• "Paul has a clear, calm and compelling style of advocacy which inspires confidence in the arguments that he is making." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "He is extremely bright, quick to grasp details and has a keen eye for strategy." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "He is extremely strategic and detail-oriented." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "A silk with a direct yet personable manner, who is very adept at honing in on the core issues of a dispute." (Legal 500, 2025)
• "Paul is very good at bringing focus to the core issues of the dispute, and he has a direct but personable manner." (Legal 500, 2025)
• "Paul is strong technically and very responsive to queries." (Legal 500 EMEA, 2024)
• "Paul is extremely bright, tactically astute, and an incredibly fluent advocate who is also very pleasant to deal with." (Legal 500, 2024)
• "Excellent and thoughtful advocate. His mild manner belies a tenacious approach." (Legal 500, 2024)
• “Paul is a skilful advocate who is always on top of the detail and effective at presenting complex arguments clearly and persuasively.” (Chambers UK, 2024)
• "Highly responsive, he works well in a team and his drafting is very good." (Legal 500, 2023)
• "Paul is a talented and effective advocate, and is clearly respected by judges. He quickly gets to the heart of the issues and gives first-rate advice." (Legal 500, 2023)
• "Paul is immensely experienced and it is very reassuring to have him as counsel. He is very responsive and a great pleasure to work with. Excellent drafting and solicitors can totally trust him to present the best possible case for the clients." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2023)
• “He provided fantastic support marshalling technical evidence and drafting powerful skeleton arguments.” (Chambers UK, 2022)
• “Paul is very bright, thorough and very pragmatic. He is extremely considered in his approach and style.” (Chambers UK, 2022)
• ‘He is very responsive and user-friendly, providing excellent legal analysis." (Legal 500, 2022)
• "He has a keen, probing intellect. He is very pleasant to work with and is quick to cut to the chase." (Legal 500, 2022)
• "An insightful and intellectual barrister, he is easy to work with and one of the leading senior juniors at the Bar." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2021)
• “Paul Toms is easy to work with, very thorough and responsive.” (Chambers UK, 2021)
• “Careful, considered and astute, he has an unparalleled eye for detail.” (Chambers UK, 2021)
• “He is accessible, measured and reassuring, a real pleasure to work with.” (Chambers UK, 2021)
• "He has a brilliant mind and balances being completely on top of the law and procedure with an approachable and commercial slant." (Legal 500, 2021)
• "Excellent on technical points." (Legal 500, 2021)
• "Detail-orientated with outstanding sector knowledge." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2020)
• "He is very erudite and quick on his feet; he has an unparalleled eye for detail and is careful, considered and astute." (Chambers UK, 2020)
• "He's persuasive in a gentle but firm manner." (Chambers UK, 2020)
• “A barrister of intellect and mature judgement - a person befitting his profession." (Legal 500, 2020)
• “Immensely knowledgeable, commercially aware and meticulous.” (Legal 500, 2020)
• "He combines strong analytical skills and legal knowledge." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2019)
• “Popular with commodities law firms, he frequently handles GAFTA, FOSFA and ANEC disputes.” (Legal 500 2019)
• “He has a very good written style and attention to detail.” (Legal 500 2019)
• “He regularly represents Chinese shipyards.” (Legal 500 2019)
• “He appears in commodities disputes.” (Legal 500 2019)
• "He always has excellent attention to detail." (Chambers UK 2019)
• "Extremely experienced. He knows shipping back to front and is very approachable and easy to deal with. He is extremely good on paper, very good on his feet and very good with clients in conference too." (Chambers UK 2019)
• ..."A delight to work with. He is approachable, astute and commercially minded"... (Chambers UK, 2018)
• ..."He has an easy manner and provides clear, detailed and thorough advice, which takes account of the commercial context"... (Legal 500, 2017)
• ..."He has great tactical awareness and a good sense of humour; a very sharp and thorough junior"... (Legal 500, 2017)
• ..."He has a sharp and keen intellect"... (Legal 500 Asia Pacific: The English Bar, 2017)
• ..."An intense eye for detail"... (Legal 500, 2016)
• ..."Very strong on international trade, he is consistently excellent in commodities disputes"... (Legal 500, 2016)
• ..."He has great attention to detail and great tactical awareness"... (Chambers UK, 2017)
• ..."A very good, smart junior"... (Chambers UK, 2016)
• ..."He is completely on top of his game in terms of knowing the law and being able to give commercial user-friendly advice"..."We call him 'the brain' here"... (Chambers UK, 2015)
• ..."a very bright junior, who is extremely responsive... able to give clear, concise and cogent advice"...'His "polished presentation" has also been highlighted by sources"… (Chambers UK, 2014)

