Shaman Kapoor

Shaman prides himself on his soft and interpersonal skills which, in the context of advocacy in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), are deployed to extract a positive outcome in situations which appear to be irrecoverable.

As a barrister, he has extensive experience of commercial litigation mediation, international arbitration, and civil liability claims resolved through ADR including joint settlement meetings and round table meetings both for multi-party and group litigation. Shaman is particularly highly regarded for costs mediations and is regularly sought out as an expert costs mediator. He has further undertaken specialist mediator training for paper-based provisional assessments.

Shaman has developed a broad expertise in clinical negligence matters and thrives on getting to grips with the detail of medical practice and procedure. His experience in personal injury work is extensive, particularly through his instruction in the claims brought by professional and amateur rugby players for brain injuries (sub-concussive and concussive head injury) and the claims brought by the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. He has experience of multi-disciplinary expert involvement and acts for claimants and defendants. Shaman prides himself on meticulous preparation and client service to compliment his formidable advocacy and expert handling skills.

Cases of note

• Alix Popham (and approximately 209 others) v (1) World Rugby (2) The Rugby Football Union (3) Welsh Rugby Union
• Sid-Ali Atmani and 84 others v (1) Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (2) The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Limited [Ongoing] - The Grenfell Tower fire tragedy resulted in the death of 72 people. It has proved to be a landmark moment in fire and building safety and construction method and may yet be a landmark case for principles of compensation in an injury claim arising out of a tort. Shaman’s clients (led by Susan Rodway KC) were the only claimants to have articulated their claims in a particulars of claim being a vast document asserting duties arising out of common law and statute as well as misfeasance in public office, and claiming for aggravated and exemplary damages in addition to compensation.

Shaman’s commercial law experience includes international arbitration and domestic and international commercial disputes including contractual arrangements associated with financial investments, construction projects, high net worth individuals, oil and gas, software developers and global corporations. He has experience of contractual disputes in a variety of commercial settings including litigation funding, promissory note and loan disputes, shareholder disputes, fees disputes and injunctive relief.

Cases of note

• Strategic Holdings 2 Limited v (1) Simon Wetton (2) Francesca Cava [2022], Fancourt J – successfully resisting an application for a freezing injunction arising out of a failed transaction to purchase to land and subsequently obtaining an order for costs on the indemnity basis.
• Candy Works Limited v Taylor [2022], HHJ Klein sitting as a Judge of the High Court – acting as counsel for the applicant in successfully obtaining injunctive relief to protect the business assets including TikTok account of a thriving start-up.
• Yumn Ltd v (1) Standard Chartered Bank (2) Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Private Limited [2021], HHJ Pelling QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court – a case arising out of an agreement for onshore and offshore works totalling USD$216.6 million which involved an injunction seeking the restraint of the payment of an on-demand bond of USD$32.2 million pending the referral to emergency arbitration of the question of whether there was entitlement to make the demand.  Acting as counsel for the second defendant on the claimant’s application for a non-party costs order
• Be In v Google [2018] - Working as junior counsel in the preparation and issue of a claim in the Commercial Court against Google for breach of a non-disclosure agreement and duty of confidence.
• Global Energy Horizons Corporation v Gray [2019] - One of a team of junior counsel acting for the defendant, a former shareholder in the claimant company. The claimant was an advisory and investment firm. The defendant was accused of having diverted an opportunity to acquire interests in technology for the stimulation of late life oil wells. The claimant considered the wells to be worth in excess of US$500m. The complex proceedings were split between a liability trial (2012) and an enquiry trial (2015). Shaman was instructed in the preparation for the quantum trial (2019) and in particular with respect to the preparation for an interim application for an abuse of process. The defendant’s interests were ultimately held to be valueless.
• ICC Arbitration: Software Provider v Global Telecoms Corporation [2015] - The dispute focused on the interpretation of contractual terms as between the parties in respect of the claimant contractor providing open-source software services. The case turned on whether a minimum commitment amount of USD $14m was payable to the claimant. The case resolved at a mediation a few weeks before a final arbitration hearing.

