James Clarke

James Clarke
  1. People /

James Clarke

James Clarke

Partner


London
James Clarke
  1. People /

James Clarke

James Clarke

Partner


London

James Clarke

Partner

London

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 3507

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share
English

Biography

James Clarke is a partner within the firm’s Contentious Construction practice with formidable expertise in helping clients resolve disputes arising from major international projects across the infrastructure and energy sectors, as well as high-value commercial and residential real estate projects. James has over 15 years’ experience of successfully representing clients across the full spectrum of formal and alternative dispute resolution procedures, including through International Arbitration (under ICC, SIAC, UNCITRAL and ad-hoc rules), the London Technology & Construction Court, Adjudication, Expert Determination and Mediation.

[James is] absolutely outstanding. A rare balance of intellect, commerciality, tact, energy and grasp of both the detail and the big picture. And to top it all off a thoroughly nice person…

Legal 500 Asia Pacific

Having previously led BCLP’s Construction practice in Singapore, James continues to frequently represent some of Asia’s largest construction and engineering firms in high-stakes disputes stemming from major international projects. His matters include disputes arising from multi-billion dollar energy, infrastructure and real estate projects in areas as diverse as oil & gas, coal, biomass, hydroelectricity, transport, manufacturing, healthcare and luxury real estate developments across Europe, the CIS, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. His breadth of experience has grown to include significant expertise in domestic building safety related claims across a diverse real estate portfolio, including education, residential property, hotels, office space and mixed-use developments involving some of the UK’s leading investors, portfolio managers, contractors and engineers.

James Clarke is diligent, has a very good mind, and is extremely approachable…[he] understands our business and our particular demands and is extremely responsive to them and us.

Legal 500 UK

James’ practice incorporates a wealth of technical and sector-specific expertise advising on issues such as defects, delay, design liability, professional negligence, payment, insolvency and termination. He gets to grips with the granular detail of a dispute quickly, including complex matters relating to quantum and evaluating expert evidence to provide comprehensive and strategic advice. James provides his clients early practical and strategic support to identify the warning signs of potential disputes and to facilitate early commercial resolution, thus limiting the impact of any adversarial situations on delivery of their projects.

 

The Legal 500: Construction Comparative Guide

The Legal 500: Construction Comparative Guide

What are the biggest challenges and opportunities facing the UK construction sector?

From general legal and regulatory compliance obligations, licensing and financial aspects to industry trends and developments, we share insights in this dedicated chapter.

