Richard Salter KC

Re an application for directions by Golden Belt 1 Sukuk Company BSC (c) (in liquidation) (as trustee) [2021] EWHC 2629 (Ch) (Zacaroli J).  (Acted for the claimant bond trustee and its delegate on their application for a declaration that the limitations imposed by the declaration of trust and agency on the power of certificate holders to pass resolutions – in particular the limitation that a particular majority was required in order to pass a resolution in relation to reserved matters – did not result in an implied limitation on the powers and discretions vested in the trustee and the delegate, in the context of an Islamic financing transaction.)

Re The Law Debenture Trust Corp plc [2020] EWHC 1774 (Ch), [2021] 1 BCLC 475 (Birss J). (Acted for the claimant bond trustee in its successful application for approval of its intended course of action. The proceedings concerned a proposed settlement of various long running disputes arising from insolvencies of companies in the Bell Group in Western Australia and Curaçao. The claimant was the trustee of five sets of bonds issued in the late 1980s by companies in the Bell Group. It was a condition precedent to the effectiveness of that settlement that the trustee, although not itself a party to the settlement, should obtain a declaration from the English court that it would be acting properly as trustee of these bond issues in not taking steps to prevent or interfere with the proposed settlement.)

Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA; Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation as manager and administrator of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund v Novo Banco SA [2018] UKSC 34, [2018] 1 WLR 3683; affirming [2016] EWCA Civ 1092, [2017] 2 BCLC 277; reversing [2015] EWHC 2371 (Comm), [2015] 2 CLC 475 (Acting for the bridge bank formed by Banco de Portugal to take over the business of Banco Espírito Santo, in a landmark dispute about the extent to which the English Court should recognise actions taken by Banco de Portugal as Resolution Authority under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive 2014/59/EU in relation to a USD 835m structured finance facility arranged by Goldman Sachs).

Central Bank of Ecuador and ors v Conticorp SA [2015] UKPC 11, [2016] 1 BCLC 26; reversing [2012] 3 BHS (BCA); [2010] 2 BHS J No 158 (three-month trial before Adderley J); [2010] 3 BHS J No 63 (costs). (Acted for the plaintiffs, who were ultimately successful before the Privy Council in recovering from the dishonest former owners and controllers of a substantial Ecuadorian Bank the assets which those owners had wrongfully taken for themselves immediately prior to the collapse of the bank and its overseas subsidiaries).

Citicorp Trustee Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [2013] EWHC 2608 (Ch) (Peter Smith J) (Acted for Barclays in a dispute about the construction of the terms of two issues of commercial mortgage backed floating rate notes, forming part of a securitisation of an underlying GBP 660m loan portfolio. The points in dispute were whether Barclays’ own notes were disenfranchised, and whether notes held by Rabobank were disenfranchised because a total return swap between Rabobank and Barclays meant that Barclays was the beneficial owner of Rabobank’s notes).

Standard Chartered Bank (Switzerland) S.A v. UBS (Bahamas) Ltd [2013] 1 BHS J No 177 (Acted for SCB in the Bahamas Court of Appeal, in SCB’s successful appeal against the striking out of a claim for the return of USD 32.4 million dollars, which SCB claimed had been paid conditionally upon the subsequent receipt by it of securities, the transfer of which could not be completed because of the discovery of the Madoff fraud).

Gemini (Eclipse 2006-3) Plc v Danske Bank A/S [2012] EWHC (Comm) (Cooke J) (Acted for the liquidity facility provider in a dispute about the construction of the terms of a GBP 900m bond-issue).

AIG Capital Partners Inc v Republic of Kazakhstan [2006] 1 WLR 1420. (Acted for the judgment creditor, in a dispute involving the construction of the State Immunity Act 1978 s 14(4), and the effect of ECHR Art 6 and Protocol 1 Art 1 on that construction, centering on the question whether the assets of a state acquire absolute immunity from execution if held on the state’s behalf by its central bank).

