Can Yeginsu

“Very user-friendly, very bright and very strong technically.” Chambers & Partners, Commercial Dispute Resolution, 2023

“Can has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the law and leaves no stone unturned. You know when you send him a brief that he will deliver first rate work.” Legal 500, Commercial Litigation, 2023

“Hugely committed, very bright and with outstanding client skills. He has good judgment as to which arguments will attract the court.” Legal 500, Commercial Litigation, 2022

“Very user-friendly, very bright and very strong technically.” Chambers & Partners, Commercial Dispute Resolution, 2022

“You know when you give him a piece of work, be it a pleading, evidence or skeleton, that it will come back in a state of perfection and that any issues he identifies will be matched by clever solutions – a dream junior barrister.” Legal 500, Commercial Litigation, 2021

“A polymath who can turn his hand to any area of litigation, he has the judgement of a far more senior counsel.” “He has the gravitas of a natural leader and possesses a giant intellect.” Chambers & Partners, Commercial Dispute Resolution, 2019

“An outstanding advocate with impeccable judgement and formidable brainpower.” Legal 500, Commercial Litigation, 2019

“Very user-friendly and meticulous” “As an advocate, he’s very confident due to his awareness of his own intellectual abilities” Chambers & Partners, Commercial Dispute Resolution, 2018

“Insightful and sharp with excellent strategic and legal drafting skills” Legal 500, Commercial Litigation, 2018

“A first-class international advocate…in a class of his own” Chambers Global, Dispute Resolution, 2017

“His serious legal brainpower is accompanied by a deft touch with clients” Legal 500, Commercial Litigation, 2017

“Our clients want him, listen to and trust him” Legal Week, Stars of the Bar, 2013

Can has a thriving practice across a broad range of commercial litigation, including significant trial experience in the Commercial Court and the Chancery Division. He is now regarded as one of the top juniors at the Commercial Bar, nominated in 2019 as Junior of the Year for International Arbitration by Legal 500, and recognised in 2013 as one of Legal Week’s ten “Stars of the Bar”. Interviewees commented “he has an excellent mind with a real talent for picking out the key issues” “very persuasive…inspiring confidence” and that he “regularly acts on million-pound litigation cases as sole counsel“.

A considerable amount of Can’s work includes an international or cross-border dimension and he has particular expertise in conflict of laws issues (including jurisdiction challenges under Part 11 of the CPR). Can’s experience ranges across:

• Applications for pre-action disclosure and urgent injunctive relief (including freezing and proprietary injunctions).
• Bringing and resisting applications for security for costs.
• Enforcement proceedings (including the enforcement of arbitral awards).
• Claims giving rise to issues of choice of law and/or jurisdictional disputes.
• Civil fraud, with particular experience in conspiracy and economic tort claims, and frauds arising in the investment context, shareholder disputes, and agency contracts, as well as advanced fee frauds.
• Technology and IT disputes.
• Disputes between franchisors and franchisees.
• Wrotham Park, or Licence Fee, Damages.
• Bringing substantial claims for damages under s. 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, alternatively commercial just satisfaction claims in the European Court of Human Rights, for violation of property rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention.
• The Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
• Matters concerning the enforcement of loans and guarantees.

Can has also given evidence in various jurisdictions as an expert in English commercial law.

Can is a member of the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR) and the IBA Litigation Committee.

Recent cases include:

