Ravi Nayer

  1. People /

Ravi Nayer

Ravi Nayer

Partner


London
  1. People /

Ravi Nayer

Ravi Nayer

Partner


London

Ravi Nayer

Partner

London

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 4796

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Ravi’s practice focuses on high stakes commercial and group litigation, acting on behalf of the UK’s largest financial services institutions, including asset managers, hedge funds and pension funds.

The cases in which he is involved often have an ESG element, including the shareholder action against Glencore plc which he designed and brought most recently in the High Court. His considerable experience includes creating joint defence and novel litigation cooperation agreements for peer institutions in some of the UK’s largest multi party actions, including the RBS Rights Issue litigation. As well as advising on the merits and conduct of securities class actions and regulatory enforcement, Ravi advises on governance policies and procedures relating to bondholder litigation and securities class actions and related fiduciary duties.

Ravi also has a market leading practice advising clients on the design and implementation of private-sector compensation schemes (also called redress schemes), which he has led on in the UK in recent years, arising from alleged mass torts (including the Construction Workers Compensation Scheme, the Manchester City Survivors’ Scheme, Windrush, and the first ICO approved data compensation scheme in the UK).

For two years, Ravi was seconded to one of the UK's largest FTSE 100 asset managers and insurers as its global head of disputes, giving him insight into the challenges of bringing and defending proceedings as in-house counsel.

He has experience across a wide range of jurisdictions, including the UK, UAE, US, Caribbean, India and North Africa.

Ravi champions diversity in the workplace and is regularly invited to speak at industry events. Ravi was the Chair of the Board of London’s largest mental health charity. He also interned at the Runnymede Trust, the UK’s leading race equality think tank. He is presently, Chair of the children’s charity, Barnardo’s, inaugural BAME engagement committee.

Ravi has been awarded numerous scholarships by The Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn and has taught on the BCL/MJur at the University of Oxford, where he also convened the Law Faculty’s Procedural Justice and Evidence Discussion Group, including undertaking in-depth research of comparative class action methodologies and reform.

The Growth of Class Actions: What’s next?

Admissions

  • England and Wales (barrister)

Related Practice Areas

Business & Commercial Disputes 

Litigation & Dispute Resolution 

Class Actions & Mass Torts 

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Class Actions & Mass Torts

Related Insights

View All Related Insights

Insights
Nov 07, 2023

Disputes in Focus: Quick Q&A on Legal Privilege in Group Litigation

Legal professional privilege is a key issue in any litigation or investigation and each year the courts determine many disputes over its application. It can become less straightforward to manage and protect in multi-party or group proceedings. In this blog, Clare Reeve Curatola provides a brief summary of legal privilege and the rules about sharing privileged material under English law. And, she asks fellow Litigation and Investigations partner, Ravi Nayer, about his recent experience of grappling with issues of legal privilege where there are multiple different parties involved in a dispute and in the context of group actions in the High Court. Short on time? Jump to our key takeaways. 
Insights
Nov 06, 2023

Can multiple claimants use the same claim form in group actions?

A recent decision in the Birmingham County Court has added to the body of case law growing around the test for listing multiple claimants on the same claim form. In Angel and others v Black Horse Limited, unreported, 8 September 2023, County Court at Birmingham, a case involving over 5,000 claimants bringing claims against 8 finance companies, the claimants had issued proceedings using 8 claim forms (one against each defendant). HHJ Worster held that in this case it was impermissible under CPR 7.3 to use a single claim form for all the claims against the same defendant. The judge therefore ordered the claimants to sever their claims from the common claim forms. HHJ Worster relied heavily on the guidance given by the High Court in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) on the CPR 7.3 “convenience test”, which concerns whether multiple claimants may use a single claim form. These cases emphasise the need for a sufficient commonality of significant issues between the claims brought on the same claim form that will then be useful in determining those issues within one set of proceedings.
Insights
Sep 14, 2023

Raising the stakes in activist shareholder claims

The High Court has ordered that ClientEarth pay Shell’s costs in connection with all aspects of ClientEarth’s unsuccessful application for permission to continue a derivative claim against Shell and its directors. This is a departure from the default position in derivative proceedings. Usually, the company will not be awarded any costs incurred in making submissions in opposition to, or attending any hearing of, a shareholder’s application at the permission stage. This judgment therefore raises the stakes for activist shareholders who are considering bringing a derivative claim.
Insights
Sep 12, 2023

New Group Litigation Order issued together with the potential development of a new “GLO Lite” procedure for the collective case management of claims

The High Court has made a Group Litigation Order (GLO) in the class action proceedings of Tongue & Ors v Bayer Public Ltd Company & Ors [2023] EWHC 1792 (KB). This appears to be only the second GLO made by the High Court in 2023. In its judgment, the Court made a number of important comments about the factors it took into account when exercising its discretion to make a GLO. It also referred to a form of collective case management it named “GLO Lite”, which indicates that a new informal practice for managing class actions is developing in the High Court.
Insights
Aug 30, 2023

Município de Mariana v BHP Group: the English High Court casts its jurisdictional net wider in the Fundão Dam class action proceedings

In the High Court’s recent judgment in Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Limited & Anor the Court found that England was “clearly the appropriate forum” to determine whether Vale SA, a Brazilian company, should share liability with the BHP Group in a class action claim being brought in the English High Court as the result of the 2015 Brazilian Fundão Dam disaster. The claim was brought as a CPR Part 7 High Court action, with a large number of claimants listed on one claim form, and is not a representative action or subject to a Group Litigation Order.
Insights
Jul 06, 2023

