Fraser Barnstaple

Kings Chambers

I am a barrister specialising exclusively in costs and litigation funding.

My practice spans the full spectrum of Costs and Litigation Funding to include advice, drafting and advocacy in respect of all inter-partes costs disputes and solicitor-client disputes.

I have been instructed in a number of multimillion-pound costs claims, have appeared in the Court of Appeal and have built up a considerable and impressive level experience of detailed assessments (in the SCCO and the County Court), fixed costs determinations, CCMCs/CMCs, hearings involving the assessment of costs deductions from protected party’s damages, hearings in respect of solicitor-client disputes and a range of application hearings involving wasted costs, expert/agency fees, fixed costs challenges, relief from sanctions, QOCS and the setting aside of Default Costs Certificates.

Additionally, I have a busy paper work practice, and am regularly instructed to drafts costs pleadings, which include Points of Dispute and Replies, pleadings, advices, skeleton arguments and witness statements.

Prior to beginning my career at the Bar, I worked for over two years as a Senior Underwriter in the ATE legal expenses insurance and litigation funding industry. I remain a member of the Chartered Insurance Institute, having obtained a Level 3 Certificate in Insurance (CII) qualification in August 2024 and therefore am well positioned to deal with matters which straddle an insurance and litigation funding crossover.

Contributed to

1

Mazur—practical implications for dispute resolution practitioners

Practice Notes

The background to the Court of Appeal decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (2026) is set out below along with key questions and answers arising from this decision. Consideration is also given to the potential implications of this decision from a costs recovery perspective.BackgroundCharles Russell Speechlys LLP instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover unpaid fees from Mrs Mazur. The litigation was handled almost entirely by Mr Middleton, ‘Head of Commercial Litigation’ at GBS. He was employed by a regulated firm but did not hold a current practising certificate. He was unqualified, yet carried out many if not all of the salient steps in the litigation. Mrs Mazur applied for his replacement with a qualified solicitor.A solicitor at GBS filed a witness statement confirming that all of Mr Middleton’s work had been done under his supervision. HHJ Simpkiss, hearing the application, held that Mr Middleton was permitted to conduct litigation under that supervision. The decision was appealed.Sheldon J overturned HHJ Simpkiss’s decision and analysed the effect of

Dispute Resolution