Camdex International v Bank of Zambia and ZCCM [1997] CLC 714, CA. (Acted for the debtor in successfully resisting the making of a third party debt order over sums due from the debtor to its central bank under Zambian exchange control laws).

Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd [2022] EWHC 126 (Ch) (Miles J) (Acted for the successful claimant appellant in an appeal against refusal of permission to amend the Particulars of Claim in  an action alleging misuse of confidential information in the context of ideas for exploiting investment opportunities in Venezuelan government and corporate bonds and other securities.)

Re an application for directions by Golden Belt 1 Sukuk Company BSC © (in liquidation) (as trustee) [2021] EWHC 2629 (Ch) (Zacaroli J).  (Acted for the claimant bond trustee and its delegate on their application for a declaration that the limitations imposed by the declaration of trust and agency on the power of certificate holders to pass resolutions – in particular the limitation that a particular majority was required in order to pass a resolution in relation to reserved matters – did not result in an implied limitation on the powers and discretions vested in the trustee and the delegate, in the context of an Islamic financing transaction.)

Re The Law Debenture Trust Corp plc [2020] EWHC 1774 (Ch), [2021] 1 BCLC 475 (Birss J). (Acted for the claimant bond trustee in its successful application for approval of its intended course of action. The proceedings concerned a proposed settlement of various long running disputes arising from insolvencies of companies in the Bell Group in Western Australia and Curaçao. The claimant was the trustee of five sets of bonds issued in the late 1980s by companies in the Bell Group. It was a condition precedent to the effectiveness of that settlement that the trustee, although not itself a party to the settlement, should obtain a declaration from the English court that it would be acting properly as trustee of these bond issues in not taking steps to prevent or interfere with the proposed settlement.)

Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (No 5) (Extended Liens) [2012] EWHC 2997 (Ch), [2014] 2 BCLC 295 (Briggs J); (disclosure application [2011] EWHC 2022 (Ch); [2012] 1 BCLC 312) (Acted for LBF AG, the Swiss subsidiary of Lehman Brothers, in a dispute concerning the validity and effect of provisions in LBIE’s standard documentation intended to give companies in the Lehman group priority in Lehman’s insolvency over outside creditors. This involved consideration, inter alia, of the nature of security rights purporting to create a general lien over intangibles, the effect of the Financial Collateral Regulations on floating charges, and the applicability of the British Eagle principle to contracts involving foreign insolvent parties).

Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc v BNY Corporate Trustee Services and Landesbank Baden-Wuttemberg [settled shortly before trial in April 2012] (Acting for the claimant noteholders in litigation concerning the effect, in Lehman’s insolvency, of certain of the terms in various structured finance products arranged by Lehman).

Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 AC 383 (SC); affirming [2009] EWCA Civ 1160, [2010] Ch 347, CA; [2009] EWHC 1912 (Ch), [2009] 2 BCLC 400 (Sir Andrew Morritt C) (Acted for noteholders in successfully resisting Lehman’s claim that Noteholder Priority switching provisions of Lehman’s Dante series of synthetic CDOs infringed the anti-deprivation principle by reducing the value of the assets available to Lehman in its Chapter 11 proceedings).

HSH Nordbank v Barclays Bank Plc (Settled shortly before trial in the Commercial Court in February 2005) (Acted for the claimants in a high-profile action alleging that Barclays mis-sold USD 151m worth of synthetic collateralised debt obligations).

Financiera Decaril SA v Prudential-Bache (Settled shortly before a six-week trial in the Commercial Court in March 2003). (Acted for Claimants, who were Brazilian Investors, suing (in seven actions in the Commercial Court) a London investment bank and its Brazilian associate for mis-selling step-down reverse floating-rate notes).

Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd v MLC (Bermuda) Ltd [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 767. (Acted for a hedge fund, resisting an anti-suit injunction in relation to its claims for mis-selling of derivatives).

