Peter Knox KC is an experienced advocate in Commercial, Chancery, Professional Negligence, Property, and Administrative, Constitutional and Public Law.
Peter’s practice has consisted of over 80 full appeals in the Privy Council, (mainly on land, judicial review/constitutional cases, and criminal matters); about 25 full trials/arbitrations in general Chancery/Commercial work; 16 appeals to the Court of Appeal; two in Supreme Court; and also appearing (about 8 times) at hearings in Trinidad and Tobago and The Bahamas.
Most notable cases include:
Peter was Head of Chambers from 2013 to 2018. He continues to have a strong presence in all these practice areas in the High Court (Chancery Division, Queen’s Bench Division & Commercial Court), the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, in which he has many reported cases.
He served a six year term as a Deputy High Court Judge, from 2018 to 2024, assigned to the Chancery Division, and delivered a number of reported judgments.
Peter undertakes large amounts of public law work, in particular in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
He specialises in a broad range of appellate work there, in particular contract and constitutional law cases, and pro bono cases in capital appeals. He has acted for most of the Governments in the Caribbean on many high profile cases, and has advised on the drafting of a considerable amount of legislation.
Elie and others v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago JCPC 2025 0072-74
Acting for the Attorney General on an appeal raising questions about the constitutionality of arrests and detentions made under emergency regulations after a Proclamation of a state of emergency. Judgment awaited.
Jason Jones v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago JCPC 2025 0095
Acting for the Attorney General (leading Robert Strang) on an appeal raising questions about the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws in Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment awaited.
Public Service Commission v. Green [2026] UKPC 20
Acting for the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (leading Robert Strang) on an appeal raising questions about whether, under the Constitution, the right to set criteria for promotion and the like in the public services in Trinidad and Tobago was vested in the Government, or the Public Service Commission. The Government, the board held.
Taylor v. Spring [2026] UKPC 18
Acting for the State on an appeal raising the question whether investigations made into money laundering which had been made before the coming into effect of relevant legislation could be relied upon after that legislation came into effect. The board held that they could be, so appeal dismissed.
Niles v. Judicial and Legal Service Commission [2026] UKPC 15
Acting for the Director of Public Prosecutions on an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to stay a re-trial of bribery charges against a police officer. The Privy Council dismissed the appeal, but, interestingly, said that the original conviction of the police officer should never have been set aside (so there should not have been a re-trial anyway), and so the police officer would have no claim for any lost pension rights.
Ayers-Caesar v. Judicial and Legal Service Commission [2025] UKPC 15
Acting for Mrs Justice Ayers-Caesar on judicial review claim to set aside her resignation as High Court Judge, on the footing that, contrary to the Constitution, she had been unlawfully pressurised by the Chief Justice and the Commission into tendering it. (Had assisted on the case at first instance and in the Court of Appeal as well.)
National Bank of Anguilla v. Chief Minister of Anguilla [2025] UKPC 14 [2026] 1 All ER 1097
Acting for the Chief Minister on judicial review claim by the National Bank of Anguilla, brought on the basis that it had been unfairly excluded from the benefits of a reconstruction scheme of the local banking system in Anguilla. The Privy Council held the lower courts should have granted permission to bring the challenge.
Monteil v. Board of Inland Revenue [2024] UKPC 37
Acting for the Board of Inland Revenue on claim that, on a proper construction of the relevant tax legislation, it was not entitled to charge the appellant with PAYE which had not been paid by his employer. The Privy Council upheld the Board’s position that it was entitled to look to the employee for payment in these circumstances.
R v. Campbell and others [2024] UKPC 6
Acted for the Crown in an appeal from Jamaica brought by Shawn Campbell (aka the famous rap singer Vybes Kartel) against his conviction for murder, on the basis that, when the jury on the last day were offered a bribe, the judge should have discharged them rather than carry on with the hearing. Although accepting that the judge was in an impossible position, the Privy Council upheld the appeal, holding that he should have discharged the jury.
Suraj v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2023] AC 337
Acted for the appellants who had been charged with acting contrary to regulations passed under old ordinance which imposed stringent covid restrictions against freedom of movement and association. They challenged the legality and constitutionality of the regulations on the basis that such restrictions could only be imposed pursuant to the emergency specific powers conferred on the President and the houses of parliament in the Constitution. The Board, in a very important judgment, held otherwise, holding that as long as a law is a proportionate response, it does not need to be passed using special provisions in a Constitution.