Paul has extensive experience across a wide range of commercial disputes including IT and telecommunications, commodities and sale of goods, disputes relating to the activities of agents, commercial fraud and unjust enrichment claims. He also has particular expertise in private international law issues. He regularly appears in the Commercial Court and the London Circuit Commercial Court.  

In addition, he is a registered DIFC practitioner and is recommended for his commercial dispute resolution practice in the Middle East by the Legal 500.

Illustrative cases include:

• CityFibre Ltd v GCI Network Solutions Ltd [2024] EWHC 1694 (Comm). Telecommunications dispute.
• Euronav Shipping NV v Black Swan Petroleum DMCC [2024] EWHC 896 (Comm).  Anti-suit injunction arising out of a fuel storage agreement.  Case considered the relevance of a finding by the foreign court that there had been a submission to its jurisdiction to the grant of anti-suit relief by the English Courts.
• Westford Trade Services DMCC v Dubai Insurance Co PSC.  Proceedings in DIFC under credit insurance policy arising out of demise of Phoenix Commodities.
• The CTB Finance Ltd v Dubai Insurance Co PSC.  Proceedings in DIFC under credit insurance policy arising out of demise of Phoenix Commodities.
• Loyva v Lay [2021] DIFC CA 006.  Appeal in DIFC proceedings against refusal to continue interim injunction preventing presentation of a security cheque.
• Confidential arbitration. Acting on behalf of a Buyer of a luxury motor yacht in quality dispute under sale contract raising novel questions of the application of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to such contracts.
• Americas Bulk Transport Limited (Liberia) v Cosco Bulk Carrier Limited (China) [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 105. Legal approach to the identification of a contractual party where not expressly named.
• Novelis (UK) Limited v Sertec Auto Structures (UK) Limited. Claim concerning the supply of aluminium products for use in the manufacture of automotive components.
• Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Sanomi [2016] EWHC 1992 and 3353 (Comm).  Freezing injunction and summary judgment in respect of claim under promissory notes.
• Moran Yacht & Shipping Inc v Pisarev [2016] EWCA Civ 317. Claim by introductory agent for commission on sale of a super-yacht.
• Premier Hank Dyers Ltd v Airedale Chemical Co Ltd [2014] EWHC 2160 (QB). Sale of goods claim in respect of dye-stuff. The case dealt with the issue of when a cause of action accrues for a contingent claim for economic loss.
• BP Oil International Ltd v Target Shipping Ltd [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 561; [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 245. Contractual construction, rectification for unilateral mistake and unjust enrichment.
• M & J Marine Engineering Services v Shipshore Ltd [2009] EWHC 2031 (Comm). Contractual formation, damages issues arising on contract for supply of wheel rollers to be installed in a slipway.
• Brave Bulk Transport v Spot on Shipping [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 115. Jurisdictional issues on forward freight swap agreement.
• Primlake Ltd (in Liquidation) v Matthews Associates [2006] EWHC 1227 (Ch).  Breach of directors’ duties; constructive trusts; restitution.

Paul has extensive experience across a wide range of commercial disputes determined in International Arbitration including insurance, commodities and sale of goods, oil, gas and energy, shipbuilding and offshore construction. He has experience in the following arbitration fora: LCIA / ICC / LMAA / FOSFA / GAFTA / RSA / SAL / MMTA / HKMAG.