Admissions

  • England and Wales

Related Practice Areas

  • Construction Disputes

  • Infrastructure

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • International Arbitration

  • Commercial Construction & Engineering

  • Renewables

  • Oil, Gas and LNG

  • Real Estate

Experience

  • Representing an oil and gas major and prime contractor in UNCITRAL International Arbitration of an EPC subcontractor’s claims for USD 100m in respect of alleged misleading and deceptive conduct and delays to construction of the Product Loading Facility and Tug Berths on a USD 20bn+ development of an LNG Plant in Australia.
  • Representing an oil refinery owner in ICC International Arbitration proceedings against an EPCm Contractor relating to claims of €150m. The claims concerned delay and additional costs arising from the alleged negligent performance of Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management services on a €1 billion+ oil refinery upgrade project.
  • Representing a Japanese trading company in ICC arbitration seated in Tokyo in respect of claims totaling USD 80m arising from the alleged wrongful termination and fraudulent breach of a fabrication and supply contract for copper base bars produced from recycled electronic scrap.
  • Advising a subcontractor in respect of multiple claims arising from temporary works, groundworks and structural works on a USD 31bn development of an LNG plant in North America.
  • Advising and representing a Korean main contractor in respect of prospective claims in SIAC arbitration against a subcontractor for defective manufacture and installation of Building-Integrated Photovoltaic roof panels on a landmark mixed-use commercial property development in Singapore.
  • Advising a Korean main contractor in respect of its claims against a state-owned developer for USD 40m arising from the early termination of its EPC contract for the construction of a landmark commercial property development in Baku, Azerbaijan.
  • Advising a Korean main contractor in respect of its claims for USD 75m arising from delays, suspension and then early termination of an EPC contract for the engineering and construction of a degasification plant in Iraq.
  • Representing the owner in the defence of a contractor’s claim in adjudication for compensation events totalling £15m under the NEC3 form of contract in respect of tunnelling works on a £4bn Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The dispute turned on the correct interpretation of contract and complex allocation of risk in respect of third party asset protection.
  • Advising a UK main contractor on the treatment of multiple claims relating to various historical construction contracts following the divestment of its construction and building services divisions to third parties. Successfully pursuing claims in the High Court for declarations of the buyer’s obligations to account for information and to deliver-up documents in respect of arbitral proceedings conducted by them on the seller’s behalf.
  • Representing a developer in adjudication over its £4 million final account dispute with a contractor (involving variations, extensions of time and loss and expense) in connection with the refurbishment of commercial property in London.
  • Defending adjudication proceedings by contractors in respect of two disputed final accounts for the development of a University’s teaching and accommodation facilities. Pursuing Part 8 claim in the Technology and Construction Court on a new point of law relating to the effect of the Final Certificate under the JCT Standard Form of Contract.
  • Representing a joint venture contractor in a multi-tiered mediation process in relation to claims and cross-claims in excess of £300m between it and the Employer arising from a rail infrastructure project let under the NEC3 target cost standard form contract.
  • Advising and representing a contractor on a +£250 million hospital redevelopment under the Private Finance Initiative. James provided project advisory services and represented the contractor in adjudication proceedings relating to various main contract, subcontract and consultant designer issues, including liquidated damages, variations, extensions of time and loss and expense, insolvency, termination and designer professional negligence.

Related Insights

Insights
Jul 22, 2024

RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV: certainty v commerciality

In this Insight, first published in PLC, James Clarke, Richard Shaw and Anna Blest consider the Supreme Court's decision in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18, which confirmed that a party's obligation to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome force majeure does not extend to having to accept non-contractual performance.
Insights
Jun 10, 2024

JCT 2024 Editions: key changes in the JCT's new suite of contracts

An article, first published in PLC which analyses the key changes introduced by the JCT in its Design and Build Contract, 2024 Edition, the first of the JCT's 2024 contract families to be published.
Insights
Nov 15, 2023

Case flags risk of unclear ADR procedure

While main contract suites offer standard dispute resolution clauses, these are often amended in practice. A recent case gives a warning of what happens when such bespoke provisions are not clear.
Insights
Sep 11, 2023

RAAC – What it is and what it means

As schools prepared to reopen this September after the summer break, hundreds were informed that, due to the use of Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) in their buildings (and its current state and condition), this would not be the case and they would need to remain closed or find alternative accommodation until remedial works could be undertaken.  There are likely to be further closures in the future, as more schools are found to contain RAAC in need of urgent remedial works. It has recently become apparent that other buildings have been also affected by RAAC issues, for example court buildings and hospitals. This Insight takes a closer look at RAAC, why it has become an issue now and considers practical steps for those affected by RAAC.
Insights
Aug 10, 2023

Can liquidated damages clauses set general cap?

A pair of cases in the past two years have come to opposite conclusions about whether general damages can be capped by contract provisions for liquidated damages.
Insights
Jul 05, 2023

Time Limits for Arbitral Awards: A Case Summary

In Alphamix Ltd v The District Council of Riviére Du Rampart (Mauritius) [2023] UKPC 20, an appeal from the Supreme Court of Mauritius, the UK Privy Council has allowed the appeal and upheld the arbitrator’s award, where the award had been annulled by the Mauritian court for being given three days after the date specified for providing an award.
Insights
May 17, 2023

The co-insurance defence: court of appeal confirms that underlying contract defines nature, scope and extent of co-insurance under project policy