Specifically arising out of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, Shaman has experience of the Building Regulations, Approved Document B, and The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This experience is complemented by Shaman’s experience at common law including landlord and tenant, contractual disputes generally, insurance work and claims for compensation (whether arising out of injury or not). He is well placed to engage in cladding and other building defect disputes.

Cases of note

• Sid-Ali Atmani and 84 others v (1) Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (2) The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Limited [Ongoing] - The Grenfell Tower fire tragedy resulted in the death of 72 people. It has proved to be a landmark moment in fire and building safety and construction method and may yet be a landmark case for principles of compensation in an injury claim arising out of a tort. Shaman’s clients (led by Susan Rodway QC) are the only claimants to have articulated their claims in a particulars of claim being a vast document asserting duties arising out of common law and statute as well as misfeasance in public office, and claiming for aggravated and exemplary damages in addition to compensation.

"Down to earth and does not mince his words. He embraces technology and has a good drafting style." "Shaman goes above and beyond."
“One of the best costs juniors out there.” 

Shaman's costs practice has grown with vigour and he is well-known amongst practitioners and the judiciary. Shaman enjoys the technical points and the diversity of practice areas to which costs work applies and is regularly involved in costs budgeting, enforceability arguments, assessments (Senior Courts Costs Office and Supreme Court) and advisory and drafting work on retainers (especially Conditional Fee Agreements and Damages Based Agreements).

He is regularly in the High Court and Senior Courts Costs Office and receives instructions domestically and internationally. He is highly regarded for strategy and is often instructed behind-the-scenes in significant substantive litigation. 

Cases of note

• Dr. Craig Wright v The Person or Persons Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website www.bitcoin.org (including the person or persons using the pseudonym "Cøbra") [September 2023], the Honourable Mr. Justice Richard Smith - The case raised practical, procedural and legal questions around the extent to which “persons unknown” could take positive action in proceedings whilst doing nothing more to reveal their identity.  It raised arguments about natural justice, open justice, publicity, fair trials and explored the possible tension between a party being subjected to the court’s jurisdiction and that party’s right to be heard.  The substantive proceedings concerned the claimant’s claim for infringement of copyright in a literary work entitled “Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” which had become known as “the White Paper”, and which the defendant made available on the website.  The pseudonym CØbra was used on the website to describe the domain owner.  The White Paper was itself released under a pseudonym of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ and the author of the White Paper is widely thought to be the creator of Bitcoin.  Since at least 2016 the Claimant has maintained that he did create Bitcoin and was the author of the White Paper.  Having been successful at first instance in obtaining an order barring the further participation of the “persons unknown” in the absence of disclosure of their identity, Shaman was again successful in resisting the Appeal.

• Patel v Karmakar [January 2023], DJ Lumb, Regional Costs Judge, Oxford County Court dealt with “an important preliminary issue…commonly misunderstood by members of the legal profession including some of the judiciary”.  The case concerned the extent to which a solicitor acting for himself in litigation in which he himself or his firm was a party, could recover costs on a commercial hourly rate basis of the claimed £500 per hour, rather than the prescribed hourly rate or financial loss formula for a litigant in person.  Shaman successfully argued that the absence of a firm being on the record for the receiving party prevented operation of the exception set out in CPR 46.5(6)(b).

• Dr. Craig Wright v The Person or Persons Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website www.bitcoin.org (including the person or persons using the pseudonym “Cøbra”) [October 2022], Costs Judge Rowley – The case raised practical, procedural and legal questions around the extent to which “persons unknown” could take positive action in proceedings whilst doing nothing more to reveal their identity.  It raised arguments about natural justice, open justice, publicity, fair trials and explored the possible tension between a party being subjected to the court’s jurisdiction and that party’s right to be heard.  The substantive proceedings concerned the claimant’s claim for infringement of copyright in a literary work entitled “Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” which had become known as “the White Paper”, and which the defendant made available on the website.  The pseudonym CØbra was used on the website to describe the domain owner.  The White Paper was itself released under a pseudonym of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ and the author of the White Paper is widely thought to be the creator of Bitcoin.  Since at least 2016 the Claimant has maintained that he did create Bitcoin and was the author of the White Paper.  Shaman was successful in obtaining an order barring the further participation of the “persons unknown” in the absence of disclosure of their identity.

