+44(0)20 7404 5055 | clerks@9stonebuildings.com

Peter Shaw KC

Head of Chambers

Appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2017.

image award 1 image award 2
image award 1 image award 2


Peter Shaw KC was formerly a solicitor admitted in 1986, before being called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1995.

He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2017.

Both as a solicitor and at the Bar, he has had extensive experience in acting in corporate and personal insolvency, banking litigation, mortgage enforcement and company and commercial litigation.

He has particular expertise in (1) high value insolvency litigation and (2) commercial litigation, usually fraud related; (3) shareholder disputes. He has regularly applied for, and obtained freezing orders in cases of substance and complexity.

Additionally he has particular experience in acting in the family division in cases involving (1) disputed cross border company ownership issues and (2) insolvency issues.

He is a busy practitioner, heavily in demand. He has for many years been ranked as a leading practitioner in Insolvency/Restructuring by both the Legal 500, where he is ranked a Tier 1 Silk, and Chambers and Partners.

He is also an Accredited Mediator.

In addition to his many reported cases his very recent case experience significantly includes;

  • Dishonest assistance and negligence claims against solicitors acting on Gibraltarian investment fraud
  • Substantial auditors negligence claim brought by liquidator of a company arising out of treatment of employee benefit trust payments
  • Substantial claim by liquidator against directors of tax specialist company advising on creation and implementation of employee benefit trust
  • Acting on behalf of Spanish company in dispute claim in family proceedings to beneficial ownership of assets valued at £20m
  • Defending administrators in respect of substantial misfeasance claims brought to liquidators in respect of alleged failure to notify insurers of £15m claim
  • Litigation arising out of fraudulent share sale agreement
  • Defending directors against claims for unlawful share purchase at time of substantial tax claims against company
  • Successful defence of directors in company directors disqualification trial


