Alexander Kingston-Splatt

Commercial dispute resolution is a cornerstone of Alex’s practice and an area in which he has considerable trial experience (both as sole and junior counsel).

He acts for clients across various industries, including light and heavy manufacturing, natural resources and energy production, information technology, aerospace, retail, real estate and construction in the resolution of disputes through litigation, arbitration and other forms of ADR.

His expertise covers all aspects of the supply of goods and services, complex contractual disputes, issues relating to title, and trusts arising in the context of commercial transactions.

His work also covers the economic torts, such as procuring a breach of contract, and he has considerable experience of banking and finance disputes, frequently acting for banks, asset-based lenders and other financial institutions in enforcement and asset recovery proceedings.

Alex frequently acts for and against IT providers in disputes concerning the provision of both generic and bespoke software packages and services.

Alex also has experience of litigation concerning art and cultural assets, ranging from artwork to classic and high-value cars, including disputes as to title, provenance, and quality.

He has experience of obtaining and resisting applications for urgent interim orders in support of commercial claims, such as freezing and search orders and Norwich Pharmacal relief.

Recent and notable work includes:

• X v Y [2025] (Ongoing).  Alex is currently instructed (as sole counsel) in an LCIA arbitration concerning claims for debts and/or damages due under a contract between commercial parties in the hospitality industry.
• X v Y [2025] (Ongoing).  Alex is presently acting (as sole counsel) for a retail company against the former supplier of its stock management and finance software, in a claim for damages arising from the loss of use of that software following a cyber-attack.
• CBI Property Projects Limited v Tripipatkul [2024] EWHC 3080 (Ch) (Mr Justice Adam Johnson and HHJ Dight CBE). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the successful claimant at trial in seeking to enforce the balance of a bridging loan, which the defendants contended gave rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1984. Alex later (also as sole counsel) successfully resisted the defendants’ application for permission to appeal, and permission to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, on the grounds that the loan had allegedly been procured by bribery. Instructed by RWK Goodman LLP.
• X v Y [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts) (Mr Justice Rajah). Alex (led by Stuart Benzie) successfully obtained doorstep delivery up and imaging orders, together with related prohibtory and non-disclosure orders, on an application without notice against former senior employees for having misappropriated the applicant’s confidential information, potentially pursuant to a conspiracy with their new employer. The case later settled on favourable terms.  Instructed by Gateley plc.
• X v Y [2024] (Circuit Commercial Court) (HHJ Pelling KC). Alex (led by Simon Mills) obtained a Norwich Pharmacal order and related non-disclosure and anonymity orders against a commercial distributer in support of the investigation of a suspected commercial fraud and breach of a supply agreement. Instructed by B P Collins LLP.
• Chris Allsop Properties Ltd v Unbrako Pre-Cast Concrete Ltd [2024] (High Court, King’s Bench Division) (Mr Richard Hermer KC). Alex (led by Shantanu Majumdar KC) successfully obtained permission shortly before trial for the claimant to rely upon a jointly authored expert report (where permission for one expert per party had previously been granted) in circumstances where the original expert had unexpectedly been taken ill, and resisted the defendant’s strike out/summary judgment application. Instructed by Freeths LLP.
• X v Y [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a claimant who had purchased various causes of action from the liquidator of the defendant directors’ former company which sought to recover various unlawful dividends and other misappropriated sums. The case settled on favourable terms. Instructed by Howes Percival LLP.
