Alexandra Kirby

  1. People /

Alexandra Kirby

Alexandra Kirby

Senior Associate

  1. People /

Alexandra Kirby

Alexandra Kirby

Senior Associate

Alexandra Kirby

Senior Associate

London

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 4758

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Alex is an Australian Solicitor who advises clients on a variety of corporate and commercial matters and specialises in superior court litigation as well as matters in alternative litigation forums.

Alex has experience acting in a variety of commercial disputes in particular contentious matters arising from insolvency situations. Alex has also acted in large regulatory matters on behalf of individuals and financial institutions including acting in government inquiries into the Australian banking industry and matters before the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Alex is a Senior Associate in the firm’s Business and Commercial Disputes department and a leading contentious lawyer for the firm’s extensive public procurement practice. Leveraging a wider business and commercial dispute experience, Alex has a wealth of contentious and regulatory expertise, and is known for fighting the clients’ corner in procurement dispute. She specialises in large scale, high-stakes public procurement challenges which always require urgent action and expert strategic advice to be provided in often very short-timescales.  She is lead associate on numerous of the most significant public procurements cases acting for national and international clients including (i) acting on behalf of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a high-profile High Court challenge to the procurement run by the Gambling Commission for the operation of the Fourth UK National Lottery Licence (the largest UK public procurement in 25 years).

In 2015, Alex was recognised as one of the top 30 lawyers in Australia under 30 in dispute resolution. 

The Growth of Class Actions: What’s next?

Admissions

  • New South Wales

Related Practice Areas

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • M&A Disputes

  • Finance

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Government Contracts & Public Procurement

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

Related Insights

Insights
Jul 05, 2023

What’s the deadline? Timely guidance for procurement challenges in Altiatech Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2023]

A recent Technology & Construction Court’s judgment considers the procedural time limits that apply in procurement litigation.   The question of timing in bringing a claim in procurement challenges is not straightforward, requiring close examination of the interplay between the procurement regulations and the Civil Procedure Rules, by reference to the nature of the claims available. Failure to understand and comply with the requisite timelines can often result in claims being limited or excluded altogether. This case is a timely examination of the rules surrounding time limits.  
Insights
May 23, 2023

Drafters beware! Court of Appeal on the significance of express terms

Every so often the Court will reaffirm the primacy of express terms while re-stating the rule that implied terms can only be relied on to the extent they are (i) so obvious as to go without saying, or (ii) necessary to give an agreement business efficacy. The latest is Contra Holdings Ltd v Bamford [2023] EWCA Civ 374, handed down by the Court of Appeal last month. This commentary will come as no surprise to practitioners, and yet it serves as an important reminder that implied terms should not be relied upon as a fall-back where express drafting falls short.
Insights
May 23, 2022

Bids, scores, and brand new laws? A review of the Government’s Procurement Bill 2022

On 11 May 2022, the keenly awaited Procurement Bill (announced in the Queen’s Speech) was formally introduced to the House of Lords and received its first reading.  Running to 122 pages (and comprising 116 sections across 13 Parts, and 11 Schedules) in its current form, the Bill is one of the Prime Minister’s so-called “Brexit bonanza” bills focused on further decoupling the UK from the EU. Post-Brexit, the government views this as an opportunity for the UK to develop and implement a procurement regime unburdened by the current complex regime that derives almost entirely from EU law. Indeed, the intention is to repeal the public contracts, defence, utilities and concessions procurement regimes, and replace these with a single piece of procurement legislation that extends to contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Scotland has opted not to implement the new UK procurement regime). Whilst the Bill reflects many of the proposals outlined by the government’s December 2020 Green Paper and consultation response published in December 2021, some expected changes have not made their way into the Bill.  We make the following initial observations.
Awards
October 5, 2021

Legal 500 UK 2022

Insights
Mar 18, 2021

The pandemic is driving technology’s takeover of legal hearings

COVID-19 has catalysed the re-examination of the traditional operation of the legal sector and, in particular, the technology required to facilitate the conduct and resolution of disputes. Most conspicuously, this has been shown through the move toward virtual hearings before Courts and regulators.
Awards
Oct 02, 2020

Legal 500 UK 2021

Insights
May 15, 2020

London Stock Exchange successfully defends claim to disclose identities of market participants

