Ian is a litigator with expertise in all forms of dispute resolution. His practice focusses on trust and regulatory disputes, contractual disputes, shareholder actions and restructuring / insolvency. Ian is also an expert in criminal litigation and regularly accepts instructions to appear for defendants or as Amicus Curiae.
An experienced courtroom Advocate, Ian appears regularly at all levels of the Jersey Court and Tribunal system and enjoys a reputation as a robust, effective and reliable advocate for his clients.
Ian obtained undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from the University of St. Andrews and was admitted as a barrister in the United Kingdom in 2007 (currently non-practising). Ian was admitted as a Jersey Advocate in 2008. He joined Preston Legal in March 2018 having previously been employed in the litigation department of Carey Olsen.
Ian’s expertise and experience as a courtroom Advocate has recently been recognised by the States who appointed him as the Deputy Chairman of the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal. Ian regularly sits to hear and adjudicate on both employment and discrimination disputes.
Having a keen personal interest in the history of Jersey Law, particularly the law of contract Ian was formerly an Adjunct Professor of Contract Law at the Jersey Law Institute.
Calligo Limited -v- PBS CI Limited (22nd February 2018 and 2nd October 2017)
Ian appeared for the Plaintiff in this long-running contractual dispute. The issue that fell to be determined by the Court was whether or not PBS had entered into contract with Calligo for IT services. PBS sought to argue that as its chairman had no intention of entering into the contract asserted by and relied upon by Calligo then PBS could not be liable to Calligo for breach of contract. PBS sought to rely on the subjective intentions of its Chairman to defeat the contractual claim. By contrast Calligo sought to argue that on any objective analysis PBS intended to and in fact did enter into a contract. The Royal Court was tasked with determining the long-running debate as to whether or not Jersey law contracts should be analysed and interpreted on an objective or subjective basis.
Ian successfully persuaded the Court to depart from an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal which suggested that the subjective analysis is preferred in Jersey. This resulted in a judgment which provided some much-needed clarity and certainty for the Jersey law of contract. The judgment has not been appealed.
Bank Accounts: Secure or Insecure – Jersey and Guernsey Law Review 2007
It Will All End In TIEAS – Jersey and Guernsey Law Review 2012
The Letter of the Law – CDR 2013