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by FM Conway Ltd (“Conway”) against the judgment of Eyre J in the Technology & Construction Court about the nature, scope and effect of co-insurance in the context of a contractor’s liability for damage caused by defects on a construction project. My note of the TCC’s first instance decision from May 2022 provides a summary of the background to the case, including the works, defects, damage and losses claimed. In that note, I also summarised the TCC’s reasoning for dismissing Conway’s co-insurance defence, which the Court of Appeal has now roundly endorsed. It was my view then that the TCC’s judgment joined a growing line of important authorities on the relationship (and tension) between – on the one hand the allocation of risk between parties on a construction project – and on the other the scope and extent of insurance taken out in respect of such risks. Lord Justice Coulson’s comprehensive analysis of the authorities and the reasons for his robust dismissal of this appeal render this Court of Appeal judgment all the more important when navigating this complex area of the law.
Insights
Feb 22, 2023

Renewable Energy Case Update

Related Insights

Insights
Jul 22, 2024
RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV: certainty v commerciality
In this Insight, first published in PLC, James Clarke, Richard Shaw and Anna Blest consider the Supreme Court's decision in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18, which confirmed that a party's obligation to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome force majeure does not extend to having to accept non-contractual performance.
Insights
Jun 10, 2024
JCT 2024 Editions: key changes in the JCT's new suite of contracts
An article, first published in PLC which analyses the key changes introduced by the JCT in its Design and Build Contract, 2024 Edition, the first of the JCT's 2024 contract families to be published.
Insights
Nov 15, 2023
Case flags risk of unclear ADR procedure
While main contract suites offer standard dispute resolution clauses, these are often amended in practice. A recent case gives a warning of what happens when such bespoke provisions are not clear.
News
Oct 19, 2023
Chambers UK Ranks BCLP in 41 practice areas and recognizes 74 lawyers
Insights
Sep 11, 2023
RAAC – What it is and what it means
As schools prepared to reopen this September after the summer break, hundreds were informed that, due to the use of Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) in their buildings (and its current state and condition), this would not be the case and they would need to remain closed or find alternative accommodation until remedial works could be undertaken.  There are likely to be further closures in the future, as more schools are found to contain RAAC in need of urgent remedial works. It has recently become apparent that other buildings have been also affected by RAAC issues, for example court buildings and hospitals. This Insight takes a closer look at RAAC, why it has become an issue now and considers practical steps for those affected by RAAC.
Insights
Aug 10, 2023
Can liquidated damages clauses set general cap?
A pair of cases in the past two years have come to opposite conclusions about whether general damages can be capped by contract provisions for liquidated damages.
Insights
Jul 05, 2023
Time Limits for Arbitral Awards: A Case Summary
In Alphamix Ltd v The District Council of Riviére Du Rampart (Mauritius) [2023] UKPC 20, an appeal from the Supreme Court of Mauritius, the UK Privy Council has allowed the appeal and upheld the arbitrator’s award, where the award had been annulled by the Mauritian court for being given three days after the date specified for providing an award.
Insights
May 17, 2023
The co-insurance defence: court of appeal confirms that underlying contract defines nature, scope and extent of co-insurance under project policy
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by FM Conway Ltd (“Conway”) against the judgment of Eyre J in the Technology & Construction Court about the nature, scope and effect of co-insurance in the context of a contractor’s liability for damage caused by defects on a construction project. My note of the TCC’s first instance decision from May 2022 provides a summary of the background to the case, including the works, defects, damage and losses claimed. In that note, I also summarised the TCC’s reasoning for dismissing Conway’s co-insurance defence, which the Court of Appeal has now roundly endorsed. It was my view then that the TCC’s judgment joined a growing line of important authorities on the relationship (and tension) between – on the one hand the allocation of risk between parties on a construction project – and on the other the scope and extent of insurance taken out in respect of such risks. Lord Justice Coulson’s comprehensive analysis of the authorities and the reasons for his robust dismissal of this appeal render this Court of Appeal judgment all the more important when navigating this complex area of the law.
Insights
Feb 22, 2023
Renewable Energy Case Update