Profile description
Commercial
Stephanie is regularly instructed in small claims, fast and multi-track trials, applications in the Companies Court and long running, high-value, cases, involving complex issues of contract, standards of reasonable care and skill, fraud, third party funding and invoking the court’s summary jurisdiction for breach of warranty of authority.
Stephanie was seconded to the civil litigation department, of a solicitor’s firm, to act as in-house counsel, providing advice and advocacy in a range of cases from contractual claims, professional negligence matters, commercial tenancy disputes and restitution.
Notable cases:
Frailing v A Firm, (2013): Represented the claimant in a complex professional negligence claim, involving issues of agency, fiduciary duties, trusts, gifts and due diligence, which settled following ADR.
BZR Partnership (A Firm) & MC v Gcrypt Ltd (A Firm) & MA, High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (2014): Drafting junior in a high-value commercial claim for outstanding invoices, dating back to 2002, in which the many intricacies were amplified as a result of all the parties and witnesses being related to each in one way or another. A favourable settlement was reached on the eve of the trial.
NN v (1) BH (2) Rajesh Singh Pathania (3) Rajeswary Ramasamy (2016): Counsel for the first defendant in a long-running case, where the claimant alleged fraud against the second and third defendants, in that they issued or continued proceedings in her name against the first defendant, without her authority, leading to the first defendant having ‘her’ judgment against him set aside, her claim struck out, costs awarded against her and a charging order on her property. The case involved complex issues of fraud, authority and third party funding. The claimant was successful and, without issuing separate proceedings against the second and third defendants, the first defendant was awarded the entirety of his costs incurred since 2011, on an indemnity basis, against the second and third defendants.
BH Ltd v M (2016): Successfully represented the appellant-defendant on appeal, whose defence had been struck out at trial, where the company represented itself. HHJ Vevrecka found that there had been serious procedural irregularities and that very basic safeguards for any person, particularly a litigant in person, had not been observed.
Civil
Stephanie has advised and represented clients in actions against the police, independent prison adjudications, immigration tribunals, possession and housing proceedings, insurance matters, credit hire disputes, personal injury cases, infant settlement approvals, road traffic matter, alleged breaches of contract and the Data Protection Act and Transport For London licensing appeals.
During her pupillage, Stephanie has also gained considerable experience of advising on renewal of business tenancies, company law, confiscation enforcement, consumer protection, contempt of court, insolvency, personal injury, public law and public procurement.
Notable cases:
C v TFL (2015): Represented the claimant, who slipped on water on steps at Kings Cross underground and suffered scarring to her face.
C v B (2017): Represented the defendant in an RTA claim for damages for personal injury. The judge found that the claimant had caused the collision.
C (2017): Currently instructed to represent the family in an inquest regarding the cause of death of a woman suffering with undiagnosed Nocardia and Aspergillosis.
Crime
Stephanie is frequently instructed to defend and prosecute hearings, trials and confiscation proceedings in the youth court, magistrates’ court and crown court. Stephanie has significant experience of trial-preparation for a range of offences from public order matters and assaults to complex frauds, conspiracies, kidnaps, murders, perjury and sexual offences. She is also a seasoned advocate in the realm of road traffic and motoring law.
Stephanie has developed special expertise in relation to dangerous dogs offences, including dealing with conflicting expert evidence and successfully opposing immediate destruction orders.
Stephanie often represents youths and vulnerable adults and is well versed in witness handling of the same. She regularly advises on appeals against conviction and sentence; and recently successfully appealed a sentence in the full Court of Appeal, without leave from the single judge. She also successfully opposed an appeal against conviction, with leave, on behalf of the Crown.
Stephanie is on the CPS panel and has also been instructed as in-house counsel at the Serious Fraud Office.
Notable cases:
R v Martin Lally [2014] EWCA Crim 1090: Successfully appealed the length of a custodial sentenced imposed for an offence of possession of a bladed article in a public place and breach of a suspended sentence for ABH, without leave of the single judge.
R v D (2014): Youth defendant acquitted of serious sexual offences. All live witnesses were vulnerable youths and assisted by special measures.
R v A (2014): Defence counsel in a sophisticated TFL fraud, involving multiple transactions over a significant period of time, affecting a vast number of Oyster card users.
R v H (2015): Defence counsel for a defendant found alone, in the driver’s seat of his car, one mile from Nottinghill Carnival, with £2000 cash and bag of cannabis in the glove compartment, £200 on him, a large quantity of cocaine hidden in the panels of the driver’s door and 5 ‘dirty’ phones in his possession. The case required scrutiny of voluminous amounts of telephone and cell site evidence. During the trial, successfully resisted various applications to amend the indictment and adduce the defendant’s antecedents. The defendant was acquitted on all 8 counts of offering to supply and possession with intent to supply Class A and B drugs.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/west-end-club-promoter-who-wrecked-hire-lamborghini-in-60-seconds-couldnt-handle-it-a3171786.html
R v C (2016): Prosecuted an assault matter, where most of the witnesses had severe learning disabilities and gave their evidence with the assistance of intermediaries. An extensive Ground Rules hearing took place before the trial.