• Mr. Mark Hallsworth v EUI Limited [2022], DJ Woodburn , Regional Costs Judge, Bristol County Court – instructed on the preliminary issue of whether the threshold of “exceptional circumstances” was met pursuant to CPR 45.29J so as to enable the court to consider costs in excess of fixed recoverable costs.  Success in a rare example of the threshold being met.

• Ibiyinka Macaulay v (1) Dr Abdul Karim (2) Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2022], Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker – the claimant had the benefit of legal aid throughout the proceedings.  Following a split trial on liability, the claim against D1 was dismissed; but judgment against D2 was entered with damages to be assessed.  The claimant was ordered to pay D1’s costs; D2 settled the claim in a Tomlin Order.  Acting for the successful claimant, the Court held that QOCS protection could and did apply even in the case of a legally aided claimant who had protection under s.11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.  Damages pursuant to the Tomlin Order were not “damages awarded” per Cartwright.  And interim damages were neither an award for damages against which QOCS would permit an order for costs to be enforced.

• Farrer & Co. v Yerteyeva [2021], Costs Judge Leonard – representing Farrer & Co, in a solicitor-client dispute, the client was a high profile and successful businesswoman and lawyer in Kazakhstan, as well as a former board member at a Bank.  Her points of dispute claimed that she had not consented to the hourly rates claimed or the work to be done amongst other things.  In a resounding victory for Farrers, the client’s evidence was found to be plainly misleading in parts and that in every aspect of the informed consent allegation Farrers had discharged the initial burden upon themselves and the client failed to discharge the consequential burden.  The client’s state of distress at the time of signing the retainer did not mean that she was incapable of making informed decisions.  The firms charges were found to be characteristic of specialist central London firms representing high-net worth individuals

• EJC v East North Hertfordshire NHS Trust - The defendant’s hospital negligently supervised and managed the claimant in her neonatal period, which included a failure to diagnose hypoglycaemia, causing her to suffer hypoglycaemic brain injury with microcephaly, developmental delay and cortical visual motor impairments. An award of £5.25m was made, with periodic payments of £165,000 per annum for life. Costs amounted to £350,000, however, the case remains notable because it dealt with the question of what constitutes “a good reason to depart from the budget”.