In addition, Paul has significant experience of related applications to the Courts including arbitration appeals and challenges under the Arbitration Act 1996, anti-suit injunctions and asset disclosure orders.
Paul is a Contributing Author and on the Case Analysis Panel for LexisNexis in respect of Arbitration and has contributed to Practical Law’s Arbitration Blog.

Illustrative cases include:

• Euronav Shipping NV v Black Swan Petroleum DMCC [2024] EWHC 896 (Comm).  Anti-suit injunction arising out of a fuel storage agreement.  Case considered the relevance of a finding by the foreign court that there had been a submission to its jurisdiction to the grant of anti-suit relief by the English Courts in support of LMAA arbitration.
• Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest SA [2024] 2 All ER (Comm) 542 (London Circuit Commercial Court).  s. 69 appeal against GAFTA Board of Appeal Award.  
• Alpha Marine Corp v Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co. Ltd (The M/V Smart) [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1.  s. 69 appeal against LMAA Award.
• Americas Bulk Transport Limited (Liberia) v Cosco Bulk Carrier Limited (China) [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 105. s. 67 challenge to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal.
• Transition Feeds LLP v Itochu Europe PLC [2013] EWHC 3629. s. 68 challenge to FOSFA Board of Appeal Award.
• 5 day LCIA Arbitration.  Sale contract dispute.  Contractual interpretation.
• 5 day LCIA Arbitration.  JV dispute.  Unjust enrichment and change of position.
• 10 day LCIA Arbitration.  Supply contract dispute.  Contractual interpretation, limitation of liability, and notice provisions.  
• 3 day DIFC-LCIA Arbitration.  JV dispute concerning sale of petroleum products.  Contractual interpretation, termination and repudiatory breach, and remedies.  
• 3 day ICC Arbitration.  Claim in respect of a turnkey contract for the construction of two power terminals in African country subject to foreign law.
• LCIA Arbitration.  Dispute concerning supply of subsea survey services for offshore power.  
• LCIA Arbitration. Claim by an assured under a credit insurance policy.
• DIAC Arbitration.  Claim by an assured under a credit insurance policy concerning Murabaha transactions.
• MMTA Arbitration.  Contract for supply of alumina. Abuse of process, contractual variation, remedies.
   

Paul is recommended in the field of Commodities by the Legal 500.  Recent comments include “A silk with a direct yet personable manner, who is very adept at honing in on the core issues of a dispute.” (Legal 500, 2025) and “Paul is extremely bright, tactically astute, and an incredibly fluent advocate who is also very pleasant to deal with.” (Legal 500, 2024)

He is also recommended by Chambers UK and the Legal 500 Asia Pacific for Shipping and Commodities. 

His experience includes disputes involving grains, feedstuff, oil and petroleum products, coal, metals and sugar.

His experience of shipping, banking and insurance disputes arising in respect of commodities is listed separately under those practice areas.

Illustrative cases include:

• Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest SA [2024] 2 All ER (Comm) 542 (London Circuit Commercial Court).  Date of Default under GAFTA 100 Contract where anticipatory breach of contract.  
• 5 day LCIA Arbitration.  Sale contract dispute concerning scrap metal.  Contractual interpretation.
• 3 day DIFC-LCIA Arbitration.  JV dispute concerning sale of petroleum products.  Contractual interpretation, termination and repudiatory breach, and remedies plus related appearances before the DIFC CFI and CA in respect of associated injunctive relief.
• 2 day GAFTA Board of Appeal hearing. Supply of feedstuff under a contract for delivery by instalments.
• MMTA Arbitration.  Contract for supply of alumina. Abuse of process, contractual variation, remedies.
• Transition Feeds LLP v Itochu Europe PLC, Transition Feeds v ICOF (2009-2015).  Paul acted for Itochu Europe PLC in respect of various disputes relating to the seizure by pirates of the MV Chemstar Venus.  Those disputes included a s. 68 challenge to the Commercial Court in respect of an award of the FOSFA Board of Appeal [2013] EWHC 3629.
• Soufflet Negoce SA v Unigrain Group LLP.  Obtaining an asset disclosure injunction on behalf of a French commodities house.
   