• Praetura Asset Finance Ltd v Vitale and Ors [2023] EWHC 889 (Comm) (Circuit Commercial Court) (HHJ Worster). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the successful claimant at trial in arguing that, on its proper construction, the claimant’s guarantee took effect as an indemnity, meaning that the claimant had no duty to mitigate its losses when selling the asset which was the subject of the underlying hire-purchase agreement and that, even if it had been subject to such a duty, the claimant had discharged it. Instructed by Spratt Endicott.
• Marsh & Parsons v Jagdev [2023] (County Court at Central London and Court of Appeal). Alex acted for the claimant at first instance, on the first appeal, and in successfully resisting permission for a second appeal. The defendant maintained that he was entitled to repayment of sums paid under a contract on the grounds of unjust enrichment, the basis being the claimant’s alleged subsequent repudiatory breach of that contract. In rejecting permission for a second appeal, the Court of Appeal (Nugee LJ) agreed with Alex’s analysis set out in the claimant’s PD 52C para 19 statement. Instructed by Harwood & Co.
• X v Y [2023]. Alex acted for a provider of IT services in complex proceedings in which the defendant alleged that it had terminated an ongoing contract, following the provider’s withholding of services by reason of unpaid invoices. The defendant brought a counterclaim alleging various misrepresentations as to the functionality of the basic underlying software, and the bespoke features which were to be developed by the provider. Case settled on favourable terms.  Instructed by Harwood & Co.
• X v Y [2023]. Alex acted for a claimant IT company specialising in the provision of software to the legal industry in proceedings against a law firm. The claimant was successful in recovering all of its unpaid debts, and in resisting the entirety of a counterclaim which alleged various breaches of contract and sought damages for the eventual intervention in the firm by the SRA.  Instructed by Blaser Mills LLP.
• Vitol SA v Genser Energy Ghana Ltd [2022] EWHC 1812 (Commercial Court) (Ms Lesley Anderson KC). Alex acted (led by Simon Mills) for the defendant in Vitol’s claim for £17m arising under a contract for the supply of propane following the occurrence of an alleged force majeure event. The case involved complex issues of estoppel (promissory, by representation, and by convention) and issues of foreign law concerning the domestic regulation of energy production in Ghana. Instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP. See also [2022] EWHC 1955 (decision on costs, which included consideration of the caselaw on payment of interest upon costs).
• Castle Trust plc v Hine [2022] (County Court at Central London, Business and Property List) (HHJ Dight CBE). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for Castle Trust in a four-day trial in its proceedings to enforce two buy-to-let charges worth c.£2m granted by Mr and Mrs Hine over properties in London. The defendants sought to set the mortgages aside on the grounds of non est factum arising from their alleged misunderstanding of the nature of the transactions, under which the repayment obligation was linked to the performance of an index published by Halifax. The defendants also argued that the charges and related facilities fell within the definition of contracts for differences within the meaning of art. 85 of The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001. The court agreed with Alex’s submissions and entered judgment for the claimant. Instructed by Brecher LLP.
• X v Y [2021] (High Court, King’s Bench Division) (Mr Justice Nicklin). Alex successfully resisted an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order on various grounds, including improper service and inadequate evidence supporting the cross-undertaking. Instructed by Ellisons Solicitors.
• Alex was instructed for the Claimants in a multi-party arbitration concerning the construction of an offshore drilling platform. As a solicitor.
• Alex acted for the Claimant in an arbitration concerning the allegedly defective manufacture of mining equipment. As a solicitor.
• Liquid Investments v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] UKFTT 297 (TC) – a case which originally concerned the proper VAT treatment of a 1997 McLaren F1, and later turned into a dispute about whether an assignee could rely upon (and appeal) a Binding Tariff Information issued by the Revenue in relation to the car. As a solicitor.
• Hrabalek v Hrabalek [2015] EWHC 1456 (QB) – a dispute between father and son as to the ownership of a collection of Lancia Stratos cars, concerning whether there had been a valid gift of the collection from father to son under Austrian law. As a solicitor.