Practice Areas

Insolvency & Company +


  • 2023 appeared (with Paul Wright) at trial of substantial unfair prejudice petition in respect claims management company. Case settled at trial.
  • Re Castle Management Trust Company Limited [2023] GSC/023 (Gibraltar). Claim for administration order of Gibraltar trust company based on personal liability of trustees for loan agreement
  • Purkiss v Bhattia [2023] EWHC 775 (Ch) – fraudulent trading claim in respect of missing trader intra company VAT fraud.
  • Dormco Sica Ltd v SBL Carston [2023] EWHC 20 – contribution claim by defendant in liquidation against director and spouse in respect of breach of fiduciary duty and s.423 Insolvency Act 1986 claims
  • Hall v Bhatia [2022] EWHC 202 (Ch) fraudulent trading claim in respect of participation in missing trader intra community VAT fraud
  • Re Hood [2021] Ch 125. Payment of bankruptcy petition debt by third party. Whether payment amounting to a void disposition pursuant to s.284 Insolvency Act 1986
  • Re Vining Sparks (UK) Limited [2020] STC 410. Payments to director by company pursuant to EBT scheme not dishonest breach of duty
  • Flatman v Wiles [2020] BPIR 552. Preference to permit existing payment arrangements repaying company’s director to continue when company insolvent
  • Mulville v Sandelson [2020] BPIR 392. Bankruptcy petition in respect of share settlement agreement. Independent obligations
  • Touchstone Retail Limited v Grabal Alok (UK) Ltd [2019] EWHC 3072. Non validation of payments post presentation of winding up petition. Unjust enrichment.
  • Primus Build Ltd v Cannon Corporate Ltd (conjoinded appeal with Bresco Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale) [2019] EWCA Civ 27 (Court of Appeal).Court of Appeal confirms that adjudicator in construction adjudication continues to have jurisdiction where claimant is in liquidation or CVA
  • Tradesdar Ltd v Goldfarb: Re Mavisat [2018] EWHC 3595(Ch) fraudulent trading claim arising from loss to HMRC by company incurring a misdeclaration penalty.
  • Re Spaces London Bridge Limited [2018] EWHC 3099 (Ch) (Nugee J) notice of appointment of out of court appointment of administrator need not state date and time of appointment.
  • Doherty v Fannigan Holdings Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1615 (Court of Appeal)(unpaid share purchase price does not amount to liquidated sum for purposes of bankruptcy statutory demand)
  • Victory House General Partner LLP v RGB Limited [2018] EWHC 1143(Ch) (Morgan J) (dismissal of winding up petition based on disputed construction adjudication award and judgment)
  • Goldfarb (liquidator of Mavisat Limited) v Alibhai [2018] BCC 173 (Registrar Barber) permission to liquidator to amend to bring fraudulent trading claim based on misdeclaration penalty raised  by HMRC
  • Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] BPIR 944 (Registrar Jones) (availability of undrawn down pension for contributions to bankruptcy income payments order)
  • Ovenden Colbert Ltd v Hosking [2014] BPIR 285 (Court of Appeal) (transaction at undervalue – whether unauthorised transactions were ‘entered into’ by the company)
  • Monte Developments Ltd v Court Management Limited [2011] 1 BCLC 368 Floyd J (setting aside charging order against Company in Administration, right to charging order for unassessed costs
  • Bramston v Green [2011] BPIR 44 (HHJ Cooke J) Berkeley Applegate relief, costs of trustee in bankruptcy out of realisation of assets for benefit of company in liquidation)
  • enforcement of UK judgment in Denmark, missing trader VAT conspiracy)
  • XYZ v HMRC [2010] EWHC 1645 (Ch) Nicholas Strauss QC (disclosure by HMRC to liquidator of material obtained pursuant to international criminal convention)
  • Parkinson Engineering Limited v Yeldon & Swan [2010] 1 BCLC 163 Court of Appeal (amendment to substitute liquidator as claimant in place of company after expiry of limitation period)
  • Gresham International Limited v Moonie [2010] 2 WLR 362 Peter Smith J (retrospective sanction to liquidator to continue proceedings)
  • Oxford Pharmaceuticals Limited; Wilson v Masters [2009] 2 BCLC 485. Mark Cawson QC. (Preference and misfeasance claims brought by liquidator)
  • Boyden (Liquidator of Westminster Property Management Ltd) v Stern [2004] BCC 599, Ferris J (limitation period applicable to claim to recover unlawful loans to directors)
  • Michael Yee Fun Chu v Price [2004] BPIR 603 Court of Appeal (Bankruptcy Order extended to include aliases)
  • Conquest v Fox [2003] AER (D) 360 Michel Kallipetis QC (liquidator’s claims for misfeasance; preference; void charge in favour of director)
  • Pantone 485 Ltd [2002] 1 BCLC 266 Richard Field QC (limitation period for breach of fiduciary duty; misfeasance claim against non director, transfer of business non payment of Revenue)
  • Miller v Bain [2002] BCC 899, Morritt V-C (liquidator’s entitlement to costs of private examination; service out of jurisdiction of misfeasance proceedings)
  • Alman v Approach Housing Ltd [2001] 1 BCLC 530, Rimer J (Individual Voluntary Arrangement did not prevent debtor from litigating claim)
  • Cullinane v Inland Revenue Comms [2000] BPIR 996, Hart J (bankruptcy court not empowered to review Commissioners final tax assessments)
  • Carter- Knight v Peat The Times [2000] BPIR 968 Neuberger J (remedied default in Individual Voluntary Arrangement- court’s discretion to make a Bankruptcy Order; decision of District Judge remitted due to failure to give reasons)
  • Re Nordictrack (UK) Limited [2000] 1 BCLC 467 Arden J, (voluntary winding up following discharge of Administration; deemed date of winding up – s.86 Insolvency Act 1986)
  • Re Dana (UK) Limited [1999] 2 BCLC 239, Neuberger J (liberty to Administrators to sell assets on terms not approved by meeting of creditors)
  • Re Montin [1999] 1 BCLC 663, Neuberger J (liberty to Administrators to sell assets of the Company prior to meeting of creditors)
  • Re Lomax Leisure Limited [1999] 3 AER 22; [1999] 3 WLR 652, Neuberger J (ability of landlord to peaceably re-enter whilst Administration petition pending)