Upper Tribunal clarifies limits on FCA’s powers to impose single firm redress schemes

On 21 June 2023, the Upper Tribunal handed down its judgment in BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP v The Financial Conduct Authority [2023] UKUT 00140 (TCC). The case considers both the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to permit amendments to a Statement of Case, as well as the FCA’s power to impose a redress scheme on a single firm. In relation to the second point, which is the focus of this blog, the Upper Tribunal firmly rejected the FCA’s expansive interpretation of its power to impose redress schemes on single firms pursuant to section 55L FSMA, which provides the FCA with powers to impose requirements on firms on its own initiative (“OIREQ powers”). We explore this helpful clarification of the law and consider its wider implications for firms and consumers, particularly in a climate where consumer protection is at the forefront of the FCA’s agenda and the FCA’s new Consumer Duty comes into force on 31 July 2023.

Related Insights

Awards
Apr 12, 2024
Eight BCLP Partners Ranked in 2024 Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers
Insights
Nov 28, 2023
Collective settlement of mass claims: an opportunity for innovation
Insights
Nov 07, 2023
Disputes in Focus: Quick Q&A on Legal Privilege in Group Litigation
Legal professional privilege is a key issue in any litigation or investigation and each year the courts determine many disputes over its application. It can become less straightforward to manage and protect in multi-party or group proceedings. In this blog, Clare Reeve Curatola provides a brief summary of legal privilege and the rules about sharing privileged material under English law. And, she asks fellow Litigation and Investigations partner, Ravi Nayer, about his recent experience of grappling with issues of legal privilege where there are multiple different parties involved in a dispute and in the context of group actions in the High Court. Short on time? Jump to our key takeaways. 
Insights
Nov 06, 2023
Can multiple claimants use the same claim form in group actions?
A recent decision in the Birmingham County Court has added to the body of case law growing around the test for listing multiple claimants on the same claim form. In Angel and others v Black Horse Limited, unreported, 8 September 2023, County Court at Birmingham, a case involving over 5,000 claimants bringing claims against 8 finance companies, the claimants had issued proceedings using 8 claim forms (one against each defendant). HHJ Worster held that in this case it was impermissible under CPR 7.3 to use a single claim form for all the claims against the same defendant. The judge therefore ordered the claimants to sever their claims from the common claim forms. HHJ Worster relied heavily on the guidance given by the High Court in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) on the CPR 7.3 “convenience test”, which concerns whether multiple claimants may use a single claim form. These cases emphasise the need for a sufficient commonality of significant issues between the claims brought on the same claim form that will then be useful in determining those issues within one set of proceedings.
Insights
Sep 14, 2023
Raising the stakes in activist shareholder claims
The High Court has ordered that ClientEarth pay Shell’s costs in connection with all aspects of ClientEarth’s unsuccessful application for permission to continue a derivative claim against Shell and its directors. This is a departure from the default position in derivative proceedings. Usually, the company will not be awarded any costs incurred in making submissions in opposition to, or attending any hearing of, a shareholder’s application at the permission stage. This judgment therefore raises the stakes for activist shareholders who are considering bringing a derivative claim.
Insights
Sep 12, 2023
New Group Litigation Order issued together with the potential development of a new “GLO Lite” procedure for the collective case management of claims
The High Court has made a Group Litigation Order (GLO) in the class action proceedings of Tongue & Ors v Bayer Public Ltd Company & Ors [2023] EWHC 1792 (KB). This appears to be only the second GLO made by the High Court in 2023. In its judgment, the Court made a number of important comments about the factors it took into account when exercising its discretion to make a GLO. It also referred to a form of collective case management it named “GLO Lite”, which indicates that a new informal practice for managing class actions is developing in the High Court.
Insights
Aug 30, 2023
Município de Mariana v BHP Group: the English High Court casts its jurisdictional net wider in the Fundão Dam class action proceedings
In the High Court’s recent judgment in Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Limited & Anor the Court found that England was “clearly the appropriate forum” to determine whether Vale SA, a Brazilian company, should share liability with the BHP Group in a class action claim being brought in the English High Court as the result of the 2015 Brazilian Fundão Dam disaster. The claim was brought as a CPR Part 7 High Court action, with a large number of claimants listed on one claim form, and is not a representative action or subject to a Group Litigation Order.
News
Aug 08, 2023
Partner quoted in ‘Bloomberg’ on ESG-related lawsuits
Insights
Jul 06, 2023
Upper Tribunal clarifies limits on FCA’s powers to impose single firm redress schemes
On 21 June 2023, the Upper Tribunal handed down its judgment in BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP v The Financial Conduct Authority [2023] UKUT 00140 (TCC). The case considers both the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to permit amendments to a Statement of Case, as well as the FCA’s power to impose a redress scheme on a single firm. In relation to the second point, which is the focus of this blog, the Upper Tribunal firmly rejected the FCA’s expansive interpretation of its power to impose redress schemes on single firms pursuant to section 55L FSMA, which provides the FCA with powers to impose requirements on firms on its own initiative (“OIREQ powers”). We explore this helpful clarification of the law and consider its wider implications for firms and consumers, particularly in a climate where consumer protection is at the forefront of the FCA’s agenda and the FCA’s new Consumer Duty comes into force on 31 July 2023.