Kate Rogers

Call: 2009 (England and Wales); 2026 (BVI)

Barrister

Kate Rogers is a commercial barrister specialising in insolvency, company, and commercial disputes, in particular those with an allegation of fraud and asset recovery.

Kate’s practice often involves cross-border litigation. She is instructed both as sole counsel and as part of larger legal teams. Recent cases include: Re. PPE Medpro Ltd [2025] EWHC 3449 (Ch); Re. Rational Foreign Exchange Limited [2025] EWHC 1958 (Ch); Algie v Hutcheson [2025] EWHC 1893 (Ch); Titanium Capital Investments Limited & Ors v Jonathan Hughes & Ors [2025] EWHC 682 (Ch) and acting, as sole-counsel, for a group of Representative Respondents in the administration of Hartley Pensions Limited, the widely reported £1.3bn pension scheme administration.

Kate is consistently ranked as a leading junior for restructuring and insolvency work in both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500. The directories describe her as “an outstanding barrister in all areas” and “a fantastic advocate who stays calm under pressure and is a force of nature in the court room” with “excellent technical knowledge” that is “second to none”, as well as “a very technical and creative advocate” who “performs well on her feet and is a quick thinker.” 

As to giving advice the directories say that Kate is “a straight talker, provides clear advice that is well thought through. She is also a good team player and is quick to respond the queries. She is always well prepared and on top of the legal and evidential issues and is a confident advocate.”

She is a regular speaker at conferences and contributes to publications. Kate contributed to Insolvency Litigation: A Practical Guide, 3rd Ed.

INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING

Kate has extensive experience acting for office holders, creditors, individuals, and directors in matters of corporate and personal insolvency. She frequently acts in cases concerning transactional avoidance, misfeasance and/or breach of fiduciary duties, wrongful trading, fraud, and trusts, and is experienced in obtaining urgent injunctive relief.

Kate has particular expertise in special administration and financial insolvency more generally, having been instructed in high-profile special administrations under both the IBSAR and PESAR regimes, and the administration of a pension scheme administrator. Kate recently assisted in the independent review of the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 to HM Treasury.

In her advisory work, Kate advises on technical aspects of insolvency practice and procedure, including advising administrators on issues such as validity of appointments or remuneration, and advising creditors as to the validity of their security and their rights in a restructuring.

Kate has extensive High Court advocacy experience. The directories consistently praise Kate for her advocacy (“Kate is a very technical and creative advocate. She performs well on her feet and is a quick thinker.” (Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2023), (“a fantastic advocate who stays calm under pressure and is a force of nature in the courtroom.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2024), and most recently “Kate is highly rated due to her exceptional technical knowledge and strong advocacy skills…she is excellent on her feet and reads the room very well in terms of anticipating what the judge wants.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2025).

Kate is also described by the directories as having “excellent technical knowledge”, being “very strong technically’ and “detailed”.

She contributes to Insolvency Litigation: A Practical Guide (published by Sweet & Maxwell) and is also a regular speaker at conferences.

Her recent experience and reported cases include:

Re PPE Medpro Ltd [2025] EWHC 3449 (Ch): acting as junior counsel, first to the Department of Health and Social Care as the majority creditor in the administration of PPE Medpro Ltd (the administration followed the high profile litigation – with a different counsel team – in which the DHSC obtained judgment in the sum of £122million against PPE Medpro Ltd for the supply of non-sterile gowns to the UK Government during the pandemic), and now as junior counsel to the liquidators of PPE Medpro Ltd following the court ordering that the administration cease and the company be wound up.

Re Aubit International (2025): acting as junior counsel to the liquidators of a Cayman Islands incorporated Company which operated in the crypto investment space. The liquidators bring a tracing claim arising out of a fraud perpetrated on the company in which the company suffered losses of c.$144million (listed for trial January 2027).

Re Argentex LLP [2025] EWHC 3125 (Ch): acting as junior counsel for the special administrators of this payment services and FX firm (undertaking both MiFID and non-MiFID business) on an application seeking the direction of the court on the question of whether the joint special administrators could close out the trading book of the firm and pursue the resulting debt for contracts which were ‘out of the money’ from the customer perspective.