• Bazhanov v Fosman [2018] 1 WLUK 157 (Commercial Ct) – High profile successful jurisdiction challenge, led by Stuart Ritchie Q.C. of Fountain Court Chambers: permission to serve proceedings on Russian defendants was set aside as there was no good arguable case that binding agreements had been made for the provision of services to refinance a Russian company, or that English law and jurisdiction was to apply.
• Marathon Asset Management v Seddon & Ors [2017] EWHC 300 (COMM); [2017] ICR 791 (Commercial Ct) – 5 week trial between asset management professionals, listed by The Lawyer as one of the Top 20 cases of 2016-7. Led by Stuart Ritchie Q.C. of Fountain Court Chambers for lead D. Leggatt J awarded nominal damages. See also other reported decisions: [2017] EWHC 479; [2017] 2 Costs LR 255 (Costs).
• Stirling Mortimer [2017] (Commercial Ct) – Commercial Court claim for €59m brought by Guernsey fund, including allegations of fraud. Led by David Turner QC.
• Breyer Group v Department of Energy and Climate Change [2016] EWHC 763 (COMM) (Commercial Ct) – Led by Patrick Lawrence QC, in a £195 million claim for damages under s. 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for violation of the Claimants’ rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol (ECHR), following the government’s proposed retrospective changes to the feed-in-tariffs scheme for solar photovoltaic installations. Successful in the trial of preliminary issues at first instance ([2014] EWHC 2257) and in the Court of Appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 408). Trial settled in 2017.
• Patel v Barrowfen [2016] (Companies Ct) – Acting (unled) for two family members of a leading conglomerate in a substantial dispute involving multiple commercial vehicles and spanning multiple jurisdictions, involving allegations of fraud and interests in excess of US $120 million.
• Pivdenny Bank [2014] (Commercial Ct) – Sole counsel, representing a Ukrainian Bank in the Commercial Court in a claim for declaratory relief (and linked enforcement proceedings) relating to rights under a number of ship mortgages, following arrests of the vessels in foreign waters. The case is part of the multiple proceedings relating to the hundreds of millions of pounds of state assets believed to have been owned or used by the ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his circle.
• InnovatorOne Plc [2012] EWHC 1321 (COMM) (Commercial Ct) – Junior Counsel (led by John Powell QC and Graham Chapman QC) in a 18 week trial in the Commercial Court in a c.£50m complex claim involving multiple tax avoidance schemes and allegations of fraud against individuals and professional advisors. Issues arising included breach of trust, dishonest assistance, conspiracy, insurance and coverage points, and causes of action under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. One of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2012, 2011, 2010.
• Ludsin Overseas Ltd v Eco 3 Capital Ltd and Ors [2012] EWHC 1980 (CH) – Junior Counsel (led by Jamie Smith QC) acting for Part 20 Defendants in a claim in the Chancery Division of the High Court featuring complex arguments on agency and fraudulent misrepresentation in the investment context. The Part 20 claims were settled on the morning of the start of the trial. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed but the Court was informed that they did not involve the payment of any money by the Part 20 Defendants to the Defendants in the main action.
• Araci v Fallon [2011] EWCA CIV 668 (CA) – Leading Court of Appeal authority on prohibitory injunctions [2011] EWCA Civ 668; [2011] LLR 440. In a case where a jockey had entered into an agreement with a racehorse owner that placed him under a positive obligation to ride that owner’s horse when asked, and a negative obligation not to ride a rival horse, the court granted an interim injunction preventing him from breaching his obligations by riding a rival owner’s horse in the Epsom Derby.

“He has got a really good feel for which way an international arbitration tribunal will go, and he is impeccably bright.” Chambers & Partners, International Arbitration, 2023

“He has a fantastic sense of how an arbitrator would approach the issues and caters his advice accordingly.” Legal 500, International Arbitration, 2023

“A truly outstanding arbitration counsel, who is equally good in commercial and investment cases. He is a natural leader and always has the ear of the tribunal.” Legal 500, International Arbitration, 2022

“He has got a really good feel for which way an international arbitration tribunal will go, and he is impeccably bright.” Chambers & Partners, International Arbitration, 2022

“Falls into the exceptional category for us. Although he is not yet in silk, he clearly operates at that level, instilling trust and confidence in all professional settings.” Legal 500, International Arbitration, 2021

“Excellent with clients” Chambers & Partners, International Arbitration, 2019

“Handles himself superbly in demanding cases” Legal 500, International Arbitration, 2019

“Very thorough and decisive as arbitrator” Who’s Who Legal, 2018

“A brilliant arbitration senior junior, equally at home dealing with commercial or investment claims. He is excellent when it comes to strategic advice. He is also highly regarded within the international arbitration community” Chambers & Partners, International Arbitration, 2018

“Very user-friendly and meticulous” “As an advocate, he’s very confident due to his awareness of his own intellectual abilities” Chambers & Partners, Commercial Dispute Resolution, 2018

“He is fiercely clever but also a true team player; he knows arbitration inside out and is a very elegant and effective advocate” Chambers & Partners, International Arbitration, 2017

“A first-class international advocate…in a class of his own” Chambers Global, Dispute Resolution, 2017

Nominated for the “International Arbitration Junior of the Year” award by Legal 500, Can has been recognised by the leading directories as one of the leading international arbitration juniors at the English Bar for several years.

Can regularly appears as counsel in international commercial and investment arbitrations, both in London and abroad, and under a wide variety of laws and institutional rules, including LCIA, ICC, ICSID, LMAA, CiARB, and UNCITRAL.

