Carlo Taczalski

Carlo is regularly instructed as sole counsel, junior counsel, and increasingly in a leading capacity, in commercial matters involving for example: civil fraud, conspiracy, shareholder disputes, directors’ duties, breaches of trust, freezing injunctions, the sale of goods, the supply of goods and services, bailment, franchise agreements, hire agreements and defective products.

He has experience of cases with international elements including issues of jurisdiction and choice of law and can often make himself available at short notice where the case requires it, for example, where an interim injunction is to be applied for or resisted.

Carlo is also engaged to advise on contracts as they are being negotiated and is happy to do so on a public access basis where appropriate.

Selected Cases

• Sanglier v Apollo – Carlo was counsel for Apollo (leading Michael Harper) on a 5-week trial, following which (and before judgment) Sanglier discontinued against Carlo’s clients, and agreed to pay a significant sum in respect of costs. Concerned complex expert evidence as to the formulation of an adhesive, and questions of limitation of liability.
• Ingenious Litigation – Instructed, with Ben Quiney KC and Frederick Simpson for one of the lead Defendants in the Ingenious Litigation.  The litigation concerned the alleged fraudulent and negligent mis-selling of investments in a series of film and game finance schemes.  The Claimants totalled over 600 and brought claims for in excess of £200m.  The case was named as one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2018. Carlo and Ben were successful in applying for security for costs from a commercial litigation funder funding a number of the Claimants’ claims.  Carlo later led Frederick Simpson in the Court of Appeal overturning an Order that his client provide a cross-undertaking as the price for obtaining security for costs which would have had significant ramifications for his client’s total exposure.  The overall claim settled shortly before trial.
• Wilson James v MSL Recruitment – Carlo was instructed as sole counsel (against leading and junior counsel) on a claim put at in excess of £2-3m arising out of the supply of temporary workers to a construction site in Belgium.
• Borro v Aitken – Carlo was instructed (with Daniel Shapiro KC) to defend Borro Group’s ex-CEO against allegations of dishonesty and mismanagement, including questions of compliance with relevant regulatory obligations, during his tenure as Borro Group CEO.
• St Vincent v Picton Jones – Carlo, with Ben Quiney KC, successfully resisted the joinder of their client (a UK asset management company) to a long-running claim based upon a conspiracy to sell land in Poland at undervalue, and thereby strip a Polish company of its main asset. The case involved questions of Cypriot and Polish law and limitation periods, reflective loss, and conspiracy to cause loss by unlawful means.
• Property development arbitration – Instructed as sole counsel in an arbitration concerning the amount payable under a joint venture agreement for the development of houses in London; the amount at stake is approximately £2m.
• Water treatment arbitration – Instructed as sole counsel in arbitral proceedings concerning a water treatment plant in Eastern Europe, which is said to have been defectively constructed and / or designed (the claim is put at circa Euro 2m).
• Salt s.r.l. v Frazer-Nash Research Limited – A Mercantile Court claim in respect of the development of a prototype luxury electric vehicle. Carlo acted with Muhammed Haque KC for the developers who were suing for fees due under the development agreement and are defending a counterclaim said to be worth in excess of £20 million for various allegedly lost opportunities and development costs.
• Landmark Limited & Woods Development Limited v American International Bank (In receivership) – This was a Privy Council appeal from the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal; it concerned the basis on which the Appellants were entitled to charge and claim for electricity which they had provided following the inability of the Antiguan statutory provider to meet the Respondent’s needs. Carlo was instructed with Kim Franklin KC for the successful Appellants.
• Antigua Power Company Limited v The Attorney General of Antigua & Barbuda & Others – Claim for approximately £100m in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. It arose out of a breach by the Antiguan Government of a Joint Venture Agreement to build a power-plant in Antigua. The Privy Council upheld APCL’s claim for breach of contract in 2013 (the report is at [2013] UKPC 23), and remitted the assessment of damages to the Antiguan High Court. Carlo was instructed on the assessment of damages trial with Kim Franklin KC and Dane Hamilton KC.
• Antigua Power Company Limited v The Attorney General of Antigua & Barbuda & Others – Carlo was also instructed (with Geoffrey Robertson KC and Kim Franklin KC) on a further claim on behalf of APCL claiming substantial damages as a result of a conspiracy to cause loss by unlawful means in Antigua.
• Papa John’s v Doyley – Junior counsel for Ms Doyley, the successful defendant franchisee, at the liability trial of her counterclaim for well over £1/2 m in damages for negligent misstatement and misrepresentation; led by Jason Evans-Tovey, they were successful on virtually all issues argued at trial including a number of technical arguments relating to the incorporation and construction of various non-reliance, exclusion and guarantee clauses. The nine-day liability trial included an application by Papa John’s to adduce further witness evidence midway through the trial. Jason and Carlo successfully resisted the application; the judgment is at [2011] EWHC 2621 (QB).
• Catapult & Lowe v Ariadne – Sole counsel for Catapult & Lowe in a dispute over a consultancy contract. Carlo successfully had the allegedly substantial counterclaim struck out and was successful on virtually all issues fought at trial with the result that Ms Lowe was awarded (a little) in excess of her Part 36 offer made about 2 years before trial, and was awarded indemnity costs for the entire period of the claim.

