments breached parts of its merchant-service agreement with Frontline Processing Corp., a Bozeman, Mont.-based ISO. The jury on Sept. 23 awarded the ISO more than $24 million in direct damages and $109.8 million in consequential damages. It also awarded Frontline more than $1 million to cover its costs and attorney fees. Judge Linda W. Hunter signed the judgment Sept. 30.

Global Payments intends to appeal the decision. “We believe this case is completely without merit and will appeal it immediately,” says a statement from the processor to Digital Transactions News. “The outcome is inconsistent with the facts and well-settled law, and we fully expect to prevail on appeal. We will not stop until this gross miscarriage of justice is reversed.”

Frontline filed the suit in 2015 after Global Payments withheld funds to cover its legal costs in a lawsuit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought against the processor and two ISOs, Frontline and Pathfinder Payment Solutions Inc., for allegedly providing payment services to malicious merchants. That case was dismissed in 2017.

Pathfinder was dismissed by the DeKalb County court as a plaintiff in 2018 when it could not provide an attorney to represent it, says Joe Gleason, Frontline co-counsel and partner at Atlanta-based Gleason Law LLC.

The dispute between Frontline and Global Payments actually preceded the CFPB action, Gleason tells Digital Transactions News. In 2013, Frontline and Global Payments were negotiating to extend their contract, but Global Payments wanted to add terms that Frontline was not willing to agree to, Gleason says.

In 2014, after shopping around, Frontline agreed to a similar deal with First Data Corp. and told Global Payments it would stay if it could match First Data’s pricing. “Global did not match the pricing,” Gleason says.

Under Frontline’s agreement with Global Payments, merchants that Frontline refers to the processor are portable. Global Payments would not allow that, Gleason says, making it one of the breach claims.

“Then the CFPB case comes along and becomes a convenient excuse to destroy Frontline by withholding Frontline’s funds, by withholding merchant-reserve funds, by locking Frontline out of Global’s computer systems,” Gleason says. That effectively cut Frontline out of the picture, he says, placing Global in direct dealings with the referred merchants, another breach allegation.

“In our view, the breach-of-contract cases did not start with the CFPB lawsuit,” Gleason says. “Instead, it was just one more step.”

Frontline contended that neither the merchant-services agreement nor referral agreement the ISOs had with Global Payments allowed the processor to “deduct as expense or withhold from compensation owed to Pathfinder or Frontline Global’s legal fees incurred in defending itself in the CFPB action.”

Wynne Lawrence

Climate change: A City lawyer’s perspective

Ahead of Thursday’s event, ‘Climate change and the law’, senior associate Wynne Lawrence explains how Clyde & Co is helping its clients prepare for a greener future

“Corporate clients are increasingly aware of the risks climate change poses to the way their businesses operate, as well as the opportunities for whole new areas of business to open up, as we move towards a more climate-resilient and low-carbon economy,” says Wynne Lawrence, a senior associate in Clyde & Co’s London office. “A growing body of international regulations and national laws, fuelled, in part, by changing attitudes toward climate science and policy, is presenting new opportunities for lawyers in assisting clients navigate the rapidly changing risk landscape.”

In response to this shift in focus, Clyde & Co launched a cross-practice area climate change resilience initiative to help advise clients on the new challenges they face. The group, headed up by Clyde & Co partner Nigel Brook, spans sectors including insurance & reinsurance, shipping, aviation, tech, energy & natural resources and global trade.

“I got involved in 2016 following a speech by the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, to the insurance market Lloyd’s of London”, insurance & reinsurance specialist Lawrence explains. “Carney highlighted, among other things, the severe threats posed by climate change to the financial sector. So, with this in mind, we started working to build our knowledge around the potential issues, particularity with regards to the insurance sector. Clyde & Co’s climate risk and resilience group has grown and expanded internationally and across practice areas.”

The group’s focus over the past two years or so has been to provide guidance on climate-related risk management and regulatory issues, including through the firm’s online ‘Resilience’ hub, which hosts firm reports, articles, explainers and even a podcast featuring Lawrence and Brook.

Lawrence, who will be speaking at Thursday’s panel event, ‘Climate change and the law — with Clyde & Co’, continues:

“Through our climate risk consultancy, we assist clients in identifying risks posed by climate change to their businesses, supply chains, assets and infrastructure. This includes risks and opportunities associated with the shift towards a low carbon economy, as well as liability risks, the prospect of legal claims by those suffering losses due to climate change.”