Re. Argentex LLP [2025] EWHC 2625 (Ch): acting as junior counsel for the special administrators of this payment services and foreign exchange firm (undertaking both MiFID and non-MiFID business), on an application seeking the direction of the court on the question of whether liabilities of the firm to its customers were an expense of the administration.

Re Rational Foreign Exchange Limited [2025] EWHC 1958 (Ch): acting as sole counsel for the joint special administrators of this payment services and foreign exchange firm, including the successful approval of the distribution plan together with declaratory relief as to the treatment of EU domiciled customers post Brexit.

Re Hartley Pensions Limited: acting for a group of proposed Representative Respondents to a part 8 claim for declaratory relief in the administration of this pension scheme administrator/operator (with assets under administration of £1.3bn).

Algie v Hutcheson [2025] EWHC 1893 (Ch): acting for the trustees in bankruptcy of Mr Hutcheson (the father-in-law of Gordon Ramsey) in the trial of various issues including allegations of sham, TUVs, and actions defrauding creditors.

X v Y (2025): Acting as sole counsel for the liquidators of a payment services and foreign exchange firm (in liquidation as opposed to special administration as the onset of insolvency was prior to the implementation of the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021), in a claim against the directors of the firm for breach of duty.

X v Y (2025): providing discrete advice to the liquidators of a company in respect of their duties within the context of a Quincecare claim brought by the liquidators against the company’s banking partners. The claim involves allegations that the banking partners allowed the directors to purchase private yachts and the like using company monies obtained on the pretence of investment in solar farms.

X v Y (2024): acted for both current and former liquidators in an application seeking a direction from the court as to whether the replacement liquidator’s appointment was procedurally irregular owing to the fact that the name of the replacement liquidator was not read out to the creditors at the meeting in which the creditors voted to replace the liquidator. Neither the IA 1986 nor the IR 2016 deal with this point and there was no prior authority on this issue.

X v Y (2024): Acing for the liquidators of a company in an action for misfeasance and misfeasant trading against former directors supplied by a fiduciary services firm based in Guernsey.

X v Y (2024): Advising the liquidators of a company engaged on the build of a high-profile stadium at a Premier League Football Club, including assisting in the interviews of third parties pursuant to s.236 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

WealthTek (2023): Acting for the proposed special administrators (then interim managers) on the application brought by the FCA for an urgent special administration order in respect of WealthTek LLP.

Pagden v Ridgley (2023): Representing the former administrator in the early stages of this litigation, opposing an application to extend the time within which the former administrator’s remuneration (the total of which runs into the millions) could be challenged. The matter turned on a discrete point of law upon which there is no clear authority: the ability of the Insolvency Rules to provide a basis of challenge for remuneration payable out of a secured asset.

X v Y (2023): Acting for a Liechtenstein incorporated association, whose ultimate parent is Chinese state owned, in a contested winding up petition which forms part of a serious of disputes arising out of high-value solar power plant development worldwide

X v Y (2023): Acting for the trustee in bankruptcy in a complex claim involving the escheat of properties which were beneficially owned by the bankrupt (owing to the properties having been held on trust for the bankrupt by an offshore company). This matter also concerns the interplay between the Proceedings of Crime Act 2022 and insolvency procedure.

X v Y (2022): Advising a well-known football club in respect of numerous alleged debts arising out of a change in ownership

X v Y (2022): acting for the directors in a fraudulent trading and fraudulent breach of duty claim, including a significant dispute as to limitation.

Re Bedborough [2021] EWHC 220 (Ch); [2021] B.P.I.R. 581; [2021] 2 P. & C.R. DG1 – instructed for the successful Trustee in Bankruptcy in a dispute concerning the validity of a trust deed; a transaction at an undervalue; and the issue of whether immeasurable consideration in the form of a promise not to divorce is capable of being measured in money or money’s worth for the purpose of the transactional avoidance provisions in the Insolvency Act 1986

Re. Robinson [2020] EWHC 2928 (Ch) – instructed for the successful Trustee in Bankruptcy in this first authority to be decided under s.314 and/or Schedule 5 of the Insolvency Act 1986, in particular the inter-relation between these provisions and the extent of the powers given to a trustee in bankruptcy

