1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |John Laird

John Laird

Counsel
Counsel
amxhaXJkQGNyb3dlbGwuY29t
VCard
VCard

Areas of Focus

Overview

John Laird is a solicitor-advocate in Crowell & Moring's London office, where he is a member of the International Dispute Resolution group. John has a transatlantic practice representing clients in commercial and investment arbitration, and commercial litigation in the English courts including competition claims and trade remedies disputes. He was the winner of the 2011 ICSID Review Student Writing Competition and an Alumni Fund scholar during his master’s degree studies at the American University Washington College of Law.

Career & Education

    • Somerville College, University of Oxford, B.A., philosophy, politics, economics, 2005
    • BPP University of Professional Studies, Graduate Diploma in Law, 2011
    • BPP University of Professional Studies, LPC, 2012
    • American University Washington College of Law, LL.M., international legal studies, 2021
    • Somerville College, University of Oxford, B.A., philosophy, politics, economics, 2005
    • BPP University of Professional Studies, Graduate Diploma in Law, 2011
    • BPP University of Professional Studies, LPC, 2012
    • American University Washington College of Law, LL.M., international legal studies, 2021

    • England and Wales, Higher Rights of Audience
    • New York
    • England and Wales, Higher Rights of Audience
    • New York

  • Professional Memberships

    • LCIA Young International Arbitration Group
    • Young ICCA
    • Fellow, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

    Professional Memberships

    • LCIA Young International Arbitration Group
    • Young ICCA
    • Fellow, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

John's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.10.25

Litigation Funding Waterfalls Are Compliant Post-PACCAR (UK)

In a previous client alert on a recent Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) report on litigation funding in England and Wales we discussed the issue of whether payment waterfalls providing funders with payment priority are compliant with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), the issue being a matter to be heard on appeal in June 2025. Funders will be pleased to hear that the answer is “yes”. The Court of Appeal has held that the DBA Regulations focuses on whether a funding agreement determines the amount of a funder’s fees by reference to the damages awarded to the successful litigant. The fact that a funder may receive its fees from the proceeds is not enough in itself for the arrangement to fall under the DBA Regulations....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

Commercial arbitration:

  • Representing the Swiss subsidiary of a global manufacturing group against a Russian company under Swiss Arbitration Centre rules;
  • Representing the U.K. subsidiary of a Swiss conglomerate against a U.S. company in LCIA arbitration regarding breach of a pharmaceuticals licensing agreement.
  • Representing an Egyptian consortium and Kuwaiti supply chain management company in an ICC arbitration brought by a South Korean supplier regarding a port construction subcontract.
  • Representing a European company in CIArb arbitration against a South Asian government for breach of contract; defence of related English High Court award challenge proceedings; successful English High Court award enforcement and execution proceedings and related advice on sovereign immunity.
  • Representing a South African mineral and mining company in an LCIA arbitration, securing damages of $190 million.
  • Advising an American hospitality company in ICC and ICDR arbitrations regarding management disputes at European and Middle Eastern hotels.

Investment arbitration:

  • Representing a Canadian pipeline investor in UNCITRAL arbitration against the United States of America under USMCA and NAFTA rules.

  • Advising a Government on scope of potential claims under international investment law.

  • Representing a Kuwaiti supply chain management company in ICSID arbitration against a Middle Eastern State claiming breaches of a bilateral investment treaty regarding a port construction project.
  • Representing a Russian national in UNCITRAL arbitration against a Middle Eastern State claiming breaches of a bilateral investment treaty regarding criminal investigations and trial procedures.
  • Advising an international hotel developer as claimant in ICSID arbitration claiming breaches of a bilateral investment treaty.
  • Advising a European construction and development consortium as claimant in ICSID arbitration and follow on award annulment proceedings.

English commercial and competition litigation:

  • Representing co-defendants in complex multi-party fraud claims in the High Court.
  • Representing an airline in a manufacturing dispute with a major aircraft manufacturer in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
  • Defending a party to Part 20 High Court proceedings regarding claims arising from anti-competitive behaviour in the air cargo industry.
  • Representing a transportation company in the High Court in relation to the repudiation of an operating contract.
  • Advising a British public company regarding a cartel follow-on claim in the High Court.
  • Advising a group of companies in a cartel follow-on claim in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
  • Enforcement and defence of arbitral awards and foreign judgments in the English courts including awards against sovereigns under international instruments such as the Energy Charter Treaty.

International trade advisory:

  • Representing parties in Tax Tribunal proceedings regarding application of anti-dumping duties.
  • Advising on sanctions impacts on contracts and dispute resolution representation of clients regarding contract performance affected by sanctions.

John's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.10.25

Litigation Funding Waterfalls Are Compliant Post-PACCAR (UK)

In a previous client alert on a recent Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) report on litigation funding in England and Wales we discussed the issue of whether payment waterfalls providing funders with payment priority are compliant with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), the issue being a matter to be heard on appeal in June 2025. Funders will be pleased to hear that the answer is “yes”. The Court of Appeal has held that the DBA Regulations focuses on whether a funding agreement determines the amount of a funder’s fees by reference to the damages awarded to the successful litigant. The fact that a funder may receive its fees from the proceeds is not enough in itself for the arrangement to fall under the DBA Regulations....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.10.25

Litigation Funding Waterfalls Are Compliant Post-PACCAR (UK)

Firm News | 3 min read | 06.10.25

Crowell & Moring Lawyers Author “An Overview of Litigation Funding” for ICLG

Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.06.25

Litigation Funding Reforms: Clarity for UK Funders and Litigants Post-PACCAR

Publication | 06.04.25

An Overview Of Litigation Funding

View All Insights

Practices

John's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.10.25

Litigation Funding Waterfalls Are Compliant Post-PACCAR (UK)

In a previous client alert on a recent Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) report on litigation funding in England and Wales we discussed the issue of whether payment waterfalls providing funders with payment priority are compliant with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), the issue being a matter to be heard on appeal in June 2025. Funders will be pleased to hear that the answer is “yes”. The Court of Appeal has held that the DBA Regulations focuses on whether a funding agreement determines the amount of a funder’s fees by reference to the damages awarded to the successful litigant. The fact that a funder may receive its fees from the proceeds is not enough in itself for the arrangement to fall under the DBA Regulations....

View All Insights