Can has also developed a strong reputation as an arbitrator in international commercial disputes, with over half a dozen appointments in the period 2017-2019.

Outside of his work as counsel and arbitrator, Can teaches international arbitration as Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown Law (Washington D.C.) and Koç University Law School (Istanbul).

Can is a member of the LCIA, ICC, ICCA, the Swiss Arbitration Association, and the Investment Treaty Forum (ITF) at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

Recent cases include:

• LCIA Arbitration (Co-Arbitrator, Singapore Law) – Singapore law, London seat, LCIA arbitration of a dispute relating to a licence agreement (co-arbitrator on a panel of three).
• SECE İnşaat ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkmenistan (Counsel) – Lead counsel in US $55+ ICSID claim brought against Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/34). Instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (London), leading Anthony Jones.
• LCIA Arbitration (Co-Arbitrator) – English law, London seat, LCIA arbitration of a substantial dispute relating to a contract for the supply of submarines (co-arbitrator on a panel of three).
• ICC Arbitration (Energy)(Counsel) – Lead counsel in a Swiss seated US $23 million ICC arbitration in relation to one of Nigeria’s largest electricity distributors in the context of a joint venture dispute.
• LCIA Arbitration (Co-Arbitrator) – English law, London seat, LCIA arbitration of a substantial dispute relating to a contract for the supply of submarines (co-arbitrator on a panel of three).
• Arbitration (UNCITRAL Rules) (Sole Arbitrator) – (UNCITRAL Rules, LCIA Administered) in commodities dispute, seated in London.
• ICSID Arbitration [2018] (Counsel) – Lead counsel in US $100+ potential ICSID claim against Central Asian State relating to substantial investments in the construction sector. Instructed by Jenner & Block (Washington, D.C.).
• LCIA Arbitration (Co-Arbitrator) – English law, London seat, LCIA arbitration of substantial dispute relating to defence contract (co-arbitrator on panel of three).
• ICC Arbitration (Counsel) – Lead counsel in an ICC Arbitration seated in London, involving a dispute concerning the alleged sale and purchase of cement clinker between two foreign companies. Leading Peter Morcos, instructed by Withers LLP (London).
• ICSID Arbitration [2018] (Counsel) – Acting for a foreign investor in a $100m+ claim relating to investments in textile sector against a Central Asian State. Instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (London).
• Confidential ICC Arbitration [2017] (Telecoms) (Counsel) – Lead counsel for a national telecommunications operator in USD $85 million ICC arbitration (foreign law).
• Ad Hoc Arbitration [2017] (Counsel) – Acting as sole counsel for a European commodity distributor in an ad hoc arbitration seated in England against a European steel supplier.
• Confidential LCIA arbitration [2016] – Acting for an investment company in a US $80 million LCIA arbitration under the terms of a shareholders’ agreement in a dispute relating to the operation of an oil terminal connected to the CPC pipeline. Instructed by Covington & Burling (London).
• Investor State Arbitration [2016] (Counsel) – Acting for and advising an investor in arbitration proceedings against a Eurasian State (with Roger Stewart QC). Instructed by Penningtons Manches (London).
• Confidential ICC Arbitration – Acting as counsel in an ICC arbitration relating to the alleged breach of a US $60 million project finance agreement for a cement plant in Asia.
• LCIA Arbitration [2015] (Jet Engines) (Counsel) – Acting and advising in a substantial LCIA arbitration relating to contracts for the purchase of aircraft jet engines.
• Confidential LCIA arbitration [2016] – Advising in relation to a dispute to be referred to an LCIA arbitration for damages of some £40 million, in connection with foreign construction projects in Central Asia. Instructed by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (London).
• Confidential ICC arbitration – Advising on enforcement issues relating to a US $60 million ICC Award against a State. Instructed by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (London).
• LMAA Arbitration [2015] (Counsel) – Advising in relation to an LMAA arbitration in a dispute regarding contracts to build super yachts. Instructed by Peters & Peters (London).
• Arbitration on Aggregation Issues – Acting with Roger Stewart Q.C. in a major insurance coverage arbitration concerning cross-border property transactions.

Can has a professional liability practice which encompasses claims for and against a range of professionals including: valuers, mortgage brokers, surveyors, accountants, actuaries, construction professionals, lawyers – both barristers and solicitors – and insurance brokers in the county courts as well as in the Queen’s Bench and Chancery Divisions of the High Court.