• Among the issues at stake were the consequences of the change in discounted rate which was introduced in 2017. This change, the first such alteration since 2001, caused a significant impact on the calculation of damages, and as a result, on the work reasonably required with consequential cost.
• Halifax Bank of Scotland Reading Branch Fraud Case - Between 2002 and 2007, small business owners were transferred to HBOS’s corporate division, headquartered at its Reading branch, which in turn referred them to Quayside Corporate Services (QCS), a consultancy. QCS pressurised business owners to take on inflated debt burdens, and then siphoned off money by invoicing the owners for very large fees. Their HBOS contacts received hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash, holidays, luxury goods, drugs and prostitutes.
  Many of the businesses were then asset stripped by QCS and either made bankrupt or sold for nominal amounts to companies often associated with the directors of QCS.
  The scheme drained the bank and small businesses of around £245m and left hundreds of people in severe financial difficulties. The protagonists were convicted of fraud in 2017.
  Lloyds Banking Group, which acquired HBOS in 2009, set up a £100m compensation scheme for customers who had been defrauded. Compensation packages have ranged from £100k to £5m with each party’s costs running to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Shaman was instructed on behalf of a group of claimants on the issue of costs.
• Robinson v EMW Law LLP [2018] EWHC 1751 (Ch.) - A hotly contested detailed assessment requiring Shaman’s input on the preliminary points of the enforceability and scope of the retainer, and the recoverability of consultancy fees for a solicitor who was a party in the substantive litigation. The matter was appealed from a Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) master to a High Court judge assisted by another SCCO master.
• RBOS Shareholders Action Group Limited v Fladgate LLP - Recognised by The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2017, this litigation arose out of RBoS’s 2008 shareholder rights issue intended to generate £12bn, but which left shareholders with a wiped-out valuation after RBoS’s nationalisation. Shareholders brought claims for mis-selling amongst other losses and the litigation was the subject of a group litigation order. Shaman advised on own-client and between-the-parties costs.
• Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Ors – Supreme Court - In this landmark case, Shaman was instructed to deal with the detailed assessment of the costs in the Supreme Court proceedings where, amongst other issues, the recoverability of additional liabilities was asserted by the opposing party as being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• Murrells v Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC B2 (Costs) - Shaman successfully represented the claimant in a case arising out of a claim for clinical negligence that settled shortly after the defence. The case involved the operation of the concept of proportionality and distinguished BNM v MGN Ltd [2016] EWHC B13 on the basis of pre- and post- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) additional liabilities.

Shaman is regularly engaged in commercial litigation and arbitration related work. Both as Counsel to the Arbitration and Arbitrator, Shaman’s arbitration experience includes domestic and international commercial disputes including contractual arrangements associated with financial investments, construction projects, high net worth individuals, oil and gas, software developers and global corporations. He has experience of contractual disputes in a variety of commercial settings including litigation funding, shareholder disputes, promissory note issues and loan disputes, fees disputes and injunctive relief.

