Harry Denlegh-Maxwell is an associate in the London office of Paul Hastings.
Mr. Denlegh-Maxwell advises clients in complex, high-value disputes, which are often multi-jurisdictional in nature. Mr. Denlegh-Maxwell represents clients from a broad range of sectors, including financial services, large corporates, technology, energy, media, and high net-worth individuals.
- University of St Andrews, M.A., 2010
- College of Law, G.D.L., 2011
- College of Law, L.P.C., 2012
- Representing a global telecoms business in multi-party antitrust proceedings, relating to the collapse of a high-street retailer.
- Acting for a major Russian-based aluminium producer in a multi-jurisdictional loan dispute.
- Advising a leading pharmaceutical business in Commercial Court proceedings.
- Advising a leading defence company in relation to an insurance coverage dispute.
- Acting for a founder of a leading asset management business in a series of high-value LCIA arbitrations, including on appeal to the High Court.
- Acting for a high net-worth individual in proceedings in multiple jurisdictions against a leading international bank.
- Representing a listed IT group in Commercial Court proceedings relating to a high-profile IT project.
- Advising high net-worth individuals in relation to a worldwide freezing injunction.
- Acting for leading multi-national media organisations in Commercial Court proceedings.
- Advising a professional services firm in relation to film financing disputes.
- Advising a global retailer on an internal investigation following a whistle-blower complaint.
- Advising a large multinational organization following allegations of breach of sanctions.
- January 2022: Court considers MAC and force majeure clauses - February 28th, 2022
- Diretiva da Comissão Europeia sobre Diligência de Sustentabilidade Corporativa - February 24th, 2022
- Has English Law Jumped on the Crypto Bandwagon? - February 24th, 2022
- The Long Awaited Draft Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence - February 23rd, 2022
- December 2021: High Court confirms that a conditional application for summary judgment is not a step in proceedings; Court of Appeal retrospectively imposes financial conditions on permission to appeal - January 10th, 2022
- November 2021: Court of Appeal considers pleading a claim on an extrapolated basis and confirms that each unfair prejudice petition must be determined by reference to the individual company - December 10th, 2021
- October 2021: Supreme Court interprets “damage” for the purposes of the jurisdictional gateways and Court of Appeal holds that the courts are not bound to accept uncontroverted expert evidence - November 10th, 2021
- September 2021: Court of Appeal considers vicarious liability in sexual abuse case and the parameters of representative actions; and High Court holds a settlement agreement can compromise all claims, even if fraud or dishonesty later comes to light - October 27th, 2021
- ESG in the Disputes and Contentious Regulatory Sphere—a Mini-series: Introduction to ESG in the Disputes and Contentious Regulatory Sphere - October 15th, 2021
- ESG in the Disputes and Contentious Regulatory Sphere—a Mini-series: ESG in Civil Litigation - October 15th, 2021
- Competition Appeal Tribunal Grants First Collective Proceedings Order - September 3rd, 2021
- July 2021: Supreme Court grapples with the economic tort of ‘causing loss by unlawful means’; Court of Appeal confirms that conflicts of interest do not overrule an assignment of privilege; and High Court sets out the elements of the novel ‘Marex’ tort - August 18th, 2021
- June 2021: Supreme Court clarifies scope of the duty of care of professional advisers; Court of Appeal confirms that unfair prejudice petition may be based on breach of directors’ duties; High Court and Court of Appeal consider full and frank disclosure - July 26th, 2021
- LugaNO: What Next for Cross-Border Commercial Disputes? - June 14th, 2021
- May 2021: Court of Appeal rules that prior knowledge should be considered when determining whether a notice of claim contained “reasonable detail”; and a delay of 19 months in delivering judgment is sufficient to vitiate trial judge’s factual conclusions - May 21st, 2021
- Admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales
- Member, Commercial Litigators’ Forum, Associates’ Committee
- Member, London Solicitors Litigation Association