Ryan Hocking

Ryan has a busy, broad-based commercial and insolvency practice. He is a sought-after trial and appellate advocate, having acted in a number of cases of wider commercial significance to the client. Ryan's insolvency practice includes both personal and corporate insolvency, acting for office-holders as well as individuals and directors. He advises and acts in respect of (amongst other things) antecedent transactions, misfeasance, and litigation brought by office-holders. Within the wide category of commercial litigation, he has experience in matters relating to contractual disputes, civil fraud, partnerships and LLPs, professional negligence, financial regulation, unjust enrichment, and of cases with an international dimension (including injunctive relief and cross-border insolvencies). Ryan welcomes instructions to act as sole counsel or as part of a team, and has been led in the High Court (for example, being led by Brie Stevens-Hoare QC in the commercial fraud case of Chowdhary Ltd v Tossed & McKevitt) and the Supreme Court (for example, being led by John de Waal QC and David Lewis in ParkingEye v Beavis ' now the leading case on the law of penalty clauses). He also has experience of acting as an expert on English law for proceedings abroad, and welcomes instructions to do so.

Panel

  • Q&A Panel

Qualified Year

  • 2015

Membership

  • COMBAR
  • Chancery Bar Association
  • LCLCBA

Education

  • LLM - Wolfson College, University of Cambridge
  • BPTC - City Law School
  • GDL - Oxford Brookes University
  • BA (English Language & Literature) - Jesus College, University of Oxford

1 Contributions by Ryan Hocking

Old statement of truth on witness statement post‑Apr 2020: struck out?
Q&As
Old statement of truth on witness statement post‑Apr 2020: struck out?
Changes to CPR PD 22 took effect on 6 April 2020. The revisions modified the mandated wording for the statement of truth that authenticates documents to be deployed in civil proceedings. Nevertheless, under both the old and new versions the signatory must still confirm their belief that the 'contents' of the pertinent documents are true—or, under the updated formula, that the 'facts stated' in the relevant document are true...
Dispute Resolution
Expert page AD
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.