  • Manolete Partners Ltd v Dalal [2023] EWCA Civ 269 – appeal in respect of misfeasance claim arising from underreporting of sales. Burden of proof
  • Satyam Enterprises Ltd v Burton [2021] EWCA 724. Setting aside trial judgment – judge determining case on unpleaded grounds, Duomatic principle applies to beneficial owners
  • Charterhouse Asset Management Limited v Latchworth Limited [2021] EWHC 3072. Setting aside service out of the jurisdiction. Quistclose trusts
  • Colliver v Papworth [2021] EWHC 1450. Permission to amend Defence to rely on deed of compromise of all claims including claims based on fraud
  • Behbehani v Behbehani [2019] EWCA Civ 2301. Reinstatement of receivership order over shares by way of enforcement of £20m Family Court judgment. Third party contending beneficial ownership of shares required to advance claim
  • Kliers v Schmerler (lawtel 30 April 2018) (Murray Rosen QC) claim by beneficial owner of illegally purchased joint property not precluded by illegality
  • Latchworth v Dryer [2016] EWHC 3424 (Ch) HHJ Pelling QC (unlawful dissipation of £10m trust fund; tracing claims; dishonest assistance; knowing receipt)
  • Relfo v Varsani [2015] 1 BCLC 14 (applicability of tracing where no complete evidence of chain of substituted payments; unjust enrichment – whether direct benefit required)
  • HMRC v Sunico [2014] EWCA Civ 1108 (Court of Appeal) (imposition of conditions of appeal; Watts v Watts [2014] W.T.L.R. 178 (Nicholas Strauss QC) (breach of trust; misappropriation of trust fund; illegality)
  • Threlfall v ECD Insight & Whitney [2013] EWCA 1444 (Court of Appeal) (third party costs liability against company director)
  • HMRC v Sunico [2013] EWHC 941 (Ch) Proudman J. Unlawful means conspiracy against 3rd party recipients of misapplied VAT monies
  • Relfo Limited v Varsani [2012] EWHC 2168 (Ch), Sales J (constructive trust and restitutionary claims against third party in respect of fraudulently misapplied company funds)
  • Bilta (UK) Ltd v Nazir [2010] 2 Lloyds Rep 29 Sales J. (Applicability of CPR Part 11 to Arbitration disputes; waiver of right to arbitrate)
  • Relfo Limited v Varsani [2010] AER 1045 Court of Appeal (service on Defendant at last usual address; where resident)
  • Apollo Communications Ltd v Rahmann [2008] EWHC 3467 (Ch) Warren J (transactions entered into without authority amounted to economic activity within VAT legislation)
  • National Westminster Bank v Ashe [2008] EWCA Civ 55 [2008] 1 WLR 710 Court of Appeal (extinguishment of mortgage due expiry of limitation period)
  • Silversafe Limited v Hood & Tattershall Inversiones SL [2007] STC 871 Peter Smith J (pleading allegations of fraud; use of similar fact evidence; disclosure by HMRC of documents to liquidator pursuant to Enterprise Act 2002)
  • HMRC v Egleton and others [2007] BCC 78 Briggs J (freezing order against party against whom winding up petitioner asserted no claim)
  • Crystalmews Ltd v Metterick [2006] EWHC 2653 (Ch) [2006] All ER (D) 287 Lawrence Collins J (committal for contempt of 2 freezing orders. Defendant knowing of but not served with Order)
  • Softwarecore v Pathan [2005] EWHC 1845 (Ch); [2006] All ER (D) 05 Pumfrey J (continuation of freezing order against Defendants in missing trader intra community (MTIC) VAT fraud case)
  • Regalway Care Homes v Shillingford [2005] EWHC 261 (Ch); [2005] All ER (D) 394 Blackburne J (application by interveners for payment of monies frozen)
  • Furylong Limited v Masterpiece Technology Limited [2004] EWHC 3101 (Ch); [2004] All ER (D) 211 Park J (release of monies from freezing order to pay costs of litigation)
  • Moore Large & Co Ltd v Hermes Credit & Guarantee Plc [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163, Coleman J (credit insurance; variation of cover. material misrepresentation; affirmation of policy)
  • Re Swaptronics The Times August 17 1998, Laddie J (refusal to strike out section 459 petition for failure to comply with unless orders for witness statements and experts report)


Private Client +


  • Gowers v Gowers [2012] 1 FLR 1040 (Holman J) no enforcement of matrimonial lump sum order against assets of company beneficially owned by husband
  • Arif v Zar [2012] EWCA Civ 986 (Court of Appeal) (circumstances in which bankruptcy annulment application may be determined in Family Division; power of court to vary orders pursuant to CPR 3.1(7)))
  • Gowers v Gowers [2011] EWHC 3485 (Fam) Holman J (impermissible piercing of corporate veil in family ancillary relief proceedings. Status of monies in court pursuant to freezing order)


Other +

Peter receives instructions as a mediator in civil and commercial mediations

Additional Information

He is recommended as a Leading Silk in Insolvency by Chambers and Partners UK Guide to the Bar (2024 Edition) which states “Peter is an excellent advocate who is able to draw the court’s attention to key points, often from a complex fact pattern and/or evidence.” “Peter is always a go-to for any heavy insolvency litigation.” “He is bright and approachable, and his advice is clear and easy to understand.”