Re. Mittal [2020] EWHC 1550 (Ch); [2020] B.P.I.R. 1151 – instructed for the successful petitioning creditor on this high profile contested bankruptcy (reported by The Times to be the biggest bankruptcy in UK history). The petitioning creditor was owed c.£140m by Mr Pramod Mittal, the younger brother of the steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal. A bankruptcy order was made

Irwin v Haddow (2020) – following the successful claims brought by the FCA against the well-known fraudster Renwick Haddow in 2018, Mr Haddow’s wife claimed to be the beneficial owner of a 50% interest in central London property held in the name of an offshore company (found to be a front to conceal Mr Haddow’s true ownership). The court found for Mr Haddow’s Trustee in Bankruptcy and denied the wife’s claim

Victory House v RGB [2018] EWHC 1143 (Ch); [2019] Ch. 1; [2018] 3 W.L.R. 1024; [2019] B.C.C. 87; [2018] B.P.I.R. 1195 – Acted for the successful Applicant seeking an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding up petition in circumstances where the Respondent had the benefit of an adjudication decision in its favour. This case defined the relationship between the construction adjudication procedure and winding up in the Companies Court. Appeared as sole counsel at the first hearing, then led by David Chivers QC at the subsequent hearing

Bhogal and Bhogal v Knight [2018] EWHC 2952 (Ch); [2019] B.P.I.R. 41 – Instructed for the successful appellant on the appeal brought by creditors against the supervisor of an IVA concerning the issue of costs

Robert v (1) Palfrey and Lemon (2) Talipova [2018] EWHC 135 (Ch) – Acting for the successful Trustee in Bankruptcy in a dispute over the ownership of shares, notably whether the bankrupt’s shares had been charged as security or whether the alleged documentation had been produced after the bankruptcy and accordingly whether the alleged agreement was a ‘sham’.

Reed v (1) Samuel-Camps (2) Bank of Ireland [2016] EWHC 2314 (Ch) – Acting for the First Respondent Receiver, appointed by the Bank of Ireland, in proceedings brought by Mr Reed alleging breach of the duty of good faith by the First Respondent and seeking injunctive relief to prevent the sale of the property concerned.

COMPANY

Kate is well versed in shareholder disputes and breach of warranty claims. She is particularly experienced in unfair prejudice petitions and of the numerous and varied issues that arise in such actions. Kate’s experience also encompasses derivative actions; share purchase agreements; actions concerning the validly of directors’ actions, directors’ remuneration, or dividends; to numerous applications pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 (e.g. applications for production of records and accounts; defending allegations of unlawful dividends; and applications for rectification of the register (sometimes as a precursor to an unfair prejudice petition by a minority shareholder).

Kate’s shareholder dispute experience also encompasses actions in respect of oral agreements, in particular where the beneficial interest and legal title to shares are held separately.

Kate has extensive High Court advocacy experience. The directories consistently praise Kate for her advocacy (“Kate is a very technical and creative advocate. She performs well on her feet and is a quick thinker.” (Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2023), (“a fantastic advocate who stays calm under pressure and is a force of nature in the courtroom.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2024), and most recently “Kate is highly rated due to her exceptional technical knowledge and strong advocacy skills…she is excellent on her feet and reads the room very well in terms of anticipating what the judge wants.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2025).

Her recent experience includes:

Titanium Capital Investments Limited & Ors v Jonathan Hughes & Ors [2025] EWHC 682 (Ch): Instructed for the Defendants (in a counsel team of three, led by two silks) in a £10m+ dispute concerning the supply of lateral flow tests during the Covid-19 pandemic, spanning both shareholder obligations and partnership law amidst numerous and varied issues.

X v Y (2025): providing discrete advice to the liquidators of a company in respect of their duties within the context of a Quincecare claim brought by the liquidators against the company’s banking partners. The claim involves allegations that the banking partners allowed the directors to purchase private yachts and the like using company monies obtained on the pretence of investment in solar farms.

Instructed for the Petitioner in an unfair prejudice petition seeking a buy-out order (with permission for a derivative action in the alternative), in which the matters of prejudice include diversion of business from the company to new entities incorporated by the respondents.

Advising the purchaser of a central London hotel on a potential breach of the tax warranty and tax covenant contained in an SPA.

Instructed as junior counsel for the Petitioner in an unfair prejudice petition seeking a buy-out order of a shareholding valued at £2-3m with multiple issues.