Mr Justice Andrew Baker has dismissed a Norwich Pharmacal claim brought by litigation funder Burford Capital Limited against London Stock Exchange, in which it sought the disclosure of the identities of market participants involved in trading Burford’s shares following a remote trial.  In a judgment handed down on 15 May 2020 (Burford Capital Limited v London Stock Exchange [2020] EWHC 1183 (Comm))the Court rejected claims by Burford that it had a “good arguable case” that its share price had been the subject of unlawful market manipulation on two days in August 2019 and stated that even if it had been, justice would not have demanded that London Stock Exchange disclose to Burford the identities of all market participants trading on the days in question.  The claim was the first of its kind to be brought against a trading venue in the UK and represents a decisive step by the Court to protect public confidence in trading in the UK.   

Related Insights

Insights
Jul 05, 2023
What’s the deadline? Timely guidance for procurement challenges in Altiatech Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2023]
A recent Technology & Construction Court’s judgment considers the procedural time limits that apply in procurement litigation.   The question of timing in bringing a claim in procurement challenges is not straightforward, requiring close examination of the interplay between the procurement regulations and the Civil Procedure Rules, by reference to the nature of the claims available. Failure to understand and comply with the requisite timelines can often result in claims being limited or excluded altogether. This case is a timely examination of the rules surrounding time limits.  
Insights
May 23, 2023
Drafters beware! Court of Appeal on the significance of express terms
Every so often the Court will reaffirm the primacy of express terms while re-stating the rule that implied terms can only be relied on to the extent they are (i) so obvious as to go without saying, or (ii) necessary to give an agreement business efficacy. The latest is Contra Holdings Ltd v Bamford [2023] EWCA Civ 374, handed down by the Court of Appeal last month. This commentary will come as no surprise to practitioners, and yet it serves as an important reminder that implied terms should not be relied upon as a fall-back where express drafting falls short.
Insights
May 23, 2022
Bids, scores, and brand new laws? A review of the Government’s Procurement Bill 2022
On 11 May 2022, the keenly awaited Procurement Bill (announced in the Queen’s Speech) was formally introduced to the House of Lords and received its first reading.  Running to 122 pages (and comprising 116 sections across 13 Parts, and 11 Schedules) in its current form, the Bill is one of the Prime Minister’s so-called “Brexit bonanza” bills focused on further decoupling the UK from the EU. Post-Brexit, the government views this as an opportunity for the UK to develop and implement a procurement regime unburdened by the current complex regime that derives almost entirely from EU law. Indeed, the intention is to repeal the public contracts, defence, utilities and concessions procurement regimes, and replace these with a single piece of procurement legislation that extends to contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Scotland has opted not to implement the new UK procurement regime). Whilst the Bill reflects many of the proposals outlined by the government’s December 2020 Green Paper and consultation response published in December 2021, some expected changes have not made their way into the Bill.  We make the following initial observations.
Awards
October 5, 2021
Legal 500 UK 2022
Insights
Mar 18, 2021
The pandemic is driving technology’s takeover of legal hearings
COVID-19 has catalysed the re-examination of the traditional operation of the legal sector and, in particular, the technology required to facilitate the conduct and resolution of disputes. Most conspicuously, this has been shown through the move toward virtual hearings before Courts and regulators.
Awards
Oct 02, 2020
Legal 500 UK 2021
News
May 15, 2020
BCLP Successfully Defends London Stock Exchange Following Remote Trial
Insights
May 15, 2020
London Stock Exchange successfully defends claim to disclose identities of market participants
Mr Justice Andrew Baker has dismissed a Norwich Pharmacal claim brought by litigation funder Burford Capital Limited against London Stock Exchange, in which it sought the disclosure of the identities of market participants involved in trading Burford’s shares following a remote trial.  In a judgment handed down on 15 May 2020 (Burford Capital Limited v London Stock Exchange [2020] EWHC 1183 (Comm))the Court rejected claims by Burford that it had a “good arguable case” that its share price had been the subject of unlawful market manipulation on two days in August 2019 and stated that even if it had been, justice would not have demanded that London Stock Exchange disclose to Burford the identities of all market participants trading on the days in question.  The claim was the first of its kind to be brought against a trading venue in the UK and represents a decisive step by the Court to protect public confidence in trading in the UK.   
Insights
Apr 14, 2020
BCLP acts in one of the first Commercial Court virtual trials - key issues for remote hearings