Who? Charles Ferguson, 58-year-old sole principal of City-based Ferguson Solicitors and specialist in commercial litigation.


Why is he in the news? He is acting for a City trader who, having received a bonus of £1.3 million in deferred shares, is now suing his employer for the £7.5 million that he believes he is truly owed. Luis Marti-Sanchez, a bond trader, claims that he received verbal promises prior to joining Japanese investment bank Nomura. These included the assurance that he would receive 25% of any profits that he generated on behalf of the bank. He alleges that he made around £20 million profit last year, which means he expected to receive around £5 million in bonuses. He also claims that he is owed bonuses and remuneration for other aspects of his work and does not recognise deferred shares as adequate recompense. He has therefore launched a £7.5 million lawsuit against his employer. A spokeswoman for Nomura said: 'We are very disappointed that he has decided to take this course of action. We regard him as a high performer and remunerated him accordingly and do not believe that we breached the terms of his contract.'



Background: Completed his five-year articles of clerkship in 1971 with London firm Holman Fenwick & Willan. After qualification, he joined Johnson Stokes & Master in Hong Kong, where he specialised in shipping litigation. Upon returning to England in 1984, he established a commercial litigation partnership in Heathfield, East Sussex, in time developing a following among City traders. He opened the firm's London office in 1995, and two years later agreed with his partners to practise independently from it.



Route to the case: 'Word of mouth. Traders chat together and, following a number of cases where I've represented one of their number, the word has got around that I know how the system works and can often get a good result. Also, most City lawyers want to act for the bank, whereas I don't. I choose to act for the trader.'



Thoughts on the case: 'The case is potentially important on two issues. The first issue may be the extent to which representations made before a contract can be relied upon in court. Were the managers at Nomura so keen to get my client on board that they gave him assurances which later turned out to be without substance? It would be helpful if the judge in this case could give guidance to the industry how such representations will be treated by courts in the future.



'The second issue also concerns the bonus. In one of my earlier cases, Clark v Nomura, Mr Justice Burton held that the employee is entitled, as a matter of contract, to have the bank exercise its discretion in the assessment of a bonus "without irrationality or perversity". Nomura has assessed my client's entitlement as £1.3 million in shares, deferred for three years, which means my client can't benefit from them for three years. They're worthless now and for the next three years. Is it rational to say that my client is worth £1.3 million and then give him something that's worth nothing? The bank will probably settle, but if the case does come to court, the judge might be able to give some useful guidance.'



Dealing with the media: 'Subject to the interests of the client, I'm more than happy to talk to the press. The better things are understood, the better the whole system works.'



Jonathan Rayner