Information Technology

Members of Chambers are regularly instructed in large IT disputes and commercial litigation – often involving a technical subject matter.

Many IT disputes never reach trial, due to successful positioning of the parties beforehand. However, a flavour of the cases in which members have been involved may be gleaned from the following examples:

• Ministry of Defence v BT: a multi-million pound dispute about whether or not the computer system performed as it should. Involved allegations of fraud against BT, which were successfully rebutted.

• Prudential v Unisys: a £25 million dispute about an alleged failed project that involved over 300 developers. Twice reported on the front page of Computer Weekly.

• BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons: the report of the costs issues in a large IT contract case.

• Cybermedia v RMG: a dispute that involved the commercial agents in a software matter.

• Finnfeeds International Ltd v Chris Belyavin (Technical) Ltd: a dispute about the efficacy of chicken food supplement, and the reliability of the test results from the trials.

Many members of chambers have a science, engineering or computer science degree, and several have post-graduate degrees in science or engineering. As such they are well suited to dealing with the technical details that arise in these cases, and can engage knowledgably with the experts, which facilitates all stages of the dispute, from settling the initial pleadings to cross-examining the experts more effectively.

"The IT barristers at this set distinguish themselves through the ease with which they handle the technical side of IT cases. Having honed their skills on numerous IP cases over the years, they are a trusted resource for many of the lead solicitors in the field. Adept at all manner of cases, they prove particularly good at disputes concerning copyright infringement, software licensing and the patenting of computer software. They are clerked by individuals who are "helpful, approachable, commercially minded and appropriate in their suggestions and guidance on which barrister to instruct."                Chambers & Partners 2012