Can has a particular expertise in claims arising out of the mis-selling of mortgages, having appeared successfully as counsel in the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal in Emptage v the Financial Services Compensation Scheme [2013] EWCA Civ 729. Can has a very busy practice in this area advising in claims for compensation to the Financial Ombudsman Service and Financial Services Compensation Scheme and he appears in related applications for judicial review.

Can edits, with Jonathan Hough QC, the chapter on Litigation (encompassing group actions and expert evidence) in Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability (Sweet & Maxwell, 8th Edition, 2017).

Recent cases include:

• Stirling Mortimer [2017] (Commercial Ct) – Defending, led by David Turner Q.C., auditors being sued in the Commercial Court by a Guernsey fund in the recovery of €59m.
• In the Federal Court of Malaysia [2015] – Acting for and advising an international professional services firm (with Graham Chapman QC) in proceedings before Malaysia’s highest court in a landmark appeal concerned with the duty of care owed by auditors to third parties.
• Stanley Gibbons Holdings [2015] (Chancery D) – Instructed with Ben Hubble QC for a group of actuary defendants in a professional liability claim, listed for a 10 day trial in the Chancery Division, arising out of the requirement to implement equalisation between men and women in an occupational pension scheme.
• FSCS [2014] (Keydata) – Instructed for a number of IFAs in the £75 million claim brought in the Commercial Court by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
• In the matter of Toprak [2014] – Instructed as lead counsel for the claimant in a professional negligence claim against a bank relating to the conveyance of a £40m property.
• Emptage v FSCS (CA) – Acted, led by Mark Cannon QC, for the successful applicant in a landmark judicial review of the FSCS’s decision to award compensation pursuant to the compensation scheme established under part XV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and administered by FSCS [2013] EWCA Civ 729.
• Film schemes [2013] – Instructed as lead counsel for the claimants against a leading accountancy firm in a claim relating to failed film schemes.
• Tiaga & ors v RJP LLP [2013] (Chancery D) – Instructed as sole counsel for an accountancy firm in a claim arising out of tax advice.
• Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors – Acted as junior counsel in [2012] EWHC 1321 in an 18 week trial of a c. £50m claim involving complex tax avoidance schemes and allegations of fraud against individuals and professional advisers, led by John Powell QC and Graham Chapman QC. Can was also instructed in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal which were subsequently compromised between the parties.
• Ludsin Overseas Ltd v Eco 3 Capital Ltd and Ors [2012] EWHC 1980 (CH) – Instructed (with Jamie Smith QC) to represent Part 20 solicitor Defendants in a 10 day trial in the Chancery Division.

Can is regularly instructed in a range of civil fraud and asset recovery claims as a part of his strong wider commercial practice, and many of his cases are multi-jurisdictional in nature. He regularly acts in, and advises on, matters concerning:

• Conspiracy
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Misappopriation of company assets
• Sham investment schemes
• Fraud by agents
• Civil contempt

The strength of Can’s civil fraud practice was recognised by Legal Week Magazine which named him as one of ten “Stars at the Bar” working at the Commercial and Chancery Bar.

Can is well-versed in using the coercive powers of the High Court for the securing of evidence and the preservation, tracing and recovery of assets, including drafting and obtaining search, freezing and disclosure orders, travel restraint orders, and orders to obtain information from judgment debtors under CPR Part 71.

Recent cases include:

• £13 million secret commission claim [2018] – Acting as sole counsel in a £13 million secret commission and action for damages for fraud claim. Instructed by Fieldfisher (London).
• Marathon Asset Management v Seddon & Ors [2017] EWHC 300 (COMM); [2017] ICR 791 (Commercial Ct) – Instructed for the lead defendant (led by Stuart Ritchie Q.C.) in a £40 million unlawful means conspiracy claim in the Commercial Court. Listed as one of The Lawyer‘s Top 20 cases of 2016-2017. Instructed by Withers LLP (London).
• Patel v Barrowfen [2016] (Companies Ct) – Acting (unled) for two family members of a leading conglomerate in a substantial dispute involving multiple commercial vehicles and spanning multiple jurisdictions, involving allegations of fraud and interests in excess of US $120 million. Instructed by Withers LLP (London LLP).
• €3.5 million fraud claim [2015] (Commercial Ct) – Acting as lead counsel in a €3.5 million fraud claim before the Commercial Court against a French tycoon based in Paris. Involving issues relating to jurisdiction and enforcement. Instructed by McDermott Will & Emery (London).
• In the matter of Ananta International [2015] – Acting (with Neil Hext QC) for a foreign conglomerate in a fraud claim (and related injunctive proceedings) arising out of a substantial advance fee fraud.
• Pivdenny Bank [2014] (Commercial Ct) – Representing a leading Ukrainian Bank in the Commercial Court in a claim for declaratory relief (and linked enforcement proceedings) relating to rights under a number of ship mortgages, following arrests of the vessels in foreign waters. The case is part of the multiple proceedings relating to the hundreds of millions of pounds of state assets believed to have been owned or used by the ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his circle. Instructed by Withers LLP (London).
• Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 1321 (COMM) – Junior Counsel (led by John Powell QC and Graham Chapman QC) in a 18 week trial in the Commercial Court in a c.£50m complex claim involving multiple tax avoidance schemes and allegations of fraud against individuals and professional advisors. Issues arising included breach of trust, dishonest assistance, conspiracy, insurance and coverage points, and causes of action under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. One of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2012, 2011, 2010. Instructed by Enyo LLP (London).