The heightened awareness, which stems, in part, from a societal shift to combat the growing threat of climate change, will likely result in other big legal players launching similar initiatives, predicts Lawrence. “It’s inevitable that others will follow. Climate change, unfortunately, isn’t a problem which is going to go away — so there will continue to be a need for legal guidance,” she says.

There’s also been an upturn in climate-related litigation, notes Canadian-born Lawrence, who studied International Relations at the University of Toronto before relocating to London to complete a masters at the London School of Economics.

Find out more about training at Clyde & Co

A recent Clyde & Co report, ‘Climate change: Liability risks, a rising tide of litigation’, describes how over 1,200 climate change cases have been filed in more than 30 jurisdictions to date. The first wave of legal action, Lawrence explains, is targeted predominantly at governments and municipalities over their alleged failure to comply with their international environmental commitments.

One such example of this can be found in Pakistan, where a Karachi farmer challenged the government’s alleged failure to control air pollution. The High Court later ruled that the government must disclose details of what it was doing to address the problem in the country, which in turn led to Pakistan’s environmental protection agency installing air quality monitors and warning factories to add air cleaning filters to smoke-emitting chimneys.

This upturn in action is also partly in response to the way the courts, particularly in the US, are now looking at environmental issues as a legal problem as opposed to a political one, according to Lawrence. “This coupled with a greater understanding of climate risk through advancements in science has seen more and more cases come before the courts,” she explains.

Climate work aside, Lawrence was first attracted to Clyde & Co due to its strong international presence. Since joining as a trainee in 2012, she’s had the opportunity to spend time in the firm’s offices in Johannesburg, Cape Town as part of Clyde & Co’s Global Associate Programme — an international secondment initiative for its associates, and Toronto, as well as a six-month stint in Hong Kong as a trainee.

Away from the cut and thrust of corporate law, Lawrence likes to indulge in a spot of martial arts. “I did Kung Fu at school and Judo during my time at college. I am in the process of training towards my black belt in Aikido — it’s a great way to unwind at the end of the day,” she tells Legal Cheek Careers.

So what advice does Lawrence have for readers looking to follow in her footsteps and work for an international law firm? She tells us:

“Think carefully about the firms you’re applying to. Taking a focused, tailored approach to your training contract applications will be far more effective than a scattergun one. Ask yourself, ‘why do I want to work for this firm?’ and be sure you know the answer. It will be easy to spot — even at the application stage — if you’re not genuinely interested in or serious about the firm.”

Wynne Lawrence will be speaking alongside other Clyde & Co lawyers at Thursday’s ‘Climate change and the law’ event. The event is fully booked, however you can still apply to the waiting list.

Counsel fee not fixed for claim which left protocol

Counsel fees for a case which dropped out of the pre-action protocol do not need to be fixed, a senior costs judge has ruled.

Master Brown, sitting in the High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office), rejected an appeal from the defendant in Dover v Finsbury Food Group Plc to restrict costs to the fixed £150, instead upholding a decision of a costs officer to award £500. He held that the relevant provisions permitted recovery of counsel’s fee for advising in conference as a disbursement.

The personal injury claim was started under the pre-action protocol for low-value personal injury, but settled for £70,000 after leaving the portal.

In their points of dispute, the defendant disputed any entitlement to payment of counsel’s fee, contending that no such fee was payable under the relevant provisions in a claim which exited the protocol. It was submitted the costs were deemed to be included within the fixed fees.

Master Brown cited Qader, where Lord Justice Briggs (as he then was) described the protocol as providing an efficient modern framework for resolving modest PI claims, but not designed for resolving large claims or complex disputes. The judge in Qader ruled that PI cases that leave the portal and continue on the multi-track were not subject to fixed costs.

The defendants argued in Dover that the detail of Civil Procedure Rules did not permit recovery of specialist or counsel advice if incurred after a claim has exited the protocol. Master Brown said this reading of the provisions was ‘strained’ and there was no such restriction.

The judge said it was clear the government, when it adopted the rules, was concerned that without the provision of such costs, claims would be under-settled. Hence, specialist and independent advice (if reasonably required) would be payable by, in effect, a ring-fenced payment in the form of a disbursement.

He added: ‘In cases which exit the protocols on the grounds that the value exceeds £25,000, it is difficult to see, given the likely added complexity associated with them that it must have been intended that costs of any independent advice required would be so limited.’ The defendant’s appeal was dismissed.