He is recommended in Tier 2 as a Leading Silk in Insolvency by Legal 500 (2024 edition) which states he is – “Confident, excellent communication and interpersonal skills, good ability to express ideas and arguments clearly. An analytical mind and logical approach to things.”

Legal 500 (2023)  Band 1 – ‘A superb advocate – calm, measured and technically brilliant.

He is recommended as a Leading Silk in Insolvency by Chambers and Partners UK Guide to the Bar (2023 Edition and 2022 Edition) which states “Nothing gets past him in terms of issues or evidence. He picks things up extremely quickly and can make the most complicated issues seem straightforward.” “Peter is very approachable, knowledgeable and tactically on top of his game.” “He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of insolvency law.”

He is recommended in Tier 1 as a Leading Silk in Insolvency by Legal 500 (2021 edition) which states “He is extremely bright and fully understands the commercial backdrop to the insolvency market which makes him incredibly easy to deal with and the clients appreciate his advice all the more.”

He is recommended as a Leading Silk in Insolvency by Chambers and Partners UK Guide to the Bar (2021 Edition) which states “His knowledge of insolvency is unbelievable and the points he puts forward are fantastic.” “He is a supremely talented insolvency silk, and is so personable and accessible. He is able to explain extremely complex issues in a straightforward and digestible way, and always with a friendly demeanour – he is an absolute pleasure to work with.”

He is recommended as a Leading Silk in Insolvency by Chambers and Partners UK Guide to the Bar (2020 Edition) which states “Peter is a fantastic advocate who gives clear, strategic guidance from the inception of a case through to trial.” “He knows his stuff backwards and is a completely safe pair of hands. Not only is he a brilliant lawyer, but he is also very approachable and great to work with.” “He is a very good and talented advocate who is measured in his submissions and has a nice character and tone without overdoing it.

He is recommended as a Leading Silk in Insolvency by Chambers and Partners UK Guide to the Bar (2019 Edition) which states “He is very experienced and highly intelligent, always able to provide clear, sound and practical advice.” “He is pragmatic and a problem solver.” “He is very approachable and a pleasure to deal with.

He is recommended as a Leading Individual in Insolvency by Chambers and Partners UK Guide to the Bar (2018 Edition) which states Peter Shaw QC provides hands-on, commercial and timely advice. “He is very knowledgeable, easy to work with and very good on his feet.” “He is user-friendly and commercial. Clients enjoy working with him, he is accessible and he is very able

He is recommended as a Leading Individual in Insolvency by Chambers and Partners UK Guide to the Bar (2017 Edition) and Chambers Global (2017 Edition) both which state: Peter Shaw QC .
Strengths: “He’s realistic, takes the right points in court and doesn’t waste time.” “He is very user-friendly and able to think outside the box.

He is also recommended as a Leading Individual in Insolvency by Chambers and Partners Global (2016 Edition) which states: “Peter Shaw is an excellent advocate, has tremendous patience with clients and is thorough in his analysis.”

He is recommended as a Leading Individual in Insolvency by Legal 500 (2017 edition) and described as ‘A very sharp barrister, who is very quick on his feet.’

He was also recommended as a Leading Junior in Insolvency in the Legal 500 and has been for many years. The 2016 Edition states that ‘He is very good on his feet and has the confidence of clients.

The 2015 Edition states that Peter Shaw is ‘a great practitioner – very knowledgeable on the law and very practical in using it to achieve positive solutions.

The 2014 Edition states that Peter Shaw of 9 Stone Buildings has ‘a wealth of experience in the sector.

The 2013 Edition refers to “the ‘tactically astute’ Peter Shaw

The 2012 Edition referred to “the ‘hardworking, confident and informed’ Peter Shaw“.

B.A. Hons

Solicitor 1986 – 1995

Insolvency Lawyers Association

Chancery Bar Association


Head of Chambers

Appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2017.

Peter Shaw is an independent self-employed barrister registered with the Bar Standards Board of England (ref. no 34594); whose practice is governed by the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales which code can be found at www.barstandardsboard.org.uk; has full professional liability insurance provided by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited (ref BM 2930/034) (details of the world-wide cover are provided at www.barmutual.co.uk); is registered for VAT (reg. no. 668 3486 86); and can be contacted during chambers opening hours by telephone at 02074045055 or by e-mail at clerks@9stonebuildings.com.

  • * Required fields