“There is also no-one with better knowledge of the law on freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and arbitrary detention. He is uniquely placed in cases where commercial law or international arbitration meets human rights law.” Legal 500, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, 2022

“He is superb. Can is particularly good at thinking about practicalities.” “His freedom of expression work domestically is quite standout.” “He is brilliant, knowledgeable, diligent, and charming.” Chambers & Partners, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, 2022

“Profound knowledge of freedom of expression and the quality of his work is superb.” Legal 500, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, 2021

“Extremely bright and able…very good at making a compelling and compact legal argument out of complex matter” Chambers & Partners, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, 2019

“Insightful, sharp and a pleasure to work with; he always goes above and beyond” Legal 500, Administrative & Public Law, 2018

“He is exceptionally bright and has a superb knowledge of the law. He has an extraordinary ability to link and make connections between various issues. He has superb insight into cases, turns around work really quickly and it is always of a superb quality. Also, he is delightful to work with” Chambers & Partners, Administrative & Public Law, 2018

“Rightly instructed in a number of the highest profile cases in the field” Legal 500, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, 2018

“He has an excellent brain” Legal 500, Administrative & Public Law, 2017

“Extraordinarily easy to deal with. He can turn work around instantly and do a brilliant job. He doesn’t put a foot wrong” Chambers & Partners, Administrative & Public Law, 2016

“Works quickly to produce incisive, articulate and persuasive work” Legal 500, Administrative and Public Law, 2015

“He’s incredible. He’s very nice, easy-going, charming and easy to speak with. He’s very knowledgeable, but is also a very modern barrister. He’s really good with clients” Chambers & Partners, Administrative & Public Law, 2015

Can is one of the leading juniors at the public law and human rights law Bar, with a broad-ranging practice, encompassing:

• judicial review in the commercial, party political funding and regulatory contexts;
• public law challenges to the decisions of coroners;
• claims under the Human Rights Act 1998;
• applications before the European Court of Human Rights and other regional human rights courts; and
• constitutional petitions in European, African and common law jurisdictions.

Can holds a particular expertise in human rights challenges involving:

The right to freedom of expression. Can has become a preferred choice of counsel for a number of free speech organisations, publishers and media organisations, and has acted as lead counsel on over 25 free speech cases in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, as well as other international tribunals. He is Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School (New York) where he co-teaches a seminar on the right to freedom of expression and is one of two barristers appointed as a Global Freedom of Expression Expert at Columbia University.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Can was sole counsel in Rotsztein and is co-author, with Sir James Dingemans, of the leading practitioner text The Protections for Religious Rights: Law and Practice. He has a very busy advisory practice in this area.

The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Can regularly acts in commercial human rights claims. He was counsel for the successful claimants in Breyer (Admin Court and CoA) and is acting for HSH Nordbank in a US $75 million property rights claim before the ECtHR.

In judicial review claims, Can has a particularly strong reputation for: (i) representing coroners in the Administrative Court (he has acted as sole counsel in a number of important reported decisions and is an editor of Jervis); (ii) bringing applications against the Legal Ombudsman, Financial Ombudsman Service and Financial Services Compensation Scheme (he was counsel in the Court of Appeal in Emptage); and (iii) party political finance cases (he was counsel in the Supreme Court in UKIP v Electoral Commission).