Penn Law Launch New Project on the Future of the Legal Profession

The University of Pennsylvania Law School’s new Future of the Profession Initiative aims to position students and alumni for the legal profession of the future, while also helping improve access to justice.

Can a law school, with the help of alumni attorneys and entrepreneurs, figure out how best to train the next generation of lawyers and improve the profession as a whole?

The University of Pennsylvania Law School is banking that it can. The Philadelphia school has launched what it calls the Future of the Profession Initiative, which aims to pursue innovations not only in how new lawyers are produced, but how law is practiced and who it helps. Unveiled Tuesday, the initiative is debuting with a slate of programs that include an executive education academy for alumni who are five years out of school, a podcast centered on the changing profession, an innovation competition and a symposium in February that will bring leaders from across the profession together to discuss the future of law.

“Change in the legal field is accelerating as technology evolves, new entrants join the industry, the practice of law becomes more globalized, regulatory frameworks governing lawyers shift, and attorneys approach their careers differently,” said Penn Law Dean Ted Ruger in an announcement of the initiative. “As a result, law school applicants, students and graduates are thinking in new ways about how they imagine their careers, underscoring the need for a solution that promotes innovation, thought leadership, and enhanced interdisciplinary education and engagement.”

Defining the mission and scope of the initiative is an ongoing challenge for its founders, which includes Jennifer Leonard, the law school’s chief innovation officer and the initiative’s executive director. That’s due in part to the fact that the initiative is a work in progress and its focus and programming will change over time. Some of its projects will prove successful, while some will fail—a reality that its leaders say they are comfortable with. But at its core, the initiative is intended to bring all of the law school’s innovation efforts under one umbrella, tap into the university’s larger innovation resources, and identify ways to help Penn Law students and alumni develop professionally throughout their entire career.

But the initiative has larger, profession-wide goals as well, namely improving access to justice through innovation. The focus isn’t solely on technology, which helps differentiate Penn’s program from some existing innovation centers at other law schools.

“This is designed to set us up for the next 50 years of the changes that we’ll see in the future,” Leonard said in an interview Monday. “That’s why we named it what we did: We want it to be broad enough to be nimble and adapt because certainly the changes we see today will be different from the changes we’ll see five, 10, and 15 years from now. This initiative will be structured in a way that allows us to adapt to those changing conditions.”

The initiative will kick off with a number of defined projects, which will be added to and subtracted from depending on their levels of success, Leonard said. Among them is the Five-Year-Out-Academy, in which Penn alumni who graduated five years ago can return to campus for a free week of executive education, including instruction on legal project management, negotiation skills, well-being for lawyers, law firm finance, cross-cultural competency, leading teams, strategic decision-making and client-centered design.

The school will also host a symposium in February with a broad range of legal thought leaders to discuss the future of the legal profession and create an upper-level interdisciplinary seminar course called “Innovation in Legal Services: Design Thinking to Optimize Client Service.” And the new Dean’s Innovation Competition will offer awards to entrants who identify new ways to deliver client services and close the access to justice gap.

The initiative and the first wave of projects were conceived with the help of an advisory board drawn from Penn Law alumni with a broad array of legal experience. They include Legal Services Corp. president Jim Sandman; Pro Bono Net’s Claudia Johnson; and Burford Capital managing director David Perla.

Perla said he wanted to be involved immediately, in part because the school’s reputation for fostering entrepreneurship for the greater good means the initiative already has many campus resources to draw upon. And the makeup of the advisory board ensures that many different perspectives are represented, he said.

“They picked people who did all sorts of different things with their degrees, most of whom no longer practice law,” he said. ““In some ways, we’re asking, ‘Can we make law better?’ And that’s really exciting to everyone.”

Legal aid as important for economy as hospitals and school

Increasing access to justice can be a ‘win-win’ for businesses, IBA-World Bank report claims

Improving legal aid services is as important for economic growth as providing functioning hospitals, schools and roads, the International Bar Association (IBA) and World Bank claim.

The jointly produced report, A Tool for Justice: A Cost Benefit Analysis of Legal Aid, looked at more than 50 cost and benefit studies of legal aid programmes and found that increased access to justice can be a “win-win” for businesses, the economy and society at large.

The report, launched this week at the IBA conference in Seoul, South Korea, argues that failing to provide adequate legal aid does not save money, but simply shifts the financial burden to other areas of government spending such as healthcare, housing, child protection and imprisonment.

For example, the report cites a study in Canada which estimated the costs of unequal access to justice on public spending in other areas (employment insurance, social assistance and healthcare) to be roughly 2.35 times more than the annual direct service expenditures on legal aid.