Carlo has a significant practice in specialising in claims which are the result of alleged or actual fraud and dishonesty and can be available at short notice to respond to or make applications for interlocutory relief such as Freezing Order, Norwich Pharmacal and Search Order applications, as well as to act in civil fraud trials, and committal/contempt applications.  Such applications can arise in a number of contexts, including global cyber fraud, misappropriation of assets by employees and theft of confidential information.  Many of Carlo’s instructions in these respects are confidential.

He has particular experience in cases which have a cross-border element, with cases involving Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean.

His experience includes:

• Sole counsel successfully resisting late notice freezing injunction against three Defendants and acting on the defence of the claim involving allegations of conspiracy and dishonest assistance.
• Making and resisting various Norwich Pharmacal applications.
• Sole counsel for a major insurance broker accused by a policyholder of fraudulently conspiring with a leading insurer, and of making various fraudulent representations to secure the renewal of insurance policies covering a £1 billion property portfolio (against a silk and junior).
• Sole counsel for a European insurer, whose reinsurance broker placed a reinsurance policy with a fraudulent sub-broker, such that the policy turned out not to exist.
• Junior counsel (instructed alongside Daniel Shapiro KC) defending a company director against allegations that he suppressed certain documents from the company’s board and other decision makers in the course of managing a group of companies, and then deliberately concealed his conduct.
• Ingenious Litigation – Instructed, with Ben Quiney KC and Frederick Simpson, for one of the lead Defendants in the Ingenious Litigation.  The litigation concerned the alleged fraudulent and negligent mis-selling of investments in a series of film and game finance schemes.  The Claimants totalled over 600 and brought claims for in excess of £200m.  The case was named as one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2018. Carlo and Ben were successful in applying for security for costs from a commercial litigation funder funding a number of the Claimants’ claims.  Carlo later led Frederick Simpson in the Court of Appeal in relation to the conditions to be attached to that security.  The overall claim settled shortly before trial.
• Instructed for Antigua Power Company in a claim alleging a fraudulent conspiracy between members of the Government of Antigua, and Chinese state-owned entities.
• Counsel for a prominent family, advising on the ramifications of and remedies, following a group of people obtaining an arbitration award by fraud.

Carlo has been recognised as a Leading Individual in this area by the Legal 500 since 2018.

Many of Carlo’s commercial instructions are in the context of construction, engineering and energy (including PFI and PPP) disputes.  Carlo’s expertise in construction, insurance and professional negligence makes an excellent choice where the issues involved in the case straddle those different traditional specialisms; a number of Carlo’s instructions are therefore in cases where issues of negligence and / or breach of contract overlap with questions of insurance coverage, including in a construction context.

In addition to appearing in Court, Carlo is adept at dealing with disputes in arbitration, adjudication or mediation. He has recently been instructed by a well-known contractor in a series of adjudications, where the difference in the parties’ valuations of the work undertaken on the subcontract is in the region of £3m; by a main MEP contractor on an adjudication with the difference between the parties in excess of £1.5m arising out of the building of a tower block near Canary Wharf; and by a well-known groundworks contractor on a series of disputes with a prominent contractor in connection with various housing developments in the North, as well as in many other disputes.

As well as appearing in adjudications, Carlo is a TECBAR accredited Adjudicator

Carlo is the author of the chapter about the NHBC in Emden’s Construction Law.