Can also conducts constitutional litigation abroad, subject to local requirements. He has experience of acting as co-counsel in cases before the Supreme Court of the Gambia, The Federal Court of Malaysia, and the Turkish Constitutional Court.

Can is a member of the Constitutional and Administrative Bar Association (ALBA), as well as Lawyers for Liberty.

Recent cases include:

• Tulio Álvarez v Venezuela (Inter-American Ct) – Mr. Alvarez is a journalist who was sentenced under Articles 444 and 77 of the Venezuelan Penal Code for the crime of aggravated defamation, in relation to an opinion column he published in the newspaper Así es la Noticia in 2003. He was also banned from leaving Venezuela, and from voting in the country’s 2006 elections. Can is instructed by ARTICLE 19 (leading Anthony Jones and Marie Claire O’Kane) to act in the ongoing proceedings before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
• Aynur Ganbarova and Others v Azerbaijan (ECtHR) – Acted for ARTICLE 19 (leading Anthony Jones and Diarmuid Laffan of 4 New Square Chambers) in a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights, focussing on whether a travel restriction on a journalist was capable of engaging Article 10 of the Convention.
• Mandlí and ors v Hungary (ECtHR) – Acting for Media Legal Defence Initiative, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Mass Media Defence Centre, Ossigeno Per L’Informazione, and Media Development Centre in the Art. 10 challenge to Hungarian laws forbidding journalists from entering and reporting from parliamentary premises. The issues raised by this case are of increasing public importance considering the trend of parliaments inside and outside Europe to restricting the media from accessing and reporting from their premises, including recent examples Macedonia and Poland.
• Navalnyy v Russia (ECtHR) – Acting for the leading journalists’ protection NGO, Media Legal Defence Initiative, in the Article 10 challenge to the extension of defamation liability under Russian law to online blogs which link to third party content. The applicant Aleksey Navalnyy, a prominent Russian opposition politician, alleges that the Russian government is restricting his journalism and activism for political purposes, and the case also raises novel questions of how traditional legal models relating to defamation applies to blogging and web platforms.
• Ismayilova v Azerbaijan (ECtHR) – Acted (leading Miranda Butler) for 16 free expression and media freedom organisations to address the question of the scope of positive obligations under the Art. 8 and Art. 10 of the European Convention.
• Rhodes v OPO [2016] A.C. 219 (SC) – Led by Adrienne Page QC in the UK Supreme Court in an appeal relating to the proper scope of the tort in Wilkinson v Downton ([1897] QB 57) in the appeal of an injunction prohibiting the publication of a memoir by the concert pianist, author and television film maker, James Rhodes. Submissions were focussed on the right to freedom of expression under Article 10, ECHR.
• R. (Miranda) v SoS for the Home Department [2016] 1 W.L.R. 1505 (CA) – Instructed as lead counsel by Article 19, English PEN and Media Legal Defence Initiative in  in the High Court and Court of Appeal intervening in the challenge brought to the use of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain David Miranda when he was carrying material from the Edward Snowden NSA leaks. The Court of Appeal issued a rare declaration of incompatibility, concluding that the Terrorism Act power used were incompatible with Art. 10, ECHR.
• Breyer Group Plc v DECC  [2015] 1 W.L.R. 4559 (CA) – Led by Patrick Lawrence QC, in a £195 million claim for damages under s. 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for violation of the Claimants’ rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol (ECHR), following the government’s proposed retrospective changes to the feed-in-tariffs scheme for solar photovoltaic installations. Successful in the trial of preliminary issues at first instance ([2014] EWHC 2257) and in the Court of Appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 408). Trial settled in 2017.
• R. (Rotsztein) v HM Senior Coroner [2015] EWHC 2764 (Admin) – Instructed in judicial review proceedings relating to the approach to be taken by coroners when ordering invasive post mortem examinations in circumstances where the family of the deceased has raised religious objections under Art. 9, ECHR. The case was identified by the court as one of public importance and is now the leading authority in this area.
• BIJ & Ross v UK (ECtHR) – Led by Hugh Southey QC in Art. 10 ECHR challenge to the lawfulness of the UK’s contribution to worldwide government systems of communications interception.
• Big Brother Watch v UK (ECtHR) – Instructed (led by Hugh Southey QC) in an application before the European Court of Human Rights challenging the scope of the secret interception and use of communications by the UK under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
• HSH Nordbank v Republic of Turkey (ECtHR) – Acting for a European Bank (leading Anthony Jones) on a US $75 million property rights claim before the ECHR challenging a state’s handling of enforcement proceedings relating to ship mortgages. The application raises arguments under Art. 6 of the Convention and Art. 1 of the First Protocol, and is the first case before the Strasbourg Court specifically concerned with the Convention compliance of the international ship financing and enforcement regime.
• Gambian Press Union, Jammeh & Ceesay v The Gambia [2015] (SC) – Acting as lead co-counsel on behalf of leading journalists in The Gambia in a challenge before the Supreme Court of The Gambia to the constitutionality of certain sedition and criminal defamation laws on the basis that they violate fundamental human rights under the Gambian Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Related proceedings are being brought at the regional level in the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States for which Can is also instructed.
• Emptage v FSCS (CA) – Acted (led by Mark Cannon QC) for the successful applicant in a landmark judicial review [2012] EWHC 2708 of the FSCS’s decision to award compensation pursuant to the compensation scheme established under part XV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and administered by FSCS. The case raised important issues of principle about the proper application of the Scheme to cases where an applicant has borrowed money pursuant to a regulated mortgage contract. Can also appeared successfully resisting the FSCS’s appeal in the Court of Appeal [2013] EWCA Civ 729.
• Sik and Sener v Turkey [2011] (ECtHR) – Instructed as sole counsel by PEN International to intervene in two successful applications before the European Court of Human Rights relating to press freedom.
• R (Aly) v HM Coroner [2011] (Admin) – Acted as sole counsel successfully defending the Coroner in resisting a judicial review application challenging his decision to direct a postmortem examination. The Claimant had sought to argue that the decision constituted, in the circumstances of the case, a disproportionate interference with her right to manifest her religious beliefs under Article 9 and her right to respect for her private and family life under Article 8.
• UKIP v The Electoral Commission [2010] UKSC 40 (SC) – Appeared (led by Patrick Lawrence QC) before a seven-strong UK Supreme Court, acting for UKIP in its successful appeal in respect of the proper interpretation of the domestic law on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom and its compatibility with the European Convention. This case remains the leading authority on the law of political donations.
• R (Mack) v HM Coroner (Admin) [2010] – Acted as sole counsel successfully defending the Coroner in judicial review proceedings in which the Claimant raised issues in relation to: (i) the scope of the inquest and Art. 2, ECHR; (ii) the law on circumstances in which a coroner must, alternatively may, decide to sit with a jury; and (iii) the law on “neglect”.