Paul has been instructed in a very large number of shipbuilding and rig construction disputes typically in arbitration.  Very many of these disputes raise extensive and challenging technical issues, ranging from naval architecture to marine engineering to heat transfer.

Legal issues which he has encountered include:
 

• Delay in the construction process and the application of the "prevention principle" to such contracts.
• The legal test to be applied to determine whether a vessel is "deliverable".
• Whether and, if so, when relief against forfeiture is available under a shipbuilding contract.
• The nature of the duty, if any, on a shipyard to continue construction of a vessel and to sell her subsequent to termination for buyer’s default
• Whether Class certification is conclusive evidence of contractual compliance.
• Whether draft refund guarantees were, by reference to their temporal scope, “reasonably acceptable”.
• Claims for commission by brokers.
• The availability of claims for damages alongside the remedies expressly provided for by such contracts.
• The exclusivity of liquidated damages clauses.
• The effect of illegality on claims under a shipbuilding contract.

Paul also has experience in related disputes, including claims under refund guarantees and other financial instruments.
 

Paul is recommended by Chambers UK in the field of Shipping and Commodities where he has been described in recent years as:

“Excellent and thoughtful advocate. His mild manner belies a tenacious approach.” (Legal 500, 2025)

“Paul is a talented and effective advocate, and is clearly respected by judges. He quickly gets to the heart of the issues and gives first-rate advice.” (Legal 500, 2023)

“Paul has a clear, calm and compelling style of advocacy which inspires confidence in the arguments that he is making.  He is extremely bright, quick to grasp details and has a keen eye for strategy.” (Chambers UK, 2025)

“Paul is a skilful advocate who is always on top of the detail and effective at presenting complex arguments clearly and persuasively.” (Chambers UK, 2024)

Paul’s practice embraces the full range of sea carriage disputes arising under bills of lading, charterparties (including on the standard forms for the offshore industry), towage contracts and the like.

Illustrative cases include:

• Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol SA [2024] EWCA Civ 580 (Court of Appeal) and [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 652 (Commercial Court).  Breach of voyage charter, remoteness, and relevance of hedging to assessment of damages.
• Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2023] EWCA Civ 471 (Court of Appeal) and [2022] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 467 (Commercial Court).  Bill of Lading misdelivery claim dealing with the contractual status of the Bill of Lading and the causation analysis for misdelivery claims.
• Alpha Marine Corp v Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co. Ltd (The M/V Smart) [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1. Whether implied restriction in a time charter on Bill of Lading carrier’s right to collect freight.
• Scorpio LR2 Pool Ltd v Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd [2021] EWHC 1305 (Comm). Defence of impossibility to mandatory injunctive relief to provide security under an LOI.
• Americas Bulk Transport Limited (Liberia) v Cosco Bulk Carrier Limited (China) [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 105. Identity of shipowner under a time charter recap.
• The Longchamp [2018] UKSC 68. First reported English authority on the interpretation of Rule F of the York Antwerp Rules.  Paul also appeared at first instance and before the Court of Appeal.
• Virgin Media Ltd v Joseph Whelan T/A M & J Fish [2017] EWHC 1380 (Admlty). Jurisdictional dispute arising out of damage caused by contact between a fishing trawler and a sub-sea cable within the UK’s EEZ. The case concerned the interaction between the Recast Brussels Regulation and UNCLOS.
• BP Oil International Ltd v Target Shipping Ltd [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 561 (Court of Appeal) and [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 245 (Commercial Court). Claim for the return of freight paid by mistake under a voyage charter.
• Ease Faith Ltd v Leonis Marine Management Ltd [2006] Lloyd’s Rep 673. Utmost despatch dispute under towage contract.
• 7 day LMAA arbitration.  Quality dispute under contract for sale of luxury yacht 
• 3 week LMAA arbitration. Unsafe port dispute.
• 3 week LMAA arbitration. Redelivery dispute under a bareboat charter.
• 5 day LMAA arbitration. Dangerous cargo dispute.