Selected Cases

• AZ v BY [2023 EWHC 2388 (TCC) – Carlo represented the successful Part 8 Claimant / Part 7 Defendant in what is thought to be the first case in England and Wales, in which an adjudicator’s decision was declared unenforceable for apparent bias, after one party placed without prejudice material before the adjudicator.
• Architect’s dispute with Oxbridge College – Together with Ben Quiney KC, Carlo successfully defended an architect’s practice in a £9M adjudication brought by an Oxbridge College in relation to the renovation of one of its main listed courts.
• Sole counsel for the successful applicants in AIG Europe v McCormick which has re-stated the correct approach to substituting parties after the expiry of a limitation period.
• Electrical works at London Bridge Station – Carlo was instructed for one of the parties in relation to aspects of electrical work carried out on the redevelopment of London Bridge Station. The dispute settled confidentially.
• Property development arbitration – Carlo successfully represented a developer as sole counsel in an arbitration concerning the amount payable under a joint venture agreement for the development of houses in London.  The dispute was put at about £2m.
• Water treatment arbitration – Instructed as sole counsel in arbitral proceedings concerning a water treatment plant in Eastern Europe, which is said to have been defectively constructed and /or designed (the claim is put at circa Euro 2m).
• Landmark Limited & Woods Development Limited v American International Bank (In receivership) – This was a Privy Council appeal from the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal; it concerned the basis on which the Appellants were entitled to charge and claim for electricity which they had provided following the inability of the Antiguan statutory provider to meet the Respondent’s needs. Carlo was instructed with Kim Franklin KC for the successful Appellants.
• Antigua Power Company Limited v The Attorney General of Antigua & Barbuda & Others – Claim for approximately £100m in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. It arose out of a breach by the Antiguan Government of a Joint Venture Agreement to build a power plant in Antigua. The Privy Council upheld APCL’s claim for breach of contract in 2013 (the report is at [2013] UKPC 23), and remitted the assessment of damages to the Antiguan High Court. Carlo was instructed on the assessment of damages trial with Kim Franklin KC and Dane Hamilton KC.
• Antigua Power Company Limited v The Attorney General of Antigua & Barbuda & Others – Carlo was also instructed (with Geoffrey Robertson KC and Kim Franklin KC) on a further claim on behalf of APCL claiming substantial damages as a result of a conspiracy to cause loss by unlawful means in Antigua.

Carlo has significant experience of advising on and appearing in proceedings concerning policy interpretation, avoidance of cover for nondisclosure, misrepresentation and breach of notification and other clauses.

Examples of work in this area include:

• Advising and defending, as sole counsel, a leading income protection insurer on a £5m claim.  The claim was discontinued immediately after provision of Carlo’s Defence on a WP basis.
• Advising on insurance coverage, with Ben Quiney KC, following the Hillsborough disaster.
• Advising a leading insurance broker in a claim where it is alleged that the broker bound an insurer outside the scope of its actual authority.  The case overlaps questions of rectification, construction of the policy, and (in a separate aspect of the case) fraud.
• Sole counsel for the claimant insurance company in a broker’s negligence claim arising out of the fraudulent ‘placement’ of a (non-existent) reinsurance policy by a sub-broker.  Damages are in the region of £15m. The case also involves questions of the broker’s warranty of authority.  Currently pre-action.
• Advised on a claim (settled confidentially at mediation) arising out of the design of a new insurance product, which was found not to operate effectively immediately prior to launch.
• Instructed (with Andrew Bartlett KC and James Medd) in relation to coverage provided by a £5m excess layer professional indemnity insurance policy, following alleged defective design of an office block overseas.
• Junior to Andrew Bartlett KC in a London arbitration relating to coverage under a product liability policy, potentially determinative of claims and various layers of insurance worth up to £300m.

Carlo’s product liability practice overlaps with his commercial, construction, property damage and professional negligence practice, with those cases often involving an element of product liability.