Much of Alex’s work involves proceedings involving serious allegations of fraud and related misconduct, predominantly arising in a commercial or corporate context. He acts in cases involving deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, breach of trust and fiduciary duty, breach of directors’ duties, dishonest assistance/knowing receipt, and bribery/ secret commissions.

He is also experienced in obtaining and resisting applications for interim orders to support fraud claims, such as freezing and search orders, doorstep delivery up orders, imaging orders, Norwich Pharmacal relief and Bankers Trust orders.

He was instructed as junior counsel by the administrators (later, liquidators) in the widely reported Arena Television litigation, a series of cases concerning what is believed to be the largest hire-purchase fraud ever perpetrated in the UK, with losses exceeding £280m.

Recent and notable work includes:

• X v Y [2025] (Ongoing) (High Court, Business and Property Courts).  Alex is currently acting as junior counsel in resisting civil fraud proceedings allegedly valued at more than £300m.
• X v Y [2025] (Ongoing) (High Court, Business and Property Courts).  Alex (led by Matthew Weaver KC) is currently acting for a defendant in proceedings which allege the fraudulent misappropriation of significant sums from the claimant.
• X v Y (Various) [2025] (ongoing).  Alex is presently acting (as sole counsel) for a number of commercial energy suppliers in defending claims brought in the High Court and County Court by commercial occupiers in various industries seeking to recoup alleged secret and half-secret commissions paid to brokers.
• X v Y [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts) (Mr Justice Rajah).  Alex (led by Stuart Benzie) successfully obtained doorstep delivery up and imaging orders, together with related prohibtory and non-disclosure orders, on an application without notice against former senior employees for having misappropriated the applicant’s confidential information, potentially pursuant to a conspiracy with their new employer. The matter later settled on favourable terms.  Instructed by Gateley plc.
• X v Y [2024] (Circuit Commercial Court) (HHJ Pelling KC). Alex (led by Simon Mills) obtained a Norwich Pharmacal order and related non-disclosure and anonymity orders against a commercial distributer in support of the investigation of a suspected commercial fraud and breach of a supply agreement. Instructed by B P Collins LLP.
• X v Y [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts).  Alex (led by James Morgan KC) acted for the assignee of various causes of action from a liquidator in the pursuit of monetary orders of c. €49m against the company’s former directors for having negligently and in breach of duty permitted a fraud involving Bitcoin to be perpetrated on the company.
• X v Y [2024]. (High Court, Business and Property Courts). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a claimant who had purchased various causes of action from the liquidator of the defendant directors’ former company which sought to recover various unlawful dividends and other misappropriated sums. The case settled on favourable terms. Instructed by Howes Percival LLP.
• X v Y [2024]. Alex (as sole counsel) advised a foreign national as to the interaction between an agreement for the transfer of property in London and an order for forfeiture made by a US District Court against the counterparty to that agreement. Instructed by Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP.
• X v Y [2024]. Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a fiduciary accused of earning secret commissions in the context of their previous employment relationship. The case settled on favourable terms. Instructed by Bindmans LLP.
• X v Y [2023]. Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the claimant in a claim in unlawful means conspiracy and inducing breach of contract against the creditor of a company which had entered into an invoice discounting agreement, in circumstances where the creditor and the company had conspired to divert the payment of multiple invoices from the claimant to the (insolvent) company’s directors.  The case settled on favourable terms.  Instructed by Bermans.
• Arena Television Ltd (in admin.) and Ors v Yeowart & Hopkinson [2022] EWHC 918 (Ch) (Mr Justice Green). Alex acted (led by Simon Mills) for the claimants sought £250m damages from their former directors arising out of alleged fraud involving HP agreements and financing of assets that did not exist and/or bore forged serial numbers. The claimants obtained a worldwide freezing order limited to £250m and a proprietary injunction. The claimants later obtained summary judgment on liability and interim order for £100m on account of damages pending remedies hearing. Instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP.
• Arena Television Ltd (in admin.) and Ors v Yeowart & Hopkinson [2022] EWHC 952 (Ch) (ICC Judge Mullen). Alex (led by Simon Mills) acted for the administrators in whose favour orders were made on expedited petitions before the judgment debt was payable. The judge held there was a compelling reason immediately to appoint trustees in bankruptcy without the Official Receiver first being appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986, even though the trustees in bankruptcy and the joint administrators of the petitioners were at the same firm (Kroll). Instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP.
• X v Y [2021] (High Court, Business and Property Courts). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the claimant against its former director (together with various related parties) in proceedings which alleged extensive misappropriations and misapplications of significant company funds, and breaches of the former director’s duties to the company in his alleged mishandling of the substantial property development which the claimant was incorporated to exploit. Instructed by Hodge, Jones & Allen.
• X v Y [2021] (High Court, Business and Property Courts in Manchester). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the defendant who had been accused of establishing a Ponzi scheme, breach of trust and fiduciary duty, and the misappropriation of significant funds held on trust within bank accounts across various jurisdictions. The claim was issued in 2007 and default judgment was entered into 2012 for c. £2.2m. Alex successfully set aside that judgment in September 2019. The case later settled. Instructed by Francis Wilks & Jones.
• X v Y [2021]. Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the potential claimant in her claim against an individual in business as a ‘litigation friend’ who deceived her into parting with c.£500,000 on the false premise that he was pursuing litigation against members of her family regarding the Will of a relative. The litigation was a fiction, in aid of which D had forged various documents and correspondence with the court and had acted in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. The case settled pre-action on favourable terms. Instructed by Francis Wilks & Jones.

Alex has considerable experience of all types of contentious insolvency claims and applications. His experience includes pursuing and defending misfeasance claims, various applications by Insolvency Practitioners, and winding-up and bankruptcy petitions.

He was ranked as a Rising Star for Insolvency by the Legal 500 in its 2024 and 2025 editions.