“He is polished in how he communicates advice to clients and how he communicates advocacy positions.” Chambers & Partners, Public International Law, 2023

“A rising star in the PIL arena who is a real thought leader in media freedom-related matters.” Chambers & Partners, Public International Law, 2023

“Can is a superb advocate who in our experience always has the ear of the Court or international Tribunal. He instils confidence with an encyclopaedic knowledge of international law – bringing the gravitas of being a professor in international law – but is also a master strategist.” Legal 500, Public International Law, 2023

“His knowledge and understanding of international law is extensive and he really comes into his own before an international tribunal as an advocate.” Legal 500, Public International Law, 2022

“He is polished in how he communicates advice to clients and how he communicates advocacy positions.” “A rising star in the PIL arena who is a real thought leader in media freedom-related matters.” Chambers & Partners, Public International Law, 2022

“A first-class international lawyer, with a very impressive breadth of expertise in the field. He has an unusual breadth of experience, spanning both commercial law and human rights, which is a great asset in cases that include elements of both.” Legal 500, Public International Law, 2021

Can has developed a significant practice in public international law which is evenly split between: (i) investment treaty arbitration work; and (ii) international human rights law.

He acts as counsel for foreign governments, multinational companies, banks, individuals (including foreign investors), and international organisations before a number of international arbitral tribunals, as well as the English (and other domestic) courts, the European Court of Human Rights, and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice. Can is also regularly instructed in an advisory capacity.

Can is Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown Law (Washington D.C.) and Koç University Law School (Istanbul), where he teaches investor-state arbitration and public international law. He is Partner Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge.

Before coming to the Bar, Can worked at the Permanent Mission for Turkey to the United Nations in New York.