Tafari Morrison v. The Crown [2023] UKPC 14
Acting for the Crown on an appeal from Jamaica, which raised questions about the constitutionality of Jamaican laws dealing with serious crime by children, and whether they complied with international treaties which Jamaica had entered into, and whether this mattered as a matter of law.
Hinds v. DPP of Jamaica [2021] UKPC 10
Appeared for the DPP of Jamaica in claim by Jamaican politicians that evidence which was required by the Netherlands from them pursuant to the Mutual Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act 1995 and preceding treaty should be taken in private, not in public, raising questions about the “open justice” principle and the proper construction of the Jamaican Constitution. The Privy Council held that there was no basis for departing from the open justice principle.
Nurse v. Trinidad and Tobago [2021] AC 1
Appeared for the State on appeal against two convictions for making false declarations in a custom declaration form and importing prohibited goods. The question was whether these were, on a proper construction, offences of strict liability, and raised difficult questions of law about what mental element was required for the offences. The Privy Council held that on a proper construction the offences were of strict liability.
United Policyholders Group v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2016] UKPC 17
Appeared for the United Policyholders Group (both in the Privy Council and in the courts below in Trinidad and Tobago) in claim that the Government had wrongfully gone back on its public promise to ensure that, if they kept their money in CLICO (which was in serious financial trouble), they would not lose out. After a general election, a new Government went back on the promise, and reduced the payout. Important case on legitimate expectation and reliance (the Government succeeded in the end).
Brantley v. Constituency Boundaries Commission [2015] UKPC 21
Appeared for opposition parties (leading Thomas Roe KC and Douglas Mendes SC) just before a general election, who challenged it on the basis that the governing party had unlawfully just changed the electoral boundaries to improve their chances in the election. The governing party, however, relied upon a proclamation and an ouster clause to say that no such challenge could be made. The Board upheld the opposition’s appeal, and granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain the election.
Paponette v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2012] AC 1
Leading case on legitimate expectation and breach of property rights. Maxi taxi drivers had traditionally operated from a tax stand for which it did not have to pay, but were persuaded to move to a new stand by representations by the government that if they moved they would not be under a rival’s control and they would soon have control of the new location. The government went back on this, which the Privy Council held it was not entitled to do, and it authoritatively laid down the test for “substantive” legitimate expectations.
Peter specialises in commercial litigation in both the Chancery Division and the Commercial Court, including in particular banking disputes involving guarantees, mortgages or swaps, distributorship and agency disputes, property disputes, civil fraud and professional negligence claims.
Peter has acted on a large number of other cases which have not gone to trial, including in particular shareholder disputes and unfair prejudice petitions, and cases concerning the proper construction of contracts.
Musst Holdings Ltd v. Astra Asset Management UK Ltd no. 2 [2026] EWHC 1599
Acting for Musst Holdings on a claim that by reason of Astra’s negligent misstatements already found in previous judgment, and which resulted in Musst having to bring two claims rather than one to vindicate all its contractual rights, Musst was entitled to damages to compensate it for the extra ATE premiums and litigation funding fees it incurred as a result. The Judge held no, but granted Musst permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Musst Holdings Ltd v. Astra Management UK Ltd no. 2 [2026] EWHC 357 (Ch)
Acting for Musst Holdings in seven day trial on a claim that it was entitled to be paid for further commission for introducing an investor who made further investments in complicated investment instruments (synthetic asset backed securities) in addition to those for which Musst had already obtained judgment in late 2021. The case raised questions about financial instruments and what could be said to constitute a “synthetic asset backed security”, and the proper construction of the relevant introduction contract. Judgment was given for Musst on most of its claims.
Matrix Receivables Ltd v. Musst Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 2487 (Ch)
Acting for Musst on six day trial on claim by Matrix Receivables that the latter was entitled to share, by reason of a claim in contract or unjust enrichment, in some of the commission Musst had received for introducing investors to a third party. The case raised novel questions about causation on unjust enrichment and about limitation. The Judge awarded Matrix a very small percentage of its claim, and made no order as to costs.
Matrix Receivables Ltd v. Musst Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 3204
Acting for Musst on six day trial on claim by Matrix Receivables that the latter was entitled to share, by reason of a claim in contract or unjust enrichment, in some of the commission Musst had received for introducing investors to a third party. The case raised novel questions about causation on unjust enrichment and about limitation. The Judge awarded Matrix a very small percentage of its claim, and made no order as to costs.