Recent and notable work includes:

• MBS Recovery Limited v Quinney [2025] EWHC 546 (Ch) (Mr Justice Marcus Smith).  Alex (as sole counsel) acted for the successful respondent, both at first instance and on appeal, in setting aside a statutory demand served in relation to elements of losses, claimed in the context of wider and ongoing civil fraud proceedings, which were alleged to have been admitted in the respondent’s defence.  Instructed by Freeths LLP.
• Parkins v Hayes and Duffy [2025] EWCC 45 and [2025] EWCC 46.  Alex acted for the supervisor of an IVA in response to an application seeking to revoke the creditors’ approval of the arrangement.  The case also considered the position of payment of a supervisor’s costs in circumstances where an arrangement is revoked due to no fault of the nominee/supervisor.
• X v Y [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts). Alex (led by James Morgan KC) acted for the assignee of various causes of action from a liquidator in the pursuit of monetary orders of c. €49m against the company’s former directors for having negligently and in breach of duty permitted a fraud involving Bitcoin to be perpetrated on the company.
• X v Y [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts) (Chief ICC Judge Briggs).  Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a respondent to an injunction application which sought to restrain further proceedings on a winding-up petition. The case concerned complex issues regarding the equitable assignment of an agreement entered into between two foreign parties and contractual estoppel. Instructed by Howard Kennedy LLP.
• Re a Company [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts) (Mr Justice Richard Smith). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for an applicant who sought a temporary injunction to restrain advertisement of a winding up petition. The petition debt was not disputed, and the injunction was instead sought to allow time for the completion of a loan to the applicant’s parent company which would in turn be used to discharge the petition debt. An injunction was granted for 28 days (whereas in most reported cases in similar scenarios, the applicant was only granted a much shorter period). Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.
• Gohil v United Schools Trust [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts) (HHJ Paul Matthews). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the respondent in an appeal from a decision made on paper under r.10.5(1) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 by which the District Judge had summarily dismissed an application to set aside statutory demands served by the respondent based upon judgment debts. The High Court agreed with Alex’s submissions that it should not interfere with the exercise of the judge’s discretion, and that the appeal was in substance pointless, because the appellant had made an application to set aside the judgments which had yet to be determined. Instructed by Harwood & Co.
• Bharania v Ovo Energy Limited [2023] EWHC 3363 (Ch) (ICC Judge Prentis). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the respondent which had previously obtained an injunction to restrain presentation of a petition against it on the basis of a disputed statutory demand. The respondent had offered to accept an undertaking by the applicant, which offer had been refused. The form of undertaking, which in some respects went beyond what the court was empowered to order, was not put before the judge who granted the injunction. The applicant sought to set aside the order. The court agreed with Alex’s submissions that the fact that the judge had not been shown the form of undertaking offered no basis to set aside the injunction. Instructed by Clarke Willmott.
• Manolete Partners plc v Jones and Jones [2023] EWHC 236 (Ch) (ICC Judge Barber). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for Mr and Mrs Jones who sought a stay of Manolete’s claim pending the determination of their application seeking to challenge the validity of the administrators of the company (from whom Manolete had taken an assignment of its causes of action). The application was refused because, among other reasons, even if the validity application had been successful, it was possible that the court may grant a retrospective administration order, and Manolete is a well-resourced concern able to meet any costs order. Instructed by Francis Wilks & Jones.
• Arena Television Ltd (in admin.) and Ors v Yeowart & Hopkinson [2022] EWHC 952 (Ch) (ICC Judge Mullen). Alex (led by Simon Mills) acted for the administrators in whose favour orders were made on expedited petitions before the judgment debt was payable. The judge held there was a compelling reason immediately to appoint trustees in bankruptcy without the Official Receiver first being appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986, even though the trustees in bankruptcy and the joint administrators of the petitioners were at the same firm (Kroll). Instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP.
• EMC Technical Services and Ors v Grenville [2022] (High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Manchester). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a defendant director of a company in liquidation in proceedings brought against him alleging that certain payments were preferences. Instructed by Francis Wilks & Jones.
• Re Ottery Ltd [2021] EWHC 95 (Ch) (ICC Judge Jones). Alex (as sole counsel) successfully obtained linked winding-up and bankruptcy orders in respect of fees due to a retired professional trustee of a discretionary trust, whom the respondents alleged had been negligent in the management of litigation against an American company the majority of whose shares were held by the trust. The case involved complex issues of the application of the reflective loss principle. Instructed by Prince Evans LLP.
• Manolete Partners v Ahmed and Anor [2021] (High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts). Alex (led by Simon Mills) acted for the defendants (a former company director and another of his companies) in defending proceedings for c.£2.45m brought by an assignee of the liquidator in proceedings which alleged that various transactions were at an undervalue and constituted preferences. The case settled. Instructed by B P Collins LLP.