Sagicor Bank Jamaica Ltd v Seaton [2022] UKPC 48, [2023] 1 WLR 1759, [2023] 2 All ER 81, [2023] 1 All ER (Comm) 761 (Acted for the successful appellant in establishing that the appropriate remedy for wrongful debits made to an interest-bearing USD account was not (as the Jamaican courts below had done) to award the equivalent of the wrongful debits in JMD plus simple interest, but to reconstitute the USD accounts disregarding the wrongful debits, adding the (compound) interest that should have been credited to them).

Highbury Pension Fund Management Co and another v Zirfin Investments Ltd [2013] EWHC 238 (Ch); (reversed [2013] EWCA Civ 1283) [2014] Ch 359 (Acted for the SFO in seeking to resist a claim to invoke the doctrine of marshalling, to the prejudice of a Restraint Order, where a doubly-secured creditor had one charge over property belonging to the accused debtor, and another charge over a property owned by another party who was liable for the debt).

Bank of Cyprus v Monte Properties [Christopher Clarke J, December 2010] (Acted for the bank in litigation (settled at the end of term, after two weeks in court) concerning the bank’s ability to enforce changes in its standard terms against existing customers).

The Bank Charges litigation (Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and others): First Preliminary Issues: [2009] UKSC 6, [2010] 1 AC 696, reversing [2009] EWCA (Civ) 116; [2010] 1 AC 696 (CA); [2008] EWHC 875 (Comm); [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 625) (Andrew Smith J).   Second Preliminary Issues [2008] EWHC 2325 (Comm), [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 625 (Andrew Smith J). (Acting for Clydesdale Bank Plc in successfully defending the OFT’s claim that the charges made by the banks in connection with bounced cheques and unauthorized overdrafts are unenforceable as penalties at common law, or because the terms providing for them are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations).

Wilson v First County Trust (No 2) [2002] QB 74, CA. (Acted for the claimant in a case concerned with the compatibility of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s 127(3) with the creditor’s Convention Rights under ECHR Art 6 and Protocol 1 Art 1).

Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc [2000] 1 WLR 937, CA. (Acted for the bank in successfully resisting claim for breach of banker’s duty of confidentiality).

Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S v Banca Popolare Dell’Alto Adige SPA [2009] EWHC 2410 (Comm), [2009] CILL 2777. (Whether it is necessary for the beneficiary, when making a demand under a performance bond, to believe that the amount demanded from the issuer is due to the beneficiary from the account party).

Credit Industriel et Comercial v China Merchants Bank [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 427, QBD (Acted for the issuing bank in a dispute over what constitutes an “original” document for the purposes of UCP 500).

Montrod Ltd v Grundkotter Fleischvertreibs GmbH [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 368, QBD. (Acted for the instructing bank in a dispute between banks as to whether English law recognises a “nullity” exception as well as a “fraud” exception to the obligation of a bank issuing a letter of credit to pay against apparently conforming documents).

Habib Bank Ltd v Ahmed [ 2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 444, CA. (Acted for the guarantor in resisting enforcement of Pakistani guarantee judgment on grounds of fraud).

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Crossseas Shipping Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 1135, CA. (Acted for the guarantor in resisting enforcement of a guarantee on the ground that it had been avoided by material alteration).

Tukan Timber Ltd v Barclays Bank PLC [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 171. (Acted for the issuing bank in successfully resisting an injunction restraining payment under letter of credit).

Loches Capital Ltd v Goldman Sachs International [2020] EWHC 2327 (Comm) (Stephen Hofmeyr QC)  (Acted for the successful claimant in obtaining an order for pre-action disclosure against GSI  in relation to a proposed claim for unlawful means conspiracy arising from the takeover in 2006 of Arcelor S.A. by Mittal Steel Company NV and the subsequent merger of the two companies in 2007 – the largest merger the steel industry has ever seen – in relation to which GSI’s mergers and acquisitions team were a principal adviser to Mittal.)

Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid and others v Khalid Abdullah Al-Hezaimi and others [2018] EWHC 243 (Ch) (interpretation of freezing injunction); [2019] EWHC 1953 (Ch) (where the court rejected an application, made by the defendant shortly before trial, to adduce in evidence confidential documents belonging to the claimant, which had been sent anonymously to the defendant’s solicitors). (The main action, listed for a 4-week trial in summer 2019, settled after the first week). (Acted for claimants, who alleged that the defendants had defrauded them of GBP 35m intended for investment in UK property).

In re BW Estates Ltd (No 2), Randhawa and another v Turpin and another (No 2) [2017] EWCA Civ 1201, [2018] Ch 511 (Acted for the successful appellants, whose attempts to enforce a judgment in their favour in a fraud claim against shares in a company had been frustrated by the appointment of administrators. The appointment had been made by the judgment debtor, who was the sole director and living shareholder of the company whose other shareholder had been dissolved and whose articles required a quorum of two.  The appellants’ challenge to the appointment, dismissed at first instance, was successful in the Court of Appeal, the case involving consideration (inter alia) of whether the company was to be treated as a single-member company, and of the Re Duomatic principle).

Central Bank of Ecuador and ors v Conticorp SA [2015] UKPC 11, [2016] 1 BCLC 26; reversing [2012] 3 BHS (BCA); [2010] 2 BHS J No 158 (three-month trial before Adderley J); [2010] 3 BHS J No 63 (costs).  (Acted for the plaintiffs, who were ultimately successful before the Privy Council in recovering from the dishonest former owners and controllers of a substantial Ecuadorian Bank the assets which those owners had wrongfully taken for themselves immediately prior to the collapse of the bank and its overseas subsidiaries).

Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2014] EWCA Civ 360, [2014] 1 WLR 1402 (Acted in the Court of Appeal for the appellant defendant, seeking to set aside an order of Sales J holding him liable on the basis both of tracing and unjust enrichment, and arguing that tracing was not permissible because of the absence of any direct exchange, and that the claim in unjust enrichment should fail because there was no direct enrichment).

Hirco v Hiranandani (IoM Staff of Government Division, 26 September 2014; affirming IoM High Court, 21 February 2014) (Jurisdiction dispute in fraud claim against non-executive chairman of IoM company, arising out of investments made in India following its AIM listing in London. This dispute has also been the subject of LCIA arbitration proceedings in Singapore from 2014 to 2016).

Abu Dhabi Investment Company v H Clarkson & Co Ltd and others (Main action tried for 12 weeks at the end of 2006 before Tomlinson J in the Commercial Court [2007] EWHC 1267 (Comm). Successful appeal in 2008 ([2008] EWCA Civ 699) against the only aspect of the judgment on which the claimants lost. Preliminary issue tried in February 2006 before Morison J: [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 38.) (Acted for the claimants in an action alleging fraud against the vendor company and its directors, and negligence against the vendor’s bankers and the claimants’ own professional advisers, arising from a failed joint venture investment in setting up a container shipping line in the Gulf).

Anglos Ltd v Kent and Brooks (Settled in June 2007 after two weeks of trial before Evans-Lombe J). (Acted for the principal defendant to a claim for deceit and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with a management buy-out and immediate on-sale of a holiday company).

Cable & Wireless Plc v Valentine and others (Settled in December 2005, after nine weeks of trial before Gloster J) Acted for the administrators of the 11th Defendant (of 17), a Guernsey insurance company alleged to have been the vehicle used by members of the C&W risk management team to make fraudulent secret profits from the reinsurance arrangements of C&W’s captive insurer, Pender Insurance.

McCarthy v Jones [2023] EWCA (Civ) 589 (Acted for the successful respondent/claimant to an appeal which had challenged the findings at first instance (in favour of the respondent) (a) that the sale by the appellant legal owner of a Spanish property (beneficial ownership of which had earlier been transferred by the appellant to the respondent in exchange for title to a yacht) had been in breach of contract and (b) that the fact that the appellant had, without the respondent’s consent, used the proceeds of that sale in purported payment of a debt due from the respondent to a third party (the amount of which was in dispute) did not reduce the damages payable for that breach.

Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid and others v Khalid Abdullah Al-Hezaimi and others [2022] EWHC 2460 (Ch) (Joanna Wicks KC) (Acted for the successful claimant in a dispute about the correct interpretation of the release provision in a deed of settlement)

Loches Capital Ltd v Goldman Sachs International [2020] EWHC 2327 (Comm) (Stephen Hofmeyr QC)  (Acted for the successful claimant in obtaining an order for pre-action disclosure against GSI  in relation to a proposed claim for unlawful means conspiracy arising from the takeover in 2006 of Arcelor S.A. by Mittal Steel Company NV and the subsequent merger of the two companies in 2007 – the largest merger the steel industry has ever seen – in relation to which GSI’s mergers and acquisitions team were a principal adviser to Mittal.)

Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid and others v Khalid Abdullah Al-Hezaimi and others [2018] EWHC 243 (Ch) (interpretation of freezing injunction); [2019] EWHC 1953 (Ch) (where the court rejected an application, made by the defendant shortly before trial, to adduce in evidence confidential documents belonging to the claimant, which had been sent anonymously to the defendant’s solicitors).  (The main action, listed for a 4-week trial in summer 2019, settled after the first week). (Acted for claimants, who alleged that the defendants had defrauded them of GBP 35m intended for investment in UK property).

Wright v Deccan Chargers Sporting Ventures Ltd [2011] EWHC 1307 (QB) (Tugendhat J) (Jurisdiction dispute over venue for resolution of claims for wrongful dismissal of English chief executive of IPL team).

Bright Asset Ltd v Lewis [2011] EWCA (Civ) 122 (Acted for the appellant defendant in a dispute about success fees under a consultancy agreement).

Murray v Leisureplay Plc [2005] IRLR 946, CA (Acted for the respondents to an appeal concerning the enforceability of a liquidated damages clause in a former director’s service contract, and the extent of the remedies available to the company under the Companies Act 1985 s 320 to recover its costs of preparations to acquire a non-cash asset from that director).

Racing UK Plc v Doncaster MBC [2005] EWCA Civ 999, CA (Acted for the appellants in an action concerning whether the Chief Executive of the independent management company of Doncaster Racecourse had ostensible authority to bind Doncaster Council, the owners of the racecourse, to a media rights agreement).

MCI Worldcom Intl v Primus Telecommunications Inc [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 833, CA (Acted for respondent claimant in a dispute over telecommunications bandwidth contracts).

Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA; Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation as manager and administrator of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund v Novo Banco SA [2018] UKSC 34, [2018] 1 WLR 3683; affirming [2016] EWCA Civ 1092, [2017] 2 BCLC 277; reversing [2015] EWHC 2371 (Comm), [2015] 2 CLC 475. (Acting for the bridge bank formed by Banco de Portugal to take over the business of Banco Espírito Santo, in a landmark dispute about the extent to which the English Court should recognise actions taken by Banco de Portugal as Resolution Authority under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive 2014/59/EU in relation to a USD 835m structured finance facility arranged by Goldman Sachs).

In re BW Estates Ltd (No 2), Randhawa and another v Turpin and another (No 2) [2017] EWCA Civ 1201, [2018] Ch 511 (Acted for the successful appellants, whose attempts to enforce a judgment in their favour in a fraud claim against shares in a company had been frustrated by the appointment of administrators. The appointment had been made by the judgment debtor, who was the sole director and living shareholder of the company whose other shareholder had been dissolved and whose articles required a quorum of two. The appellants’ challenge to the appointment, dismissed at first instance, was successful in the Court of Appeal, the case involving consideration (inter alia) of whether the company was to be treated as a single-member company, and of the Re Duomatic principle).