Examples of work in this area include:

• Allcopy v Vision – This was a debt claim, and the defence of a counterclaim in the TCC which was put in the region of £1m, in which it was alleged that photocopier toner provided to the Defendant and Counterclaimant over a period of 6 years was defective, and caused damage to reprographics machines and significant economic losses.  The claim settled shortly before trial.
• Sanglier v Apollo – Sanglier v Apollo – Carlo was counsel for Apollo (leading Michael Harper) on a 5-week trial, following which (and before judgment) Sanglier discontinued against Carlo’s clients, and agreed to pay a significant sum in respect of costs. Concerned complex expert evidence as to the formulation of an adhesive, and questions of limitation of liability and complications arising from long cross-border contractual chains of supplies.
• Instructed as sole counsel in arbitral proceedings concerning a water treatment plant in Eastern Europe, which is said to have been defectively constructed and /or designed (the claim is put at circa Euro 2m).
• Various fire claims involving the failure of electrical components, including being for a leading high-street chain seeking to recover damages, including for business interruption following a fire started by a defective component within a freezer in one of their shops.
• Junior to Andrew Bartlett KC in a London arbitration relating to coverage under a product liability policy in a pharmaceutical context potentially determinative of claims and various layers of insurance worth up to £300m.

Carlo has been recommended as a Leading Individual in the Legal 500 in this area since 2017 and is frequently instructed in professional negligence claims involving the full spectrum of professionals, including lawyers, liquidators, accountants, architects / engineers / design consultants, valuers and brokers. He is regularly instructed on his own or as a leading junior against KCs, and likewise as a part of a larger counsel team.

He has recently conducted a (resoundingly successful) adjudication under the pilot professional negligence adjudication scheme.

Carlo is also a PNBA accredited adjudicator.

Selected Cases

• Ingenious Litigation – Instructed, with Ben Quiney KC and Frederick Simpson for one of the lead Defendants in the Ingenious Litigation.  The litigation concerned the alleged fraudulent and negligent mis-selling of investments in a series of film and game finance schemes.  The Claimants totalled over 600 and brought claims for in excess of £200m.  The case was named as one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2018. Carlo and Ben were successful in applying for security for costs from a commercial litigation funder funding a number of the Claimants’ claims.  Carlo later led Frederick Simpson in the Court of Appeal in relation to the conditions to be attached to that security.  The overall claim settled shortly before trial.
• Broker’s negligence – Sole counsel for the claimant insurance company in a broker’s negligence claim arising out of the fraudulent ‘placement’ of a (non-existent) reinsurance policy by a sub-broker.  Damages are in the region of £15m. Currently pre-action.
• Broker’s negligence – Sole counsel defending a broker in relation to allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in the context of amending policy documents without the insured’s consent, and allegedly falsifying documents to induce a renewal.
• Saunders & Craig v Hunt – Carlo is instructed as sole counsel (against a KC and senior junior) for a liquidator, Stephen Hunt, to defend a section 212 application brought against him by the successful opposing parties from previous litigation.
• Surveyor’s negligence – leading Toby Chandler in a claim against a surveyor who failed to identify relevant asbestos in a full pre-purchase survey of a substantial property causing significant loss (pre-action).
• Architect’s dispute with Oxbridge College – Together with Ben Quiney KC, Carlo successfully defended an architect’s practice in a £9M adjudication brought by an Oxbridge College in relation to the renovation of one of its main listed courts.
• Loss adjuster’s negligence – Carlo is instructed as sole counsel by a leading loss adjuster who is accused of having negligently caused insurers loss in the region of £5m in the course of adjusting a complex loss arising out of a hurricane.
• Kinde & Knight v Dellapina & Diaz – Instructed for a Spanish lawyer said to have negligently advised on and conducted an arbitration in the US, in a claim in the English Courts pleaded at $26 million. In addition to the more usual issues concerning scope and breach of duty, and causation of damage, the case raises questions involving the illegality and public policy defence.
• Harris & Trotter v Bazargan – Instructed, with Ben Quiney KC, for accountants who (when suing for their fees) have been met with an allegedly significant claim for damages relating to a series of HMRC enquiries / COP9 / fraud investigations which they managed for their clients.
• A v B – instructed for a broker against a leading law firm in a matter recently settled on confidential terms. The brokers had designed a new insurance product, the structure of which had been the subject of negligent advice from the law firm in question.
• Birdi & Senna v McAndrew – allegedly valuable claim against a valuer and auctioneer by two parties, one of whom was bankrupt and one of whom was alleged to have some interest in property apparently forming part of the other’s bankruptcy estate. Carlo succeeded in having the claim by both claimants against his client struck out by Newey J at the conclusion of pleadings (it continues between one of the claimants and another defendant).
• Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13; [2011] 2 WLR 823 – During pupillage, Carlo assisted Roger ter Haar KC and Daniel Shapiro KC in the preparation and research for the landmark appeal to the Supreme Court.