Recent cases include:

• ICSID Arbitration [2018] (Counsel) – Acting for a foreign investor in a $100m+ claim relating to investments in textile sector against a Central Asian State.
• Mandlí and ors v Hungary (ECtHR) – Acting for Media Legal Defence Initiative, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Mass Media Defence Centre, Ossigeno Per L’Informazione, and Media Development Centre in the Art. 10 challenge to Hungarian laws forbidding journalists from entering and reporting from parliamentary premises. The issues raised by this case are of increasing public importance considering the trend of parliaments inside and outside Europe to restricting the media from accessing and reporting from their premises, including recent examples Macedonia and Poland.
• Investor claim against Central Asian State (Counsel) – Instructed (leading Anthony Jones) on behalf of an investor in a pending ICSID claim against a Central Asian state relating to expropriation and unfair treatment, and raising complex issues of treaty interpretation.
• Federation of African Journalists and ors v The Republic of The Gambia (ECOWAS Court of Justice, 2016-17) – Acted as lead counsel for a leading African journalism union and leading Gambian journalists in the challenge before the regional ECOWAS Court of Justice against treatment by the former Jammeh regime in The Gambia, allegedly in breach of The Gambia’s obligations at customary international law and under various multilateral treaties, including the Revised ECOWAS Treaty, the African Charter, and the ICCPR. Judgment is expected in early 2018.
• Ismayilova v Azerbaijan (ECtHR) – Acted (leading Miranda Butler) for 16 free expression and media freedom organisations to address the question of the scope of positive obligations under the Art. 8 and Art. 10 of the European Convention.
• State Immunity Act 1978 – Advising on the applicability of the State Immunity Act 1978 in the context of an action brought against a state-owned corporation for the enforcement of an ICC arbitral award against the state.
• Navalnyy v Russia (ECtHR) – Acting for the leading journalists’ protection NGO, Media Legal Defence Initiative, in the Article 10 challenge to the extension of defamation liability under Russian law to online blogs which link to third party content. The applicant Aleksey Navalnyy, a prominent Russian opposition politician, alleges that the Russian government is restricting his journalism and activism for political purposes, and the case also raises novel questions of how traditional legal models relating to defamation applies to blogging and web platforms.
• Investor State Arbitration [2016] (Counsel) – Acting for and advising an investor in arbitration proceedings against a Eurasian State (with Roger Stewart QC).
• R. (Miranda) v SoS for the Home Department [2016] 1 W.L.R. 1505 (CA) – Instructed as lead counsel by Article 19, English PEN and Media Legal Defence Initiative in in the High Court and Court of Appeal intervening in the challenge brought to the use of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain David Miranda when he was carrying material from the Edward Snowden NSA leaks. Instructed to make submissions on public international law. The Court of Appeal issued a rare declaration of incompatibility, concluding that the Terrorism Act power used were incompatible with Art. 10, ECHR.
• State Surveillance – Advising an international technology company on the potential effects of international treaty obligations on a state in connection with the legality of new legislation proposed to govern the scope of state surveillance.
• HSH Nordbank v Republic of Turkey (ECtHR) – Acting for a European Bank (leading Anthony Jones) on a US $75 million property rights claim before the ECHR challenging a state’s handling of enforcement proceedings relating to ship mortgages. The application raises arguments under Art. 6 of the Convention and Art. 1 of the First Protocol, and is the first case before the Strasbourg Court specifically concerned with the Convention compliance of the international ship financing and enforcement regime.
• Gambian Press Union, Jammeh & Ceesay v The Gambia [2015] (SC) – Acting as lead co-counsel on behalf of leading journalists in The Gambia in a challenge before the Supreme Court of The Gambia to the constitutionality of certain sedition and criminal defamation laws on the basis that they violate fundamental human rights under the Gambian Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Related proceedings are being brought at the regional level in the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States for which Can is also instructed.
• Diplomatic Immunities – Advising a foreign government (through its embassy) on the scope of diplomatic immunities.

Can has a strong reputation in football-related matters where he advises players, agents and clubs in the context of arbitrations under Rule K of the Rules of the Football Association. Can frequently advises on issues (and acts in disputes) arising out of representation contracts between footballers and their agents.

In addition, Can holds expertise in horse-racing matters. He was instructed with Patrick Lawrence QC by the owner of Native Khan, a leading runner in the Epsom Derby, to seek an interim injunction against the 3-times derby-winning jockey, Kieren Fallon, to prevent Mr. Fallon from riding a rival horse, Recital, in the Derby. The injunction was refused by the High Court but granted by the Court of Appeal, following a successful appeal, on the morning of the Derby. The decision of the Court of Appeal (Araci v Fallon, [2011] EWCA Civ 668) remains the leading authority on prohibitory injunctions. Can was retained as sole counsel for the subsequent proceedings.