Clarissa Jones

Current/recent instructions include:

• Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Manghat, acting for Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank in proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts, led by Rajesh Pillai KC. This claim is part of the litigation arising out of the collapse of NMC Health plc, which has also involved proceedings in the English Commercial Court. The bank is claiming US$1bn against Mr Manghat for his alleged involvement in a major fraud involving undisclosed debts.
• Kalo v Bankmed, acting for Bankmed in Commercial Court proceedings, led by Catherine Gibaud KC. This is the latest in a number of claims brought in the English Courts by customers of Lebanese banks seeking the transfer of funds out of Lebanon against the backdrop of the ongoing Lebanese economic crisis. Following the bank’s jurisdiction challenge in October 2023 ([2023] EWHC 2606 (Comm)), Clarissa acted for the bank unled at a consequentials hearing in front of Mr Justice Foxton.
• Suppipat & ors v Narongdej & ors, acting for Siam Commercial Bank, led by Jonathan Davies-Jones KC. This was one of the Lawyer’s “Top 20 cases of 2022”, a mammoth fraud claim relating to a large renewables company in Thailand heard in the Commercial Court over five months concluding in March 2023. All the claims against SCB failed: [2023] EWHC 1988 (Comm).
• High-value (£millions) civil fraud claim against a professional investment manager in relation to the investment of trust assets, including a jurisdiction challenge and an application for a freezing injunction in the High Court, led by David Head KC.
• London-seated LCIA arbitration relating to the provision of M&A advisory services, led by Andrew Onslow KC.
• Various applications by banks in the County Courts (often applications to set aside a default judgment).

• Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Manghat, acting for Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank in the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts, led by Rajesh Pillai KC. This claim is part of the litigation arising out of the collapse of NMC Health plc, which has also involved proceedings in the English Commercial Court. The bank is claiming US$1bn against Mr Manghat for his involvement in a major fraud involving undisclosed debts.
• Republic of Kazakhstan v Stati & ors, acting for the Republic of Kazakhstan, led by Ali Malek KC. Clarissa is instructed in these long-standing and hard-fought enforcement proceedings relating to a Swedish arbitration award which Kazakhstan maintains was obtained by fraud. The litigation is global in scope and has led to various courts making costs orders against both parties, and there is now satellite litigation relating to the enforcement of those. Clarissa appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in October 2023 (led by Ali Malek KC) in an appeal from Gibraltar concerning whether English costs orders in favour of Kazakhstan amounting to c.£1.5million can be registered under Gibraltar’s Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1935 (judgment pending). In March 2024, Clarissa appeared in the BVI Commercial Court (led again by Ali Malek KC) resisting an application by the Stati Parties to set aside the registration of five different English costs orders in favour of Kazakhstan amounting to c.£5million in the BVI under its equivalent legislation enabling the enforcement of foreign judgments (judgment pending).
• Suppipat & ors v Narongdej & ors, acting for Siam Commercial Bank, led by Jonathan Davies Jones KC. This was one of the Lawyer’s “Top 20 cases of 2022”, a mammoth fraud claim relating to a large renewables company in Thailand heard in the Commercial Court over five months concluding in March 2023. All the claims against SCB failed: [2023] EWHC 1988 (Comm).
• High-value (£millions) civil fraud claim against a professional investment manager in relation to the investment of trust assets, including a jurisdiction challenge and an application for a freezing injunction in the High Court, led by David Head KC.
• Clarissa has also been instructed by the National Crime Agency in a number of claims under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 regime (see below), giving her a particular breadth of experience of fraud and asset recovery work.

Current/recent instructions include:

• Republic of Kazakhstan v Stati & ors, acting for the Republic of Kazakhstan, led by Ali Malek KC. Clarissa is instructed in these long-standing and hard-fought enforcement proceedings relating to a Swedish arbitration award which Kazakhstan maintains was obtained by fraud. The litigation is global in scope and has led to various courts making costs orders against both parties, and there is now satellite litigation relating to the enforcement of those. Clarissa appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in October 2023 (led by Ali Malek KC) in an appeal from Gibraltar concerning whether English costs orders in favour of Kazakhstan amounting to c.£1.5million can be registered under Gibraltar’s Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1935 (judgment pending). In March 2024, Clarissa appeared in the BVI Commercial Court (led again by Ali Malek KC) resisting an application by the Stati Parties to set aside the registration of five different English costs orders in favour of Kazakhstan amounting to c.£5million in the BVI under its equivalent legislation enabling the enforcement of foreign judgments (judgment pending).
• Strategic Technologies v Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of China, acting for Taiwan. Clarissa’s involvement in this case started in the Court of Appeal (led by Andrew Onslow KC), leading to a precedent-setting decision on the registration of “judgments on judgments” under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 ([2020] EWCA Civ 1604). This case was recognised by the Financial Times in a Special Report on Innovative Lawyers. Following this, Clarissa acted for Taiwan unled in a number of hearings in the Senior Courts Costs Office, including a successful application for an order debarring Strategic Technologies from participating in the costs assessment process due to non-payment of an earlier costs order by the Court of Appeal. More recently, Clarissa (led by Catherine Gibaud KC), successfully resisted various enforcement applications brought by Strategic Technologies, including an application for a third-party debt order, in the High Court ([2023] EWHC 754 (KB)).
• National Crime Agency v Amanda Nuttall, National Crime Agency v Candy-Wallace & Ors, acting for the National Crime Agency, led by Rory Philipps KC (and previously Andrew Sutcliffe KC). These are ongoing civil recovery proceedings brought by the National Crime Agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against various respondents who are alleged to have obtained the proceeds of a vast payroll fraud and international money laundering scheme. A joint trial is listed for 2024.
• An application brought by the National Crime Agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for a forfeiture order, acting for the National Crime Agency unled in the Magistrates’ Court. The application concerned property alleged to have been obtained via an illegal banking network known as “Chinese Underground Banking”. Clarissa was successful in obtaining the forfeiture order.