Cases of note

• Candey Limited v Crumpler & Another (as Joint Liquidators of Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited, in liquidation) [2022] - CANDEY (the Appellant) was instructed by Peak Hotels & Resorts Ltd (“PHRL”), a company incorporated in 2014 in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) in relation to PHRL’s US$368 million joint venture dispute, and interest in, the uber-luxury Aman Hotel group. 
  The Appellant had represented PHRL for 2 years in extensive litigation in England and other jurisdictions including Hong Kong, the BVI and New York. The chief battle ground was London, where a High Court trial was due to commence in April 2016. However, on the eve of trial, PHRL ran out of funds and was wound up on a US$35 million debt in a Hong Kong arbitration and related insolvency proceedings in the BVI. The Respondents, liquidators from KPMG, were appointed by the BVI court to act as joint liquidators for PHRL with permission to continue the ownership dispute in London. Notwithstanding the insolvency, the High Court proceedings in London continued. CANDEY had previously agreed to act on a deferred fixed fee of £3.86 million. To protect their position in all the foreign jurisdictions, where they were fighting, a fixed and floating charge and security had been agreed by CANDEY’s client and registered in the BVI, PHRL’s seat of incorporation. 
  CANDEY was disinstructed and the liquidators, through new solicitors, settled the claim for circa US$13.5 million. A dispute then ensued between CANDEY and the liquidators as CANDEY claimed payment of its contractually agreed fixed fee and asserted a right to be paid first from any recovery because of its solicitors’ lien. The matter reached the Court of Appeal several times and ultimately the Supreme Court held that it was a question of construing the intention of the parties as to whether the lien had been waved, and the additional security of a fixed charge without express reservation of the lien was inconsistent with the inference of a solicitor’s lien.  Shaman was instructed behind the scenes on behalf of the liquidators.
• Yumn Ltd v (1) Standard Chartered Bank (2) Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Private Limited [2021] - SPC is a company incorporated in India and is a diversified organisation of 18 major companies which operate in the engineering and construction, infrastructure and real estate sectors (amongst others).  It has been trading for more than 150 years with landmark construction projects in more than 60 countries. YL is a company incorporated in Rwanda.  It is a special purpose vehicle set up to engage SPC for the “project”, namely, to design, engineer and construct a peat power plant in Rwanda.  YL is owned predominantly by two other Mauritian holding companies.  The agreements were subject to English law and included an arbitration clause.  They contracted for Onshore works (from inside Rwanda) and for Offshore works (form outside Rwanda) for a total value of USD$216.6 million.  Injunctive relief was sought to restrain the payment of an on-demand bond of USD$32.2 million, pending referral to emergency arbitration.  Shaman was instructed by King & Spalding LLP as counsel for the second defendant.
• Sid-Ali Atmani & 84 Others v (1) Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (2) The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Limited [2020 – ongoing] Sid-Ali Atmani & 84 Others v (1) Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (2) The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Limited [2020 – 2023] - The Grenfell Tower fire tragedy resulted in the death of 72 people. It has proved to be a landmark moment in fire and building safety and construction method and may yet be a landmark case for principles of compensation in an injury claim arising out of a tort. Shaman was instructed as senior-junior on behalf of the claimants and his team was involved not only in the civil litigation but also the significant ADR process. Whilst the litigation is ongoing in the High Court, there are significant ADR efforts ongoing.
• Halifax Bank of Scotland Reading Branch Fraud Case [2019] - Between 2002 and 2007, small business owners were transferred to HBOS’s corporate division, headquartered at its Reading branch, which in turn referred them to Quayside Corporate Services (QCS), a consultancy. QCS pressurised business owners to take on inflated debt burdens, and then siphoned off money by invoicing the owners for very large fees. Their HBOS contacts received hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash, holidays, luxury goods, drugs and prostitutes.
  Many of the businesses were then asset stripped by QCS and either made bankrupt or sold for nominal amounts to companies often associated with the directors of QCS.
  The scheme drained the bank and small businesses of around £245m and left hundreds of people in severe financial difficulties. The protagonists were convicted of fraud in 2017.
  Lloyds Banking Group, which acquired HBOS in 2009, set up a £100m ADR compensation scheme for customers who had been defrauded. Compensation packages have ranged from £100k to £5m with each party’s costs running to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Shaman was instructed on behalf of a group of claimants.
• RBOS Shareholders Action Group Limited v Fladgate LLP [2017] - Recognised by The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2017, this litigation arose out of RBoS’s 2008 shareholder rights issue intended to generate £12billion, but which left shareholders with a wiped-out valuation after RBoS’s nationalisation. Shareholders brought claims for mis-selling amongst other losses and the litigation was the subject of a group litigation order. The costs of the litigation have themselves been the subject of intense interrogation and anticipating the potential need for arbitration to resolve the costs issues (themselves running to tens of millions of pounds), Shaman was instructed to advise.
• Khorafi & Ors v (1) Bank of Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd (2) Bank Sarasin & Co Ltd [2015-2016] - The DIFC ordered the Swiss Bank defendants to pay compensatory damages to the family of a Kuwaiti business for the sale of inappropriate structured real estate, commodity backed and equity sector basket instruments in late 2007-2008. The Court concluded that the Bank had committed a clear case of mis-selling unsuitable investments to an unsophisticated investor without regard to the regulatory protection afforded to customers.  The Khorafi family had purchased structured instruments to the value of some USD$200 million, with a view to secure their capital but to generate a profit on investment over and above their own obligations to a Kuwaiti bank.  The case had far reaching consequences worldwide for the regulatory regime in which banks operate.  Shaman was instructed behind the scenes on anticipated arbitration proceedings relating to the litigation funding of the Claimants.
• ICC Arbitration: Software Provider v Global Telecoms Corporation [2015] - The dispute focused on the interpretation of contractual terms as between the parties in respect of the claimant contractor providing open-source software services. The case turned on whether a minimum commitment amount of USD $14m was payable to the claimant. The case resolved at a mediation a few weeks before a final arbitration hearing and Shaman was instructed as sole counsel.