Nicholas Pointon#3605

Nicholas Pointon

Nick is a specialist commercial and chancery law barrister. His particular areas of expertise include commercial and contractual disputes, private international law, domestic and international arbitration. He has been consistently listed in Chambers UK for commercial dispute resolution since 2015 and regularly acts in cross border or offshore litigation, as well as wholly domestic matters. Commentators say –

“He’s simply exceptional on paper and dominating in the courtroom.” (Chambers UK, 2018)

“He’s a class act who is really good at the detail – he just oozes ability” (Chambers UK, 2017)


Since 2012 Nick has been a Senior Associate Tutor of Law at the University of Bristol, and has taught in the fields of contract, land, trusts and international arbitration, to undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Nick is also an accredited mediator and is happy to accept appointments as mediator in suitable cases.
Contributed to

12

Application notice for registration of judgment under Brussels I
Application notice for registration of judgment under Brussels I
Precedents

This Precedent is an application notice required for an order for registration of judgment under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The application notice is court form N244. A case study of a part completed application notice is also available to show what information to provide and what boxes to tick. Information specific to the matter, such as the names of parties, etc will also need to be added in. This application notice is to be used in conjunction with precedents: Witness statement supporting recognition and enforcement of judgment under Brussels I and Draft order for registration of judgment under Brussels I for which links are provided.

Case study application notice for registration of judgment under Brussels I
Case study application notice for registration of judgment under Brussels I
Precedents

This is a case study of the application notice required when seeking an order for registration of judgment under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It uses court form N244 and shows a part-completed form aimed at highlighting the information you will need to provide. This is intended to be used in conjunction with court form N244 and Precedents: Witness statement supporting recognition and enforcement of judgment under Brussels I and Draft order for registration of judgment under Brussels I for which links are provided.

Defence based on valid jurisdiction or arbitration agreement
Defence based on valid jurisdiction or arbitration agreement
Precedents

This Precedent and associated drafting notes provide wording for the section of a defence in which the jurisdiction of the English court is disputed on the basis of a choice of law clause/jurisdiction agreement in favour of the courts of another EU Member State. The relevant regulation relied on is Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). This regulation is referred to in the CPR as the Judgments Regulation and so as this is before the English courts the regulation is referred to as the Judgments Regulation in this Precedent.

Draft order declaring that the service of the claim form without the permission of the court was ineffective
Draft order declaring that the service of the claim form without the permission of the court was ineffective
Precedents

This Precedent and associated drafting notes set out the orders the court may make following a successful application for an order declaring that the service of the claim form without the permission of the court was ineffective.

Draft order for registration of judgment under Brussels I
Draft order for registration of judgment under Brussels I
Precedents

This Precedent and associated drafting notes are for an order for registration of judgment under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The precedent can be used in conjunction with precedent: Witness statement supporting recognition and enforcement of judgment under Brussels I.

Draft order—declaring that the claimant was at fault and should not have been granted permission to serve out of the jurisdiction
Draft order—declaring that the claimant was at fault and should not have been granted permission to serve out of the jurisdiction
Precedents

This Precedent and associated Drafting Notes set out the orders the court may make following an application for an order declaring that permission to serve out of the jurisdiction should not have been granted on the basis that the claimant misled the court and should not have been granted permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.

Drafting note for application notice seeking an order declaring that the permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was obtained when the claimant misled the court
Drafting note for application notice seeking an order declaring that the permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was obtained when the claimant misled the court
Precedents

This Drafting Note provides assistance in completing an application notice to dispute the court’s jurisdiction on the basis that permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was obtained when the claimant misled the court.

Drafting note for application notice seeking an order declaring that the service of the claim form without the permission of the court was ineffective
Drafting note for application notice seeking an order declaring that the service of the claim form without the permission of the court was ineffective
Precedents

This Drafting Note provides assistance in completing an application notice to dispute the court’s jurisdiction on the basis that the service of the claim form without the permission of the court was ineffective.

Reply to defence disputing validity of a jurisdiction agreement
Reply to defence disputing validity of a jurisdiction agreement
Precedents

This Precedent and associated drafting notes provide wording and guidance for a claimant’s reply in cases in which the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales are disputed by the defendant on the basis of a choice of law clause/jurisdiction agreement in favour of the courts of another EU Member State. The relevant regulation relied on is Brussels I (recast) Regulation (EU) 1215/2012.

Witness statement in response to an application seeking an order declaring that the permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was obtained when the claimant misled the court
Witness statement in response to an application seeking an order declaring that the permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was obtained when the claimant misled the court
Precedents

This Precedent and associated drafting notes provide a witness statement on behalf of the claimant in response to an application by the defendant that the claimant misled the court when seeking permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.

Witness statement resisting recognition and enforcement of judgment under Brussels I
Witness statement resisting recognition and enforcement of judgment under Brussels I
Precedents

This Precedent and associated Drafting Notes are for use by the respondent when opposing an application for recognition and enforcement of a judgment under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It can be adapted for use in an application to appeal an order for recognition and enforcement where the respondent was not informed that such an order was being sought.

Witness statement supporting recognition and enforcement of judgment under Brussels I
Witness statement supporting recognition and enforcement of judgment under Brussels I
Precedents

This Precedent and associated drafting notes are for use by an applicant seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Such applications are very much fact specific but the drafting notes are designed to sign post issues that need to be addressed.

Practice Area

Panel

  • Contributing Author

Qualified Year

  • 2010

Qualification

  • LLB (First Class), BVC (Outstanding)

If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.