Current/recent instructions include:

• QIPCO v Elanus, acting for QIPCO (a private investment company), led by Andrew Onslow KC. This case is one of The Laywer’s “Top 20 cases of 2024”. It is listed for trial in the Commercial Court in November 2024. The claim relates to the “Idol’s Eye” diamond, which was loaned by Elanus (a Guernsey SPV owned by a Liechtenstein foundation) to QIPCO in 2014. It is a contractual dispute involving issues of interpretation and corporate attribution.
• Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Manghat, acting for Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank in the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts, led by Rajesh Pillai KC. This claim is part of the litigation arising out of the collapse of NMC Health plc, which has also involved proceedings in the English Commercial Court. The bank is claiming US$1bn against Mr Manghat for his involvement in a major fraud involving undisclosed debts.
• Kalo v Bankmed, acting for Bankmed in Commercial Court proceedings, led by Catherine Gibaud KC. This is the latest in a number of claims brought in the English Courts by customers of Lebanese banks seeking the transfer of funds out of Lebanon against the backdrop of the ongoing Lebanese economic crisis. Following the bank’s jurisdiction challenge in October 2023 ([2023] EWHC 2606 (Comm)), Clarissa acted for the bank unled at a consequentials hearing in front of Mr Justice Foxton.
• Republic of Kazakhstan v Stati & ors, acting for the Republic of Kazakhstan, led by Ali Malek KC. Clarissa is instructed in these long-standing and hard-fought enforcement proceedings relating to a Swedish arbitration award which Kazakhstan maintains was obtained by fraud. The litigation is global in scope and has led to various courts making costs orders against both parties, and there is now satellite litigation relating to the enforcement of those. Clarissa appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in October 2023 (led by Ali Malek KC) in an appeal from Gibraltar concerning whether English costs orders in favour of Kazakhstan amounting to c.£1.5million can be registered under Gibraltar’s Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1935 (judgment pending). In March 2024, Clarissa appeared in the BVI Commercial Court (led again by Ali Malek KC) resisting an application by the Stati Parties to set aside the registration of five different English costs orders in favour of Kazakhstan amounting to c.£5million in the BVI under its equivalent legislation enabling the enforcement of foreign judgments (judgment pending).
• Strategic Technologies v Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of China, acting for Taiwan. Clarissa’s involvement in this case started in the Court of Appeal (led by Andrew Onslow KC), leading to a precedent-setting decision on the registration of “judgments on judgments” under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 ([2020] EWCA Civ 1604). This case was recognised by the Financial Times in a Special Report on Innovative Lawyers. Following this, Clarissa acted for Taiwan unled in a number of hearings in the Senior Courts Costs Office, including a successful application for an order debarring Strategic Technologies from participating in the costs assessment process due to non-payment of an earlier costs order by the Court of Appeal. More recently, Clarissa (led by Catherine Gibaud KC), successfully resisted various enforcement applications brought by Strategic Technologies, including an application for a third-party debt order, in the High Court ([2023] EWHC 754 (KB)).
• Suppipat & ors v Narongdej & ors, acting for Siam Commercial Bank, led by Jonathan Davies Jones KC. This was one of the Lawyer’s “Top 20 cases of 2022”, a mammoth fraud claim relating to a large renewables company in Thailand heard in the Commercial Court over five months concluding in March 2023. All the claims against SCB failed: [2023] EWHC 1988 (Comm).
• Zymurgorium v Hammonds of Knutsford, acting for Hammonds of Knutsford, a drinks wholesaler, in a two-week trial in the High Court in Manchester, led by William Edwards. The case involved complex contractual arguments (there being no written agreement), including that the oral agreement reached by the parties was or became a relational contract ([2021] EWHC 2295 (Ch)).

Current/recent instructions include:

• Advising on a prospective London-seated ICC arbitration concerning commodities trades worth £millions, led by Christopher Harris KC.
• Representing the successful claimant in a London-seated LCIA arbitration for £millions arising out of a failure to open a letter of credit under a sale of goods contract and involving Covid-related force majeure arguments, led by Nicholas Craig KC.
• London-seated LCIA arbitration relating to the provision of M&A advisory services, led by Andrew Onslow KC.

Current/recent instructions include:

• QIPCO v Elanus, acting for QIPCO (a private investment company), led by Andrew Onslow KC. This case is one of The Laywer’s “Top 20 cases of 2024”. It is listed for trial in the Commercial Court in November 2024. The claim relates to the “Idol’s Eye” diamond, which was loaned by Elanus (a Guernsey SPV owned by a Liechtenstein foundation) to QIPCO in 2014. It is a contractual dispute involving issues of interpretation and corporate attribution.

Current/recent instructions include:

• Financial Conduct Authority v Forster & Ors, acting for Mr Forster, led by Saima Hanif KC. These were proceedings brought by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 relating to an alleged collective investment scheme involving investments in a number of UK care homes.
• QED v A4G & Ors, successfully defending a claim against the defendant accounting firm which had arisen out of the sale of an accountancy business, led by Saima Hanif KC.