Instructed for the Respondents to an unfair prejudice petition in which the sum sought for the shareholding totals £6m, allegations include both allegations of unfair prejudice and misrepresentation.

Acting for the Claimant in an action to recover funds pursuant to a share sale agreement, which was complicated by the insolvency of the company.

Applying for rectification of the register pursuant to s.125 of the Companies Act 2006, as a precursor to an unfair prejudice petition on behalf of a minority shareholder.

Applying for inspection and/or copies of company accounts and records in order to fulfil duties as director and as a precursor to potential further action.

Acting for the Claimant in an action seeking declaratory relief as to the beneficial interest in 50% of a company’s shareholding.

Acting for the Claimant in an action to enforce the terms of an oral collateral contract, entered into at the same time as a Share Purchase Agreement, relating to a deal done between two well-known multi-million-pound companies.

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AND BANKING

Kate has a busy commercial practice encompassing commercial chancery litigation with a particular emphasis on civil fraud. She is instructed in multi-million-pound disputes in both litigation and arbitration proceedings, dealing with the full range of business disputes, including contractual disputes, partnership disputes and shareholder disputes. Kate also has experience of contracts within the world of sports, such as boxing.

She has also acted for international banks in business-critical cases over the years, including claims of misrepresentation, undue influence, undervalue of security, and forged documents (created and registered both nationally and internationally) designed to defeat the Bank’s interest in the security.

Her recent work includes:

Titanium Capital Investments Limited & Ors v Jonathan Hughes & Ors [2025] EWHC 682 (Ch): Instructed for the Defendants (in a counsel team of three, led by Lexa Hilliard KC and John Machell KC) in a £10m+ dispute concerning the supply of the “flowflex” lateral flow test during the Covid-19 pandemic, spanning both shareholder obligations and partnership law amidst issues of unlawful means conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt (listed for a four day appeal in the Court of Appeal, April 2026).

X v Y: advising (as sole counsel) the Jersey branch of a well-known bank as to jurisdictional issues and allegations of misrepresentation, arising in the context of enforcement against a HNW individual.

X v Y: Instructed as junior counsel (led by Matthew Weaver KC) for the Claimant in a multi-million-pound contractual claim arising from the provision of electrical engineering services for the production of electric sports cars. The defendant is a well-known international name in the automotive industry. The Claimant claims losses in excess of £20million (2025).

X v Y: Acting as junior counsel (led by Shantanu Majumdar KC) in respect of a claim for breach of contract arising from multi-million-pound funding agreements for four connected construction projects. Also simultaneously defending proceedings brought against the guarantor (a HNW individual) on the same basis (2025).

Re Aubit International: Instructed as junior counsel (led by Joseph Curl KC) to the liquidators of a Cayman Islands incorporated Company which operated in the crypto investment space. The liquidators bring a tracing claim arising out of a fraud perpetrated on the company in which the company suffered losses of c.$144million (listed for trial January 2027).

X v Y: Acting as lead counsel for the Claimant in proceedings concerning the recovery of a commercial loan in the sum of c.£3million, defended on the grounds that (i) the interest is penal; and (ii) fraudulent misrepresentations were made at the point of entry into the loan agreement, causing losses in the sum of c.£8.25million (2025).

X v Y (2025): providing discrete advice to the liquidators of a company in respect of their duties within the context of a Quincecare claim brought by the liquidators against the company’s banking partners. The claim involves allegations that the banking partners allowed the directors to purchase private yachts and the like using company monies obtained on the pretence of investment in solar farms.

X v Y – LCIA Arbitration No.235926: Instructed as junior counsel (led by Shantanu Majumdar KC) in the arbitration of a claim and counterclaim arising from a corporate JV – between a Maltese company and a Western “oil major”- which operates a chain of filling stations in Ukraine. The dispute – under the shareholder agreement – relates to the appropriate response to the effect of the Russian invasion and its damage and disruption to the business, as well as EU sanctions imposed on the Russian UBO of X (2024).

X v Y (2024): Acting (as sole counsel) for a HNW individual in a jurisdictional challenge within the context of multi-million-pound enforcement proceedings arising out of a divorce settlement.