Mozambique v.Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) [2025] EWHC 1481
Acted for former Credit Suisse banker on a very substantial claim by the State of Mozambique alleging fraud and corruption in relation to the raising of finance to fund a ship building fleet to fish for tuna fish off the coast of Mozambique. The case against him settled after part of the trial and before judgment.
Proactive Group Holdings Inc & Anor v HJ 2024 Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 2821 (KB)
Acting for Proactive on claims for interim injunctions (which were granted) to restrain former employees from using its confidential information and soliciting its customers.
Acting for defendant on seven day trial on claim for commission by claimant, on the basis that the contract, which provided for commission to be payable on transfers of land, also entitled the claimant to commission in the event that the companies which owned the relevant land were sold. The case raised questions about how one should construe clear words in a contract which (it was said) led to uncommercial result. Both courts upheld the defendant’s reliance on the clear words of the contract. The case also raised questions on what evidence is required to bring a counterclaim based on foreign law. The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal.
Bahia v. Sidhu [2024] EWCA Civ 605 [2025]
Acting for defendant in the Court of Appeal appealing against an order made below which required him, on dissolution of the partnership, to sell some of the partnership’s assets to his co-partner at a valuation, rather than have them all put up for auction, because he was in debt to the partnership. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and held that the existence of the debt to the partnership provided no basis for departing from the usual rule that, on a dissolution, assets are to be sold at auction unless otherwise agreed.
Acted for the appellants Mr and Ms Ahmed in the Court of Appeal against judgment at first instance where (unrepresented) they had been found liable for causing their company to commit trade mark infringements, but without any finding that they had acted dishonestly or even negligently, and were ordered to account for their profits consisting (it was said) of a loan and salary. The Court of Appeal allowed their appeal in part (as the loan was not a profit), but the Supreme Court allowed it in total, holding that (a) accessories, such as directors, to torts of strict liability such as trade mark infringement, are not liable unless they know the essential facts that make the principal’s act wrongful, and (b) salary does not court as profit. It also dismissed the Respondent’s cross-appeal that if an account was to be given, the profits should be assessed by reference to the company’s profits.
Faris Al Rawi v. Sidawi [2023] EWHC 1415
Acted for defendants in seven day trial, on a breach of contract or quantum meruit claim for services rendered to them to assist in various successful property developments around the South Kensington area in London. The Court dismissed the claim.
Acting for Musst on 13 day trial, and then on two day appeal to the Court of Appeal, on claim by Musst that it was entitled under a contract to be paid commission for introducing two investors to a fund manager, which then novated that contract to the defendant Astra by conduct. The appeal raised questions about complex financial instruments and whether the investments in them introduced satisfied the terms of the contract, and whether there had been a novation by conduct to Astra. A number of other issues was raised at first instance which required detailed expert evidence about the investments and about US law concerning whether the introductions to a US investor had been lawful in the first place.
Sevilleja v. Marex Financial Limited [2021] AC 39
Appeared with Richard Samuel as an intervenor on behalf of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking on an appeal by Marex against the Court of Appeal’s judgment which had held that the rule against reflective loss meant that shareholders with their own individual right of action against a third party could not pursue that claim for it if the company had its own cause of action. This rule substantially prejudiced ordinary shareholders, hence the Group’s involvement. The Supreme Court reversed the rule.
Aroca Seiquer y Asociados v. Adams [2018] PNLR 32
Acted for group of claimants who had been induced to invest in Spanish off plan property development, paying most of the money up front after seeing a Spanish solicitor. They lost the money and successfully sued him for failing to warn them of the defects he knew about in the title.
Wolff v. Trinity Logistics USA [2018] EWCA Civ 2765, 2019 1 WLR 1937.
Appeared for Trinity Logistics at trial and on appeal, on claim that directors and others were personally liable for wrongfully releasing goods from port to their company without proper documentation an before payment. One was held to be, but not the other.
Julien v. Eteck [2018] UKPC 2, [2018] BCC 376
Acted for appellants on appeal to the Privy Council who were accused of acting in breach of fiduciary duty to a state owned company; to which they said that the sole shareholder (the Government) knew all about the alleged breaches, so the claim was statute barred. The Privy Council dismissed the appeal, holding that shareholder knowledge should probably not be attributed to the company in the circumstances.
JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov [2018] EWCA, 2019 BCC 96 (High Court [2016] EWHC 3071 (Comm))
Appeared for Madiyar Ablyazov (son of Mukhtar) who had received a gift of £1 million to assist him to remain in the UK. The bank said that the purpose of the transfer was to put it out of the reach of Mukhtar’s numerous creditors, so it could be set aside under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, but the judge disagreed. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, and clarified that s.423 requires more than just foresight that a transfer will place assets out of the hands of creditors.
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. Holland [2010] 1 WLR 2793
Acted for Mr Holland (at first instance, in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court) who was a director of a series of a company which in turn was a director of a series of companies which went into insolvency when a tax scheme failed. The Revenue sued him on the basis that he was a de facto director of the companies, so liable to account for the wrongful dissipations before they were wound up. The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the Revenue’s claim, holding that it was not enough to fix Mr Holland with liability that he was in fact the person who caused the wrongful payments out to be made, because he was not a director of the companies, but only a director of a company that was a director of the companies.
Offshore & International Arbitrations
Peter is currently acting for statutory authority in Trinidad and Tobago in very large construction arbitration which has just begun.
Ramlogan v. The Attorney General of Belize (2026)
Acted for Anand Ramlogan on an appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice, on the basis that the first instance court in Belize had wrongfully made a wasted costs order against him and the Court of Appeal had then wrongfully dismissed the appeal because he had not first applied for permission to appeal. The Caribbean Court of Justice upheld the appeal, holding that there was no need to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a wasted costs order.
Moses Barrow and others v. Tracy Panton and others (2025)
Appeared in Belize Supreme Court on behalf of Ms Panton in series of hearings on case arising out of a dispute as to whether she or Mr Barrow was the rightful leader of the United Democratic Party. Amongst other rulings so far, the Judge has dismissed an application by Mr Barrow that Ms Panton acted in contempt of court by maintaining that she was leader; but he later ruled that Mr Barrow was the rightful leader, although he had also wrongfully purported to expel Ms Panton from the party.
Financial Intelligence Unit v. Gary Griffith and others (2025)
Appeared for the Financial Intelligence Unit in the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago in January 2025 on appeal against judgment that it had acted unlawfully in instigating an investigation against Gary Griffith (former chief commissioner of police) and others because it did so before it had received a suspicious activity report from any relevant financial institution. Judgment reserved and still awaited.
Attorney General v. Brent Thomas (2024)
Appeared for the Attorney General in the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago in July 2024 on appeal against judge’s findings that Trinidad and Tobago had unlawfully and unconstitutionally arrested Brent Thomas (an authorised arms dealer) by transporting him from Barbados to Trinidad, such that it would not be right to allow the proposed trial against him on charges of unlawful sales of firearms to go ahead.
Solomon v. Solomon (2024)
Five day High Court trial in Trinidad and Tobago concerning a trust fund set up by the late Frank Solomon S.C. for his second wife and his two children, which his second wife said had been transferred to her by various documents just before his death. Acted for the two children, who made allegations of undue influence and lack of capacity, which the judge rejected, but she held that this did not matter as the documents did not have the effect of transferring the fund away from the children.
Caye Bank v. Rosemore (2022)
Appeared for Caye Bank in appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice from Belize Court of Appeal, on claim that it was not liable for the loss of monies from its customer’s account, given the terms of the banking contract.
A&V Oil v. Petrotin (2021-2022)
1. Appeared for A&V in Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago in January 2021 on an interlocutory injunction to restrain Petrotin from ejecting A&V from the oil field it occupied, on the basis that it had produced deliberately inaccurate oil production figures and obtained very substantial overpayments on the back of them.
2. Very well known arbitration in Trinidad and Tobago, in which I again acted (with Robert Strang) for A&V Oil on the same matter. The Tribunal (Sir Denis Byron, Lord Hope and Humphrey Stollmeyer J.A.) upheld A&V’s claim and dismissed the allegations against it, with the result that A&V obtained substantial back-payments and was allowed to return to the oil field and to start production again.
Acted for the Government of the Bahamas in 2015 on very substantial set of winding up petitions against local companies so that local liquidators (rather than US liquidators) could retain control of them, which in turn meant that the multi-billion construction project could finish under the supervision of the Bahamian courts, as it then did.
Please contact us either by telephone: +44 (0)20 7415 7800 or email: clerks@3harecourt.com