Central Bank of Ecuador and ors v Conticorp SA [2015] UKPC 11, reversing [2012] 3 BHS (BCA); [2010] 2 BHS J No 158 (three-month trial before Adderley J); [2010] 3 BHS J No 63 (costs). (Acted for the plaintiffs, who were ultimately successful before the Privy Council in recovering from the dishonest former owners and controllers of a substantial Ecuadorian Bank the assets which those owners had wrongfully taken for themselves immediately prior to the collapse of the bank and its overseas subsidiaries).

Re Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (No 5) (Extended Liens) [2012] EWHC 2997 (Ch), [2014] 2 BCLC 295  (Briggs J); (disclosure application [2011] EWHC 2022 (Ch); [2012] 1 BCLC 312) (Acted for LBF AG, the Swiss subsidiary of Lehman Brothers, in a dispute concerning the validity and effect of provisions in LBIE’s standard documentation intended to give companies in the Lehman group priority in Lehman’s insolvency over outside creditors. This involved consideration, inter alia, of the nature of security rights purporting to create a general lien over intangibles, the effect of the Financial Collateral Regulations on floating charges, and the applicability of the British Eagle principle to contracts involving foreign insolvent parties).

Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 AC 383 (Supreme Court); affirming [2009] EWCA Civ 1160, [2010] Ch 347, CA; [2009] EWHC 1912 (Ch), [2009] 2 BCLC 400 (Sir Andrew Morritt C) (Acted for noteholders in successfully resisting Lehman’s claim that Noteholder Priority switching provisions of Lehman’s Dante series of synthetic CDOs infringed the anti-deprivation principle by reducing the value of the assets available to Lehman in its Chapter 11 proceedings).

Re Thumb (China) Holdings Group Limited, The Bank of New York Mellon v Thumb (China) Holdings Group Limited BVI HCV 2009/156 (Bannister J). (Acted for the trustee of a bond issue in winding up the defaulting issuer, despite the issuer’s assertions that the trustee had sold the collateral at an undervalue).

Lomax Leisure Limited v Miller and Bramston [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch); [2008] 1 BCLC 262, ChD. (Acted for successful defendant liquidators who were sued for breach of duty and on dividend cheques which they had issued, but then had stopped on discovering that their rejection of a substantial proof was the subject of an appeal to the court).

LME v Englehard Metals (LME Disciplinary Tribunal 2004). (Acted for successful defendant in a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing (chaired by Lord Mustill) concerning allegations of causing a disorderly market).

As counsel:

2012 – 2016

Major and document-heavy commercial arbitration in Delhi under LCIA (India) Rules, concerning an Indian property joint venture agreement.

2013 – 2016

Major and document-heavy commercial arbitration in Singapore under LCIA Rules, concerning the AIM floatation of an IoM company.

2003 – 2004

Ad hoc submission in Hong Kong concerning banking guarantees.

1998 – 2000

ICC Arbitration in Copenhagen concerning a commission agreement relating to oil exploration.

As arbitrator:

2023

Sole arbitrator under LCIA Rules in a dispute about restrictive covenants in a shareholders’ agreement

2021 – 2023

Sole arbitrator in a dispute concerning the true meaning of provisions in a Digital Asset Lending Agreement covering a loan said to be either of ETH 4098.36 (equivalent at the peak in November 2021 to about USD 14m) or the ETH equivalent from time to time of USD 1m.

2018 – 2019

Panel member in an LCIA arbitration concerning the enforceability of a Subordinated Loan Agreement.

2017

One of the two QCs appointed to carry out the Unresolved Claims Determination Procedure under a Share Purchase Agreement in relation to the sale of a telecoms and media group.

2016 – 2017

Panel member in an LCIA arbitration concerning the enforceability of a Subordinated Loan Agreement.

2014 – 2015

Panel member in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a joint venture agreement.

2014 – 2015

Panel member in an LCIA arbitration concerning derivatives.

2008 – 2010

Sole arbitrator in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a joint venture agreement.

Clifton v Powergen Plc (Settled in 1997 during trial before OR) (Acted for the defendants in a dispute about the environmental effects of burning an experimental fuel in a power station).

