David Miles Consultant
David has acted as a Privy Council agent since 1993. He has conducted many cases from most of the Privy Council jurisdictions.
Main areas of practice
In his capacity as a Privy Council agent, David conducts a wide variety of cases including professional negligence, clinical negligence, personal injury, company and commercial, probate and construction.
His clients include overseas attorneys who wish to appoint a Privy Council agent, as well as parties wishing to appoint a mediator.
Examples of reported cases that David has worked on include the following:
- Smith and Others v Molyneaux ( British Virgin Islands ) JCPC 2014/0064 – Adverse possession
- Madhewoo v The State of Mauritius ( Mauritius ) JCPC 2016/006 - Right to biometric information
- Janin Caribbean Construction v Wilkinson and Others (British Virgin Islands ) JCPC 2014/0111 – Barrister's immunity
- Mascareignes Stirling Co v Chang Cheng Esquares ( Mauritius ) JCPC 2015/0051 – Effect of lump sum building contract
- Grewals (Mauritius ) Ltd v Koo Seen Lin ( Mauritius) JCPC 2014/0038 - Employment
- Elizabeth Ram v Motor and General Insurance (Trinidad) 2015 UKPC 22
- Rainbow Insurance Co v The Financial Services Commission (Mauritius ) 2015 UKPC 15
- Mauri Garments Trading v The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Mauritius) 2015 UKPC 14
- National Stadium Project (Grenada) v NH International (Caribbean) Ltd (Trinidad) 2015 UKPC 6
- Sheik Mohamed Ali Alhamrani and others v Sheik Abdullah Ali Alhamrani (BVI) 2014 UKPC 37
- Alternative Power Solutions v Central Electricity Board 2014 (Mauritius) UKPC 31
- Pfizer Ltd v Medimpex Jamaica Ltd (Jamaica) 2014 UKPC 20
- Adele Shtern v Monica Cummins (Jamaica) 2014 UKPC 18
- Surinam Shipping v Den Danske Bank & Mauritius Commercial Bank (Mauritius) 2014 UKPC 10
- Mauritius Revenue Authority v Paradis Brabant Hotel & others (Mauritius) 2013 UKPC 24
- The Appeal Commissioners v The Bank of Nova Scotia (Grenada) 2013 UKPC 19
- Electrotec v Issa Nicholas WLR 1998 202.
- Dipcon Engineering v Bowen (1) Attorney General of Grenada 2004 UKPC 18.
- Knox v Deane 2005 BCC 884.
- Parmalat Capital Finance Ltd v Food Holdings Ltd UKPC 2007.
- Texan Management Ltd v Pacific Electric Wire 2009 UKPC 46
- Jervis v Skinner 2011 UKPC 2.
- Adamas v Yong Ting Ping How Fok Cheung 2011 UKPC 32.
- DPP v Bolah 2011 UKPC 44.
- LeSage v Mauritius Commercial Bank 2012 UKPC 41.
- Appeal Commissioners v Bank of Nova Scotia 2013 UKPC 19.
- Mauritius Revenue Authority v Paradis Brabant Hotel 2013 UKPC 24.
Mediation: David regularly mediates a range of disputes, particularly construction disputes. He was responsible for the formation of CEDR and was a founder director. David has been part of the CEDR Mediation Training Faculty since the beginning. He is joint author of The ADR Practice Guide, now in its 3rd edition. David is Chairman of PIM Senior Mediators and has acted as adjudicator in construction disputes (including Wembley Stadium).
Three new Justices have been appointed to the UK Supreme Court and therefore will be eligible to sit as Judges in the Privy Council.
It is anticipated that new Court Forms will be issued shortly, following a slight delay. The most significant change will be the introduction of a separate form to deal with Applications for Permission to Appeal.
As of 1 October, following the retirement of Lord Mance in June of this year, three new appointments have been announced.
Articles by David
On 24th March, the Privy Council handed down Judgment in an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Mauritius.
We look at the change of justices in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
We highlight the Privy Council's conclusions in the case of Lesage v Maritius Commercial Bank
Related Knowledge & Resources
Developers are geared up to carry out necessary remediation of brownfield sites through the planning process, but what happens if there is historical contamination on land that they have sold to homeowners years before?
In November 2016, the JCPC in London heard its first ever video-link case. The case ‘Cono Cono and Co Ltd (Appellant) v Veerasamy and others (Respondents)’
The higher rates of SDLT are intended to apply to purchases of additional residential properties, such as second homes and buy to let properties.