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
In January 2024 Jacobs J handed down a combined judgment in seven actions considering various issues arising in claims for business interruption cover as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The claims all related to non-damage denial of access clauses in various commercial insurance policies Gatwick Investment v Liberty Mutual Insurance SE [2024] EWHC 124 (Comm).
Charles Dougherty KC and Timothy Killen acted in those proceedings for Allianz PLC in the International Entertainment Holdings action which concerned a clause which provided cover for “Any claim resulting from interruption of or interference with the Business as a direct result of an incident likely to endanger human life or property within 1 mile radius of the premises in consequence of which access to or use of the premises is prevented or hindered by any policing authority…”
Jacobs J found that the clause did not provide cover for Covid-19 business interruption loss on the grounds that a case of Covid-19 did not, without more, amount to an “incident”, and that central government or the Secretary of State for Health could not be a “policing authority”. The claim was therefore dismissed. The Claimants appealed, and Allianz cross-appealed on the issues concerning limits and corrective construction.
On appeal, although the reasoning differed slightly, the Court of Appeal essentially upheld Jacobs J’s conclusions on the interpretation of both “policing authority” and “incident”, as used in the clause, such that the claim remained dismissed. The issues on the cross-appeal therefore did not arise but, had they done so, Males LJ (with whose judgment the other members of the Court agreed) said that he would not have disturbed the judge’s decision on either issue.
The judgment is likely to be of particular interest to those insurers and policyholders with “policing authority” or “incident” wording, but also provides further useful general guidance to add to the ever-expanding collection of Covid-19 business interruption judgments.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment can be read in full here.
Charles Dougherty KC and Timothy Killen were instructed by James Deacon and Hannah Stanford of DAC Beachcroft.