Alex is frequently instructed in disputes arising out of the running of businesses, including those between companies and their directors or former directors, between shareholders of companies, and between individuals working in partnership, covering the full spectrum of actions against directors and former directors, unfair prejudice petitions to derivative actions brought by shareholders in the name of their company.

He also has considerable experience of advising on articles of association and other constitutional documents, and related matters of company procedure and ‘pure’ company law.

His recent and notable work includes:

• X v Y [2024]. Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a claimant who had purchased various causes of action from the liquidator of the defendant directors’ former company which sought to recover various unlawful dividends and other misappropriated sums. The case settled on favourable terms. Instructed by Howes Percival LLP.
• X v Y [2024] (High Court, Business and Property Courts).  Alex (led by James Morgan KC) acted for the assignee of various causes of action from a liquidator in the pursuit of monetary orders of c. €49m against the company’s former directors for having negligently and in breach of duty permitted a fraud involving Bitcoin to be perpetrated on the company.
• X v Y [2024] (ongoing). Alex is presently acting (as sole counsel) for a member of a company which runs an estate agency in respect of a potential unfair prejudice petition.
• Re a Company [2024].  Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a company in seeking to rectify a purported buyback of its own shares which was void by reason of having called for the deferred payment of consideration and for such consideration having been paid at a time when the company had no distributable profits.
• X v Y [2023] (County Court at Central London, Business and Property List) (HHJ Raeside KC). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the respondent to an application for permission to continue a derivative action. Permission to continue was refused and so the case dismissed. Instructed by Samuel Phillips.
• X v Y [2022]. Alex acted for a director of a company which operates a highly successful restaurant in a threatened unfair prejudice action, and in a related potential claim to recover substantial sums which were paid to a co-director and a company connected with that co-director allegedly in breach of fiduciary duty, for services provided by that connected company at grossly inflated values. Instructed by Egality Law.
• Brauer v Wilkinson [2021] (High Court, Business and Property Courts). Alex acted for the defendant to a long-running derivative action alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant in establishing separate businesses which operated in the same industry of the company of which she was a director. The case settled. Instructed by Bird & Bird LLP.
• X v Y [2021] (High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts). Alex acted (as sole counsel) for the defendant in proceedings arising out of the dissolution of a partnership. The case settled on favourable terms. Instructed by Hodge, Jones & Allen.
• X v Y [2021] (County Court at Bristol, Business and Property List). Alex acted for the defendants to an action brought by a former partner for post-dissolution profits made by the remaining partners under s.42 of the Partnership Act 1890. The case settled at mediation. Instructed by Nalders LLP.
• X v Y [2021] (High Court, Business and Property Courts) (Mr Justice Snowdon). Appearing for the respondents, Alex successfully resisted an urgent application for pre-action disclosure, and for the production of documents under the Companies Act 2006, in order to support an intended derivative claim. Instructed by De Jure Chambers.

Alex acts in negligence claims against various professionals. As a former solicitor, he is most frequently instructed to act in claims involving allegations of negligence against solicitors, but he also acts in claims against other professionals.

His recent and notable work includes:

• X v Y [2024]. Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a company in its claim against its former solicitors for the negligent preparation and advice in connection with a void share buyback agreement.
• X v Y [2022]. Alex acted (as sole counsel) for a claimant against his former solicitors (now in liquidation) for the negligent conduct of proceedings brought against the client for his removal as executor of his late brother’s estate. Instructed by Druces LLP.
• X v Y [2022] (ongoing). Alex acts for a property company in a claim against its insurance brokers for having obtained a policy of insurance against the wrong property, when premises owned by the client were destroyed in an arson. The client claims for the reinstatement of the property. Instructed by Dickens Shiebert Limited.
• X v Y [2021]. Alex acted for a property investor in a claim arising out of a conveyancer’s negligent advice as to the scope and application of a series of restrictive covenants and easements affecting a plot of development land. Instructed by Goodman Derrick LLP.
• X v Y [2020]. Alex acted for a potential claimant as to its claim against a firm of solicitors for breach of trust arising out of the treatment of funds held by the solicitors in their client account.

• COMBAR
• R3
• The Law Society

• Legal Practice Course – University of Law – Distinction
• LLB – University of Kent – First Class

• Kent Law School Prize for Special Achievement

Read Alexander’s Privacy Notice, Data Protection Policy and Disposal Policy