Gefco v Powergen Plc, (1996, QBD) (Acted for the defendants in a claim against their public liability insurers arising from the operation of a power station).

Friends Provident Life Office v. Hillier Parker May & Rowden, (Settled in 1995 during trial before OR) (Acted for the claimants seeking the return of overpayments to contractors or compensation from their professional advisers).

Bovis International Inc v The Circle Limited Partnership (1995) 49 Con LR 12, CA (Acted for the successful defendants/respondents in their counterclaim against their project managers arising from delays to the completion of a property development).

• Rajabieslami v Tariverdi [2023] EWHC 455 (Comm)
• ABT Auto Investments Ltd v AAPICO Investment Pte Ltd [2022] EWHC 2839 (Comm)
• Crane Bank Ltd v DFCU Bank Ltd [2022] EWHC 1121 (Comm)
• CHEP Equipment Pooling BV v ITS Ltd [2022] EWHC 741 (Comm), [2022] 4 WLR 47
• Al Saud and another v Gibbs [2022] EWHC 706 (Comm), [2022] 1 WLR 3082
• IS Prime Ltd v TF Global Markets (UK) Ltd [2022] EWHC 605 (Comm)
• Biogra Trading Ltd v Sistem Ecologica D.O.O. Srbac [2021] EWHC 3653 (Comm)
• Heritage Travel and Tourism Ltd and another v Windhorst and others [2021] EWHC 2380 (Comm)
• Olympic Council of Asia v Novans Jets LLP [2021] EWHC 1063 (Comm)
• TKC London Ltd v Allianz Insurance plc [2020] EWHC 2710 (Comm), [2020] Lloyd’s Rep IR 631
• Altera Voyageur Production Ltd v Premier Oil E&P UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 1891 (Comm), [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 451
• Hall v Saunders Law Ltd [2020] EWHC 404 (Comm), [2020] BLR 445
• Ventra Investments Ltd v Bank of Scotland [2019] EWHC 2058 (Comm)
• Idemia France SAS v Decatur Europe [2019] EWHC 946 (Comm), [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 1020
• GPP Big Field LLP v Solar EPC Solutions SL [2018] EWHC 2866 (Comm)
• AMT Futures Ltd v Boural and others [2018] EWHC 750 (Comm), [2018] QB 1144
• Yukos International UK BV and others v Merinson [2018] EWHC 335 (Comm), [2018] QB 1113 (affmd [2019] EWCA Civ 830, [2020] QB 336)
• O3B Africa Ltd v Interactive E-Solutions JLT [2017] EWHC 3813 (Comm) (affmd [2018] EWCA Civ 62, [2018] BLR 167)
• McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm)
• Dalecroft Properties Ltd v Underwriters [2017] EWHC 1263 (Comm), [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 511
• Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Limited [2016] EWHC 1472 (Comm), [2017] 1 ALL ER (Comm) 1009 (affmd [2018] EWCA (Civ 25, [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 867)
• St Vincent European General Partner Ltd v Robinson [2016] EWHC 2920 (Comm), [2016] 2 CLC 807
• The Worshipful Company of Grocers v Keltbray Group Holdings Ltd [2016] EWHC 1167 (QB)
• Eco Quest plc v GFI Consultants Ltd [2014] EWHC 4329 (QB), [2015] BPIR 244
• Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rogers [2014] EWHC 2633 (QB), [2014] IRLR 780 (affmd [2014] EWCA Civ 1373, [2015] IRLR 57)
• East England Schools CIC (t/a 4MYSCHOOLS) v Palmer [2013] EWHC 4138 (QB); [2014] IRLR 191
• Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v AC and others [2013] EWHC 45 (QB)
• B v Home Office [2012] EWHC 226 (QB); [2012] 4 All ER 276
• Fairstate Ltd v General Enterprise and Management Ltd [2010] EWHC 3072 (QB); [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 497; 133 ConLR 112

• Working knowledge of French, rudimentary Russian, German and Italian.