R v A (2016): Successfully prosecuted a man using false identity documents.
R v P & others (2016): Instructed as junior counsel for a defendant facing a re-trial for a number of different tax frauds, in London, linked with other individuals or groups, based in France and Manchester; and to activities, to some extent, in Ireland – all allegedly disguised as legitimate business transactions (the sale of alcohol) rather than the proceeds of crime (the evasion of duty and VAT on imported alcohol, cigarette smuggling and other criminal conduct). Serious allegations of professional misconduct were raised by the defendant in relation to solicitors involved in the first trial.
Employment
Stephanie undertakes claimant and respondent employment work. Stephanie has advised and represented recruitment agencies, employers and employees in matters involving wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal (including constructive dismissal), sex and race discrimination, redundancy disputes and contractual and discretionary bonus schemes.
As a ‘Direct Access’ barrister, Stephanie welcomes instructions in compromise agreements.
In 2013, Stephanie was commissioned by another set of chambers to hold a one-day seminar on wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal and the changing definition of ‘worker’ over time.
Notable cases:
Rahman v Lion Re:Sources Ltd & Kaizen Search Ltd (2012): Persuaded an Employment Judge that the second respondent did not make an offer of employment and that no employment contract was agreed with the claimant, after cross-examining the claimant and making legal representations at a pre-hearing review. The claim was struck out.
FF v TB Ltd (2015): Successfully represented the claimant in a long unfair (constructive) dismissal claim, in which he walked out after a breakdown in relations with his superiors and they reneged on their promise of a raise.
W v CG Ltd (2016): Successfully represented the claimant in an unfair (constructive) dismissal claim, in which he resigned due to a unilateral change made to his contract, affecting his bonus payments. The EJ was satisfied that, for the period of time he remained in work after the new scheme was implemented, he was working under protest and had not accepted the variation to his contract.
W v MOW (2017): Currently instructed by the respondent in a document heavy unfair dismissal claim by a director, involving serious allegations of mismanaging company finances.
Family
Stephanie is regularly instructed in private and public child proceedings and has gained specialist knowledge of financial dispute resolution and international family law, during her pupillage.
Notable cases:
Re H (2014): Successfully resisted interim contact in proceedings, initiated by a father who was serving a nine-year prison sentence for rape, battery and false imprisonment.
Re K (2015): Successfully secured supervised contact for a father who had a lengthy criminal record and had been in prison for serious offences for a number of years.
W v W (2016): Successfully opposed a dismissal argument in relation to the wife’s application for interest on a lump sum. The lump sum had been paid within 21 days of the sale as ordered. However, the recital envisaged that the wife would receive payment no later than the 31 December 2014. The husband paid the lump sum almost a year later and failed to maintain interim monthly payments. I argued that the husband’s failure to continue monthly payments, his intention to retain the properties and his failure to put the property on the market until November 2014 deprived the wife of benefits to his advantage, effectively undermining the whole order for a lump sum, which met the wife’s needs in 2014 but no longer meets her needs in 2016 (referring to H v H [2005] EWHC 1513 (Fam)); and that it was clearly intended that the properties would be sold imminently. The DDJ was persuaded that these were strong arguments and made directions for a full and final hearing, which put the wife in a strong position with regards to settlement.
H v G (2016): Represented the mother, who was granted residence of the child, notwithstanding the appointed social worker recommended the child live with the father due to the mother’s mental health issues.
D v D (2016): Represented the father and successfully opposed the instruction of the mother’s chosen expert on Indian law, without any indication as to whether this expert could advise on Gujarati law, when the mother’s intention was to take the child on an extended family holiday to Gujarat.
S v C (2016): Successfully opposed the wife’s application for permission to bring proceedings for financial relief in England, due to there being parallel proceeding in the US and in Pakistan.
International
Aside from the divorce cases mentioned above, Stephanie has a Masters in International Commercial Litigation and has advised and represented clients embroiled in cross-border trade disputes following the sale and transit of goods from one jurisdiction to another.
During her time at Thomas More, Stephanie has also worked on public law matters of constitutional importance to foreign jurisdictions.
Other
Stephanie has worked, on a pro bono basis, for the Women’s Legal Centre, in Cape Town, South Africa, in the areas of social welfare, family law, hate crime, sex discrimination and decriminatlisation of sex work in the city.
At Cambridge University, Stephanie carried out comparative research on the development of socio-economic rights in the courts of England and Wales and in India for the Equal Rights Trust in its continuing work in this field.
PUBLICATIONS
"Applying Equality and Non-Discrimination Law to Advance Socio-Economic Rights", Cambridge Pro Bono Project’s Submission to the Equal Rights Trust (13 January 2013)
"Making Contact Work: Is the Children and Adoption Act 2006 Enough for Resident Parents and Children?" (2008) 38 Fam. Law 1237
"What is adultery?" [2008] CUSLJ 41.