Acting for a Liechtenstein incorporated association, whose ultimate parent is Chinese state-owned, against the first defendant who is incorporated in this jurisdiction and the guarantor who is incorporated and registered in Hong Kong. Various entities within the Claimant group have been working with various entities owned by the Defendant group for a number of years, in the field of renewable energy. The parties together own a number of multi-million-pound solar plants, having developed solar plants all over the world (2023).

Advising the purchaser of a central London hotel on a potential breach of the tax warranty and tax covenant contained in an SPA (2022).

Acting for a bridging lender in respect of a fraud perpetrated upon the lender. Obtained an urgent freezing injunction followed by the issue of proceedings for conspiracy to commit the tort of deceit and misrepresentation, alongside a claim for proprietary remedies including the right to be subrogated to an earlier charge (2022).

Advising a well-known global clothing brand as to whether a supplier’s terms had been sufficiently incorporated into a contract between them (2022).

X v Y: Advising a well-known football club in respect of numerous alleged debts arising out of a change in ownership (2022).

X v Y: acting for the directors in a fraudulent trading and fraudulent breach of duty claim, including a significant dispute as to limitation (2022).

Obtaining injunctive relief in a multi-million-pound dispute related to the construction of a care home and assisted living accommodation, with arguments centred on the financing of the project, inter-company funding and conspiracy to defraud.

Representing a high street bank in proceedings with various allegations relating to the alleged mis-sale of an interest rate hedging product (a cap with a knock in floor), made on the basis that this particular product was found to be unsuitable for certain customers by the FCA after the market crash and consequential reduction in interest rates in 2007/2008.

Acting for a global adhesives manufacturer in a seven-figure breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation claim brought against a manufacturer of industrial mixing vessels supplied in the UK for use in Germany; France; Italy; and China.

Acting for the UK’s largest on-line ticket sales provider to advise and obtain injunctive relief in a contractual dispute arising out of major contracts for the exclusive sale of tickets on behalf of well-known UK venues.

Victory House v RGB [2018] EWHC 1143 (Ch); [2019] Ch. 1; [2018] 3 W.L.R. 1024; [2019] B.C.C. 87; [2018] B.P.I.R. 1195 – acted for the successful Applicant seeking an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding up petition in circumstances where the Respondent had the benefit of an adjudication decision in its favour. This case defined the relationship between the construction adjudication procedure and winding up in the Companies Court. Appeared as sole counsel at the first hearing, then led by David Chivers QC at the subsequent hearing.

Acting for a well-known high street bank in a sensitive matter concerning misrepresentation and fraud against the bank (specifically mortgage fraud), where the primary concerns are that the bank was deceived and reputational issues played a key role.

CIVIL FRAUD & ASSET RECOVERY

Kate’s practice often involves issues of civil fraud. She regularly deals with cases involving serious allegations of dishonesty in relation to deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation; conspiracy; breach of fiduciary duty/trust; dishonest assistance and knowing receipt. She has experience of obtaining early injunctive relief in such circumstances (often by way of freezing order) and of proprietary remedies or tracing claims in order to seek the recovery of assets.

Titanium Capital Investments Limited & Ors v Jonathan Hughes & Ors [2025] EWHC 682 (Ch): Instructed for the Defendants (in a counsel team of three, led by Lexa Hilliard KC and John Machell KC) in a £10m+ dispute concerning the supply of the “flowflex” lateral flow test during the Covid-19 pandemic, spanning both shareholder obligations and partnership law amidst issues of unlawful means conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt (listed for a four day appeal in the Court of Appeal, April 2026).

X v Y: Acting as lead counsel for the Claimant in proceedings concerning the recovery of a commercial loan in the sum of c.£3million, defended on the grounds that (i) the interest is penal; and (ii) fraudulent misrepresentations were made at the point of entry into the loan agreement, causing losses in the sum of c.£8.25million (2025).

Re Aubit International: Instructed as junior counsel (led by Joseph Curl KC) to the liquidators of a Cayman Islands incorporated Company which operated in the crypto investment space. The liquidators bring a tracing claim arising out of a fraud perpetrated on the company in which the company suffered losses of c.$144million (listed for trial January 2027).

X v Y (2025): providing discrete advice to the liquidators of a company in respect of their duties within the context of a Quincecare claim brought by the liquidators against the company’s banking partners. The claim involves allegations that the banking partners allowed the directors to purchase private yachts and the like using company monies obtained on the pretence of investment in solar farms.

