Muhammed Haque QC specialises in commercial and common law litigation.
His range of work takes him from negligent professionals (in particular lawyers, financial officers and engineers) to damaged buildings (pure construction disputes as well as fire and floods) and injured people, via contractual claims for crisp manufacturers, restaurant owners and oil companies.
His first degree was in engineering (graduating from Oxford University with a Masters Degree) so he especially enjoys claims with a more scientific or statistical aspect.
Muhammed advises and acts in high-value commercial disputes.
His current cases include:
- A £40million contractual claim against a large utilities company.
- A £15 million claim against Joint Administrators.
- A £25 million claim for the failure to produce a luxury ‘super-car’.
- A £8 million claim arising from the failed sale of a Formula One motor racing team.
His previous cases include:
- A £16 million claim involving alleged accountancy irregularities, jurisdictional issues and off-shore trusts.
- Cases arising out of rail derailments on behalf of train operating companies.
- A multi-million pound insolvency dispute involving the alleged historic transfer of assets to parties based outside the jurisdiction.
He has also acted as the legal advisor to the regulatory body for premium-rate phone lines (PhonePayPlus).
- MSL Group Holdings Ltd v Clearwell International Ltd  EWHC 3707 – (Sir Raymond Jack QC) commercial case – division of $5m licence fee – oral contract – director’s duties – alleged unlawful distribution of monies from company.
- Ghadami v Lyon Cole Insurance  EWCA Civ 767 – Application of the indemnity principle.
- Ammah v Kuehne+Nagel  EWCA Civ 11 – Workplace systems and risk assessments.
- Cameron v Vinters Defence Systems  EWHC 2267 – Successfully (and somewhat controversially) argued that payments made to widows under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 should be deducted from a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Also authority for when to depart from the JSB Guidelines.
Muhammed has acted for clients on all aspects of construction and engineering claims.
- Khan v Malik  EWHC 1319 (Ch) – Construction of an informal contract relating to personal loans used for the purchase and development of properties.
Muhammed is a leading QC in this field. He has represented claimants and defendants in claims involving catastrophic injuries. He is renowned for his expertise in industrial disease and he has an impressive reputation in actions on behalf of local authorities. He acted in the Marlie Farm litigation and is instructed in cases arising from the VWF litigation.
- Hannon v Hillingdon Homes Ltd  EWHC 1437 High Court decided the liability of the landlord under the Defective Premises Act 1972 for an injury to a third party caused by the tenant’s breach of obligation
- Ali Ghaith v Indesit Co UK Ltd  EWCA Civ 642 Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 – burden of proof – causation – importance of mediation
- Bell v London Borough of Havering  EWCA Civ 689 appeal against the Judge’s finding of credibility
- Ammah v Kuehne+Nagel  EWCA Civ 11 workplace systems and risk assessments
- Harrison v Derby CC  EWCA Civ 583 inspection regimes and highway maintenance
- Clarke v Havering & Suffolk Water  EWHC 3427 whether Water Authority should carry sole blame for a defective installation, even when the Highway Authority had failed to detect it
- Cameron v Vinters Defence Systems  EWHC 2267 Successfully (and somewhat controversially) argued that payments made to widows under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 should be deducted from a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Also authority for when to depart from the JSB Guidelines.
- Atkins v Ealing  EWHC 2515 guidelines for local authorities inspecting manhole covers
Muhammed has acted in many claims involving defective products. These include Advising on a multi-million pound claim involving fires arising from the grid heater relay of a lorry; advising on the defective manufacture of components in Land Rovers resulting in a product recall; advising in relation to a large fire caused by a defective silvering machine at the Pilkington Glass factory; advising on potential legal liability arising from the resale of used cardiac monitors from the NHS to Ireland; suing an American supplier of pacemakers for a product which failed; Acting for a manufacturer of sofas for a product that collapsed when being moved; acted against Indesit PLC in a claim seeking damages for fire.
- Hannon v Hillingdon Homes Ltd  EWHC 1437 – High Court decided the liability of the landlord under the Defective Premises Act 1972 for an injury to a third party caused by the tenant’s breach of obligation.
- Harrison v Derby CC  EWCA Civ 583 – Inspection regimes and highway maintenance.
- Clarke v Havering & Suffolk Water  EWHC 3427 – Whether Water Authority should carry sole blame for a defective installation, even when the Highway Authority had failed to detect it.
- Atkins v Ealing  EWHC 2515 – Guidelines for local authorities inspecting manhole covers.
Muhammed acts for and against professionals accused of being negligent: solicitors, barristers, loss adjusters, surveyors, construction and dental / medical professionals. More diversely he has acted against hairdressers and for car designers. He recently succeeded at first instance in obtaining a £2m award against Lewis Silkin.
- Wright v Lewis Silkin  PNLR 32,  EWHC 1897 – Solicitor’s negligence.
- Wembridge v East Sussex Fire & Rescue  EWHC 2331 – Negligence of fire commander.
Muhammed is one of the leading legal experts on property damage, and has appeared in the majority of reported cases in which trees are said to have been the cause. Most recently he was instructed in one of the largest tree-roots claim in history – in which a £16m claim was made. He regularly acts in multi-million pound disputes where floods or fires are the cause of damage.
- Tideland v Westminster  EWHC 2710 (TCC) – Tree roots. Setting aside default judgment.
- Robbins v London Borough of Bexley  EWCA Civ 1233 – Tree roots.
- Khan v Kane  EWHC 2687 – for the Defendant which settled before trial.
- Denness v East Hampshire District Council  EWHC 2951 – Tree roots case confirming the risk-based approach taken in Berent.
- Robbins v London Borough of Bexley  EWHC 2257 – Tree roots case confirming the importance of studies which show that ordinary pruning may not be effective to prevent ongoing damage by trees.
- Berent v Family Mosaic Housing & Islington  EWCA Civ 961 Court of Appeal – Clarification of the requirements of reasonable foreseeability in ‘tree-roots’ cases – upholding a decision that mere proximity of trees was not enough to establish liability.
- Berent v (1) Family Mosaic Housing Association (2) London Borough of Islington  EWHC 1353 (TCC) – Subsidence caused by tree roots – whether Defendants liable prior to notice – whether damage reasonably foreseeable.
Muhammed is making a name for himself acting in the area of Sports Law. He has been involved with claims concerning Formula One, in contractual disputes arising from the Indian Premier League, advising in respect of a footballer employed by a Premier League team who suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch and acting for sports clubs with allegedly sub-standard facilities.
- Muhammed Haque QC, Anna Laney, Daniel Shaw, and Athena Markides to lecture on advocacy at the University of Cambridge
- Muhammed Haque QC successful in £2m Solicitor’s negligence claim against Lewis Silkin LLP
- Sunley & Hardwicke Scholar, Lincoln’s Inn
- MA Law (City)
- MA Engineering (Oxon)
- Lincoln’s Inn Advocacy Tutor
- Lincoln’s Inn Scholarships Committee
- London Common Law Bar Association
- Personal Injury Bar Association
- Professional Negligence Bar Association
- Technology & Construction Bar Association
“His legal knowledge is top-drawer, his preparation is second to none and clients love his bedside manner.”
“He is brave and willing to fight cases on liability, even difficult ones, because he is an excellent cross-examiner.”
“He has excellent team leadership skills, displays sound tactical awareness and produces good-quality advocacy. He’s very strong on paperwork and shows great attention to detail.”
“He’s exceptionally thorough, well prepared and highly knowledgeable.”
“Always thorough, well prepared and good in court, and he’s particularly user-friendly for the clients.”
“Legal acumen and knowledge of procedure is superb.”