Sanjive is an experienced commercial litigation and dispute resolution solicitor with over 30 years of expertise in conducting proceedings at the High Court in Central London (The Chancery Division, The Commercial Court, The Queen’s [now King’s] Bench Division) and in various County Courts (particularly The Central London County Court & The Mayor’s and City of London Court) in and around London. He is fully acquainted with negotiation, mediation and arbitration as alternative methods for dispute resolution.
Sanjive has handled a multiplicity of legal and commercial disputes, involving both private individuals and companies. His experience includes handling private civil and commercial litigation disputes, professional negligence claims (especially involving solicitors), insurance and other commercial disputes, intellectual property disputes, banking claims, commercial and residential property disputes, insolvency and defamation claims, breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and contentious probate/inheritance disputes. Recently, Sanjive has specialised in data breach and IT claims. He has well developed negotiation, mediation and risk management skills.
Football Association Registered Lawyer
In addition to handling litigation and dispute resolution matters, Sanjive is also a Football Association Registered Lawyer and FA Agent. He acts for players in negotiating and agreeing representation contracts for Academy Players and other professional football players in the Football League from Premier League, Championship, League 1 and League 2 Football clubs.
India (Maharashtra – Mumbai & Goa Bar Council)
In 2004, Sanjive was admitted to practise as a solicitor advocate in Maharashtra, which is the third largest state in India, and the capital City known as Mumbai, is the financial capital of India. It has a joint Bar with Goa, which is India’s smallest and richest state. Sanjive has numerous connections and close relatives in both of these states, many of whom are accountants, advocates and medical doctors. Sanjive also has ethnic origins in both of these two states who share a common legal Bar Council.
List of Reported Cases personally handled by Sanjive include:-
- Universal Thermosensors v Hibben & Others & Thompson Snell & Passmore (A Firm of Solicitors) [1992] 1 WLR 840 – leading case on execution of ‘Anton Piller’ Orders (search and seizure) and cross undertakings as to damages. This case set down guidelines which are still in existence today for “Search and Seizure” Orders issued by the High Court.
- Watson v Argles & Court ( A Firm of Solicitors) [1992] – leading case on defamation by conduct;
- Macleish v Amoo Gottfried (A Solicitor) [1993] 137 SJLB 204, ‘The Times’ October 13 1993 – damages for pain and suffering and for the loss of reputation following wrongful criminal conviction caused by negligence of solicitor and barrister.
- Charalambouus v Hadjiconstantinou [1993] EGCS 191 – public policy argument of a contractual arrangement to defeat the effect of statute on council housing “Right to Buy” legislation;
- Manortarn v Rose & Birn (A Firm of Solicitors) QBD [1995] EGCS 142 – quantum of claim due to solicitors’ failure to advise on diminution in value of investment commercial property subject to a break clause in a lease to which the freehold was subject;
- Halifax Plc v Richard Grosse & Co (A Firm of Solicitors) [1997] QBD EGCS 111 – measure of loss on solicitors negligence in failing to advise that an under-lease was governed by a head-lease subject to a ‘rack rental’ provision;
- Sheikh Al-Sabah v Brain & Brain (A Firm of Solicitors) [1999] 96(5) LSG 38, EGCS 11,’Independent’ January 27 1999 – liability of a solicitor to the owner of a property when instructions are taken from the agent of the owner acting fraudulently to dispose of property under a forged Power of Attorney;
- Lass Salt Garvin (A Firm of Solicitors) [2003] v Pomeroy & Others [2003] EWHC 1007 – Claim for recovery of solicitors’ fees agreed by an agent for directors of a telecommunications company. Involved issues relating to actual and or ostensible authority.
- Negus v Bahouse [2007] EWHC 2628 (Ch); [2007] All ER (D) 353 (Oct) – Defence of a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 acting on behalf of Executors;
- Mackays Stores v Topward Ltd [2008] CSOH 51 Court of Session Edinburgh Before Lord Drummond Young – Claim relating to money had and received, money paid by mistake, construction of commercial contractual terms, jurisdictional issues (Scotland or England).
- Integral Memory PLC v Haines Watts (Chartered Accountants) [2012] EWHC 342 (CH) on appeal from High Court Master to High Court Judge and on further appeal to the Court of Appeal – Accountants negligence.
- Michael Norcross (“TOWIE”) v Georgallides [2014] EWHC 4530 (Comm) (4 July 2014) (Retrospective alternative service permitted where substantive limitation period had not expired (Commercial Court); 2015 EWHC 1290 (Comm) (15 May 2015) Pragmatic approach to late amendment to particulars raising limitation issue (Commercial Court) and full striking out of all claims by all four named Claimants; [July and October 2015] EWHC 2405 (Comm) (successful defence of amended claims at 5 day trial with significant indemnity costs orders and substantial payment on account of costs). Witnesses who did not draft (or understand) their statements, would be “experts” and other witness woes.
- Vneshprombank LLC v Bedzhamov & Others [2019] EWHC 1906 (Ch); [2019] EWCA Civ 1992 (25 Nov 2019)
- The Court of Appeal increased a Russian businessman’s living expenses allowance under a worldwide freezing order to an amount equivalent to approx. £240,000 per month.
- Contested security for costs application in a £1.3billion fraud claim arising from the insolvency of a Russian bank and subsequent investigation by the Russian DIA.
- [2020] EWHC 2114 (Ch) Search orders: disclosure of search materials to claimant’s Russian liquidator and litigation funder subject to express undertakings to protect third party interests (High Court).
- [2021] EWHC 1360 (Ch) The High Court halted a significant aspect of a review of documents obtained by disc imaging under the terms of a search order. The review inevitably engaged documents belonging to third parties (including clients of non-parties) who were not parties to the underlying proceedings or respondents to the search order. The judge was concerned principally about the progress of the review, the resources it was diverting from trial preparation, and the security of the review particularly where it engaged the rights of non-parties. A pause, with liberty to apply to restart the review, was considered more appropriate than full discharge given the trial judge would be better placed to assess the issues about the justice of discharging the search order entirely. The fact that the review process had previously been continued pursuant to orders made by consent did not deter the judge as she decided that the case was sufficiently exceptional for the court to intervene.
Sanjive is able to negotiate, mediate, arbitrate or even litigate in accordance with the needs, wishes or the requirements of each particular client.