X v Y (2024): Acting (as sole counsel) for a HNW individual in a jurisdictional challenge within the context of multi-million pound enforcement proceedings arising out of a divorce settlement.

Acting for liquidators in a claim against former trust managers who dishonestly used their position as both fiduciary services provider to the company in liquidation and managers of a fortune settled on trust, in order to extract sums from the settlements to remunerate themselves via the company (ongoing).

X v Y: acting for the directors in a fraudulent trading and fraudulent breach of duty claim, including a significant dispute as to limitation (2023).

Acting for a Defendant accused of having knowingly received sums of money from a company controlled by her son, when it is alleged that such sums of money were obtained by way of fraudulent misrepresentation (2022).

Acting for a bridging lender in respect of a fraud perpetrated upon the lender. Obtained an urgent freezing injunction followed by the issue of proceedings for conspiracy to commit the tort of deceit and misrepresentation, alongside a claim for proprietary remedies including the right to be subrogated to an earlier charge (2022).

Obtaining injunctive relief in a multi-million pound dispute related to the construction of a care home and assisted living accommodation, with arguments centred on the financing of the project, inter-company funding and conspiracy to defraud.

Instructed for the Respondents to an unfair prejudice petition in which the sum sought for the shareholding totals £6m, allegations include both allegations of unfair prejudice and misrepresentation.

Acting for a global adhesives manufacturer in a seven-figure breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation claim brought against a manufacturer of industrial mixing vessels supplied in the UK for use in Germany; France; Italy; and China.

RECOGNITION

“She is good on her feet, keeping to the point and making sure that all arguments are made clearly and concisely at court.” (Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2026)
“She is excellent on her feet and reads the room very well in terms of anticipating what the judge wants.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2026)
“Kate Rogers is highly rated due to her exceptional technical knowledge and strong advocacy skills.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2026)
“Kate is a go-to barrister. She is approachable, client-focused and a fantastic advocate who will fight for her clients.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2025)
“Kate Rogers has a sensible and commercial approach to matters.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2025)
“Kate adds value to the team. She turns around work quickly and has strong drafting skills.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2025)
“Kate is an outstanding barrister in all areas. Not only is her knowledge second to none, but she is also approachable and understanding.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2024)
“Her advocacy and written work are detailed, clear and comprehensive.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2024)
“Kate is a fantastic advocate who stays calm under pressure and is a force of nature in the courtroom.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2024)
“Kate is a straight talker, provides clear advice that is well thought through. She is also a good team player and is quick to respond the queries. She is always well prepared and on top of the legal and evidential issues and is a confident advocate.” (Company & Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2023)
“Kate is a very technical and creative advocate. She performs well on her feet and is a quick thinker.” (Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2023)
“Has excellent technical knowledge and is detailed, available and user-friendly. She is a pleasure to work with.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2022)
“A fantastic advocate well-versed in insolvency and quick on her feet in the court room.“(Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2022)
“Kate is a tenacious advocate; she remains in control when dealing with difficult opponents. She is very thorough in her approach. We highly recommend her to our clients, who all have enjoyed working with her.” (Company and Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2022)
“Very strong technically and a good advocate.” “She is not only helpful in terms of delivering advice, but is also so down to earth, approachable and professional.” (Restructuring/Insolvency, Chambers UK Bar 2021)
“She combines excellent attention to detail with a very good grasp of technical insolvency matters.” (Company and Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2021)
“She is very user friendly, approachable, technically excellent, and tenacious.” (Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2021)
“Pertinacious, energetic and technically accomplished.” (Commercial, Banking, Insolvency and Chancery Law, Legal 500 UK Bar 2017, 2019

“Kate is hard-working, well-respected, effective, clever, and very user-friendly. She is a real pleasure to work with and always makes herself available to discuss matters.”

Insolvency, Legal 500 UK Bar 2027

"Kate is an excellent mid-ranking junior who has command beyond her years. Incredibly hard-working, bright, and a robust advocate, she is also very client-friendly and the all-round package."

Commercial, Litigation Legal 500 UK Bar 2027

"Kate is one of my favourite barristers because she grabs the bull by the horns. Insightful and tenacious, she challenges effectively and works very hard. On her feet, she's very impressive and powerful."