Paul has particular expertise in unjust enrichment, breach of mandate, and guarantee claims.  In addition, by reason of his experience in shipbuilding disputes, he has particular knowledge of issues surrounding the financial instruments typically produced as part of such commercial transactions, including refund guarantees, payment guarantees and demand bonds. Paul has also acted in cases concerning swaps, especially forward freight swaps agreements, letters of credit and factoring agreements.

Illustrative cases include:

• Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol SA [2024] EWCA Civ 580 (Court of Appeal) and [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 652 (Commercial Court).  Whether internal swaps are relevant to the assessment of damages for breach of contract.
• Kreditanstalt Fur Wiederaufbau v Azov-Don Shipping Company JSC [2021] EWHC 1406 (Comm). Summary judgment in respect of Bank’s claim under corporate guarantee.
• Loyva v Lay [2021] DIFC CA 006/ DIFC-LCIA Arbitration.  Arbitration hearings and associated injunctive relief concerning the status of a ‘security’ cheque and what, if any, limits applied to the holder’s right to present the cheque.
• Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Sanomi [2016] EWHC 1992 and 3353 (Comm).  Freezing injunction and summary judgment in respect of claim under promissory notes. 
• Brave Bulk Transport v Spot on Shipping [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep 115. Jurisdiction dispute arising out of a forward freight swap agreement.
• Acting on behalf of a major bank respect of a claim brought for breach of mandate in respect of allegedly unauthorised internet banking transactions by a corporate client.
   

Illustrative cases include:

• Advising in respect of a farm-in option agreement for oil and gas exploration.
• Insurance claim arising out of a blow out of a well during oil and gas drilling work.
• Disputes relating to the sale or carriage of oil, petroleum products and biofuel.
• Disputes under standard forms of agreement typically used in support of energy and natural resource projects, such as Supplytime. In late 2014, he was one of two principal speakers at a BIMCO training seminar in Rotterdam entitled Project and Heavylift Chartering, in particular focussing on Heavycon, Heavyliftvoy and Projectcon.
• Advising a solar developer in respect of its payment obligations under an EPC contract.
   

Paul’s insurance practice covers both marine and non-marine disputes.

Illustrative cases include:

• Westford Trade Services DMCC v Dubai Insurance Co PSC.  Proceedings in DIFC under credit insurance policy arising out of demise of Phoenix Commodities.
• The CTB Finance Ltd v Dubai Insurance Co PSC.  Proceedings in DIFC under credit insurance policy arising out of demise of Phoenix Commodities.
• LCIA Arbitration. Claim by an assured under a credit insurance policy.
• DIAC Arbitration.  Claim by an assured under a credit insurance policy concerning Murabaha transaction.
• The Bacup Shoe Holding Company Ltd v Navigators Underwriting Agency Limited. Acting on behalf of insurers under a stock throughput policy in respect of a claim for flood-damaged shoes.
• IAP Worldwide Services Inc v Amlin and others. Acting for an insured in respect of damage to property whilst in transit to Afghanistan.
• Commercial Court proceedings in respect of a multi-million dollar claim concerning damage to a pipe-lying barge.

Paul has vast experience in domestic and international carriage by road cases, with a particular expertise in the CMR, including jurisdictional disputes.

Illustrative cases include:

• Hatzl v XL Insurance Company Limited [2010] 1 WLR 470. Appeared as sole Counsel on behalf of the successful Appellant before the Court of Appeal in a jurisdictional dispute under the CMR which determined that the place where the assignee of the right to claim was resident was irrelevant for the purposes of grounding jurisdiction under the CMR.
• Rohlig (UK) Ltd v Rock Unique Ltd [2011] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1161. Appeared as sole Counsel on behalf of the successful Respondents before the Court of Appeal where it was held that the BIFA no set off and limitation clauses were reasonable within the meaning of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.