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

“Unaddressed legal needs affect individuals, their families, the justice system, the economy and society as a whole,” commented Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, a member of the IBA Access to Justice and Legal Aid Committee. “As a profession we must continue to champion legal aid programmes and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to access justice.”

The report further claims that around 5.1 billion people — roughly two-thirds of the world’s population — lack “meaningful” access to justice, the result of which can lead to people becoming trapped in “vicious cycles of poverty, inequality and marginalisation”.

Georgia Harley, senior governance specialist at the World Bank, added: “Legal aid is undeniably good economics. Strengthening legal aid and related services increases access to justice and ensures that the rule of law is upheld. Most importantly, improving legal aid programmes saves government money and strengthens the economy in the long term.”

The report’s release follows the Labour Party’s pledge to provide free legal training for 200 lawyers specialising in areas such as benefits, debt, housing, employment and immigration.

By on

Unusual to hire “junior junior” barristers to help with big cases?

Rookie Richard Howell once worked for Dominic Cummings on the Vote Leave campaign

One of the lawyers defending Boris Johnson in last month’s landmark Supreme Court case on the prorogation of parliament was only just finishing off his barrister qualifications at the time.

Richard Howell, who officially joined Brick Court Chambers last month after completing pupillage, was part of the government’s legal team alongside Sir Eadie QC and two heavy-hitting juniors. He had previously played a key role in the successful Vote Leave campaign to leave the EU, working closely with Johnson’s top advisor Dominic Cummings.

Former government lawyer Carl Gardner said that instructing a newly qualified barrister in such a high profile case was “surprising” and raised questions for the Attorney General’s office.

But the Attorney General’s spokesperson said that it was not unusual to hire “junior junior” barristers to help with big cases.

Howell, who was called to the bar in 2018, is listed in both the High Court and Supreme Court judgments in the prorogation case as one of four government counsel. The others were Sir James Eadie QC, David Blundell and Christopher Knight.

Eadie is First Treasury Counsel and handles the government’s most complex and sensitive cases, while Blundell and Knight are both on the Attorney General’s panel of preferred lawyers for government work.

The government can instruct “junior juniors” to do low-grade work without needing to recruit from the preferred panel. The Attorney General’s office told Legal Cheek that there was nothing particularly unusual about retaining a junior junior, but confirmed that the Attorney General had personally signed off the legal team.

Although new to the bar, Howell (pictured below) boasts an impressive CV. He graduated from Oxford with a first in history in 2014, took a distinction in the GDL in 2015 and an outstanding BPTC grade in 2018. In between, he worked as a researcher for the Vote Leave campaign and was said by insiders to be the brains of its research operation.

Patrick O’Connor QC had told The Lawyer “on what I have been told, the process of this appointment to the Prime Minister’s counsel team, in such a sensitive case, is surprising, and calls for explanation”.

Gardner told Legal Cheek “I think people are right to be asking questions about this, and that the Attorney’s office should answer them”.

A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office said: “As with any case of this magnitude, the Attorney General agreed the composition of the counsel team for Miller v The Prime Minister. As a junior junior, Richard Howell was supervised by First Treasury Counsel Sir James Eadie QC and other more senior members of the counsel team, David Blundell and Chris Knight”.

The Brick Court website says that “before coming to the bar, Richard worked for a year in politics, providing policy advice and assistance to cabinet ministers, MPs and peers”.

This is a modest description of what many say was a key role in the Vote Leave campaign.

Howell is described in the book All Out War, a well-reviewed account of the EU referendum campaign, as a “whizzkid” researcher nicknamed “Ricardo” by Dominic Cummings and other Vote Leave figures.

According to the book, Howell drafted part of Vote Leave’s application to be designated as the official Leave campaign by the Electoral Commission. Howell reportedly spotted a glaring error in the application form the night before submission — which might otherwise have allowed the Nigel Farage-backed Leave.EU group to become the official face of Leave.

Last year, Dominic Cummings mentioned Howell on his blog as one of Vote Leave’s key figures.

Howell officially joined Brick Court in “September 2019”, and was reportedly still completing his pupillage when instructed in the prorogation case. His practising certificate dates from 23 September 2019, according to the barristers’ regulator — one day before the Supreme Court handed down its judgment.

Brick Court Chambers has been approached for comment.

Clyde & Co Revenue Tops £600M

Clyde & Co’s revenue has jumped 11% to exceed £600m for the first time.