At 2TG our people are hard-working, forward-thinking and approachable. We believe our supportive culture is one of our greatest strengths.
With the set comprising around 60 barristers, we know each other well and work effectively together. We often operate in large teams with clients. Our practice management team is modern and commercial, matching barrister experience thoughtfully to clients’ requirements.
At 2TG our barristers are expert in a broad range of complementary practice areas and we enjoy repeat instructions from a variety of loyal clients.
Practised advocates from the start, all our Silks and the vast majority of our Junior barristers are recognised as leaders in their chosen fields. Many of us are at the forefront of shaping the law in our specialist areas and we pride ourselves in having excellent industry knowledge.
At 2TG our barristers have excellent experience acting across a range of industry sectors and we are able to offer advice in an informed and commercial context.
Our combination of practice area excellence and industry expertise means we possess real insight into the commercial realities facing our clients operating in these areas. Secondment plays an important part of our commitment to developing our skills and understanding.
2TG is home to award-winning accredited mediators, arbitrators, adjudicators and experts with considerable experience of alternative dispute resolution.
Our barristers are also skilled as advocates in different alternative dispute resolution procedures and work strategically with clients to understand their commercial objectives, and then to resolve litigation as cost-effectively and expeditiously as possible.
Work with an international dimension forms a significant part of many barristers’ work at 2TG.
We appear in international courts and arbitral tribunals all over the world, frequently acting on complex multi-jurisdictional disputes. We are particularly well-known for managing cross border litigation on matters of jurisdiction and applicable law and appear regularly in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
At 2TG, in addition to our professional advice, we are recognised for our excellent contribution to education and development. We provide regular high-quality training.
Our reputation among the legal profession and other clients for our first-rate webinars and in-person conferences is very important to us. We also contribute frequently at industry events and as editors of leading texts and authors on topics of legal interest.
Insights
Anastasia Karseras represented the successful Defendant in the case of Zanatta v Metroline Travel Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 224.
This claim arose out of a road traffic accident which occurred when the Claimant stepped off the pavement into the path of a bus. Before doing so, the Claimant had not looked in the direction of the vehicle’s approach. The driver braked and swerved but was unable to avoid colliding with the Claimant and a traffic island. Following a trial in the High Court, the judge at first instance dismissed the Claimant’s claim. Had he found for the Claimant, the judge would have assessed contributory negligence at 70%.
Permission to appeal was granted on the basis of the serious allegation that the judge disregarded matters of common ground and made findings that were not open to him, rendering the decision “unjust because of serious procedural irregularities” and “in any event wrong”. The Claimant also contended that the judge had not applied the correct standard of care, that he had developed his own case theory without giving the parties an opportunity to consider it, and mistakenly resorted to the burden of proof.
The Court of Appeal did not accept the description of the facts in the grounds of appeal as “common ground”, and there were no agreed facts as to distances. The contention that the judge disregarded common ground did not fairly or accurately describe the exercise which the judge carried out. Further, the judge applied the correct legal test for the standard of care to the facts as he found them, and these facts were based upon the evidence before the court. The judge did not resort to the burden of proof in the absence of findings of fact, still less did he embark upon his own case theory.
Anastasia’s oral submissions were described by Lady Justice Andrews as “clear and cogent”, and she was “commended for the helpful way in which she was able to adapt her submissions to meet the shift in focus from her opponent’s skeleton argument to the matters which gained prominence in his oral submissions”.
Anastasia was instructed by Rachael Lumb of Keoghs.
A link to the full judgment can be found here.