Recent cases of interest include:
- JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2018] UKSC 19 – Charles appeared for Mr Khrapunov (leading Marc Delehanty) in the UK Supreme Court what is now the leading English case on the scope of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy and on the application of the Brussels / Lugano jurisdiction scheme to such claims. See also [2018] EWCA Civ 819 on privilege against self-incrimination and cross-examination on assets in face of extradition threat.
- Tsareva & ors. v Ananyev & ors. [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm) – Commercial Court case on whether English Court had jurisdiction to hear claims by depositors against oligarch Ananyev brothers arising out of collapse of Promsvyaz Bank in Russia.
- Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos [2018] EWCA CIV 1 – Charles appeared for the successful appellant, Cyprus Popular Bank, in the leading English appellate case on the application of the Brussels / Lugano enforcement of judgments regime to foreign worldwide freezing order and on the meaning and interpretation of the English procedural rules and the Brussels / Lugano scheme to what matters constitute ‘enforcement’ and which are thus prohibited within the period of an appeal against registration of a foreign judgment.
- JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017] – Charles acted for Mr Sergei Pugachev in litigation with the claimants arising out of the insolvency of JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank, a subsidiary liability Russian judgment against him and an English default judgment enforcing the former Reported judgments at [2017] EWHC (Ch) 1751; 1767; 1847; 1853.
- JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2017] 2.5.17 (HHJ Waksman KC) – Successful application for the defendant to amend his application to set aside a freezing order for material non-disclosure so as to add further grounds of alleged non-disclosure and alleged misleading of the Court by the claimant.
- GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh et al. [2017] Charles was instructed by one of the defendants in Commercial Court litigation against David Haigh, formerly of Leeds United FC. The present action concerns the claimant’s attempt to register a Dubai money judgment against Mr Haigh and parasitic claims against third parties.
- Abela v Baadarani [2017] – Charles was instructed by defendants who are resisting fresh proceedings brought by the claimants on the back of default judgment obtained against the principal defendant, Mr Baadarani. There has been a decision (unreported) by Nugee J in relation to a Third Party Debt Order and a Norwich Pharmacal Order which is the subject of an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
- Louis Dreyfus Commodities MEA Trading DMCC v Concorde pour L’Industrie et L’Exploitation SPRL [2015] EWHC (Comm) 1711. Worldwide freezing order and anti-suit injunction obtained to restrain proceedings in Democratic Republic of Congo; unsatisfactory disclosure of assets by Defendants; Charles (acting for Louis Dreyfus) successfully obtaining order for cross-examination of Fourth Defendant as to assets of all Defendants
- PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Sergey Maksimov and others [2014] EWHC 3771 (Comm). 5-day committal hearing against first defendant for alleged breach of two worldwide freezing orders. Burden and standard of proof. Whether necessary to prove every component of each allegation of contempt. Obligation of directors of companies subject to the injunctions. And see also [2014] EWHC 1958 (QB). Applicability of Art 6 ECHR to committal proceedings. Right of defendant to be present at hearing. Public interest in contempt proceedings. Whether proper question is whether there can only be a fair trial if the defendant participates or rather whether notwithstanding an inability to participate, there can nevertheless be a fair trial. See also [2013] EWHC 3203. Further proceedings in which Charles successfully resisted an application by the Twenty-Seventh Defendant (“Carlsbad”) to discharge the worldwide freezing order granted by Field J as referred to in the case below. Carlsbad applied to discharge on various grounds including that there was no good reason to suppose on further evidence which it sought to adduce that its assets belonged to D1; that there was no jurisdiction to serve the arbitral claim form and WFO against it out of the jurisdiction and that there was insufficient connection with England. Blair J rejected the application and maintained the freezing order.
- Sheikh Saoud Bin Abdullah Al-Thani v Affat [2014] EWHC Ch (Barling J, Nugee J, Asplin J) (Three applications) Worldwide freezing order obtained against defendant in relation to fraud relating to obtaining title to property; court also ordered passport delivery-up orders, that the defendant should not leave the jurisdiction and arrest orders. Bench warrant also issued. Discussion of court’s powers so to do. Further case of judgment in default being entered against defendant.
- Shetty v Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company [2013] EWHC 1152 (Ch). Multi-million-dollar counterclaim, brought by a leading Saudi Arabian gas and oil drilling conglomerate, for conspiracy, bribery and breach of duty (under Saudi law) arising out of the receipt of secret commissions from suppliers under gas and oil drilling contracts (JV project for Saudi Aramco).
- Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 354 (QB). Dispute between Thai furniture manufacturer and its English commercial agent. Charles successfully obtained the discharge of a freezing order on grounds of insufficient evidence of risk of dissipation.
- Governors of the Bank of Ireland v Bailey [2012] EWHC QB.Claim brought by bank against defendant employee for alleged making of secret profits. Charles successfully obtained the discharge of a freezing order on grounds of insufficient evidence of risk of dissipation.
- Shetty v Al-Rushaid Petroleum Investment Co [2011] EWHC 1460. Claim for secret commission arising out of oil/drilling contracts. The court held that it had the power to add a party as a defendant in order for all claims to be pursued in one jurisdiction, even though no claim was made against that party.
- Clickstream Technologies plc v Christopher Wightman [2011]. Instructed to represent the defendant CEO in proceedings for fraud and the unlawful obtaining of secret profits arising out of his stewardship of the claimant technology company.
- Spearmint Rhino Ventures (UK) Ltd v Warr [2011]. Retained to act for the former business partner of the founder of the Spearmint Rhino business in a dispute relating to alleged secret commissions.
- KBC (UK) Ltd v Total Asset Ltd (in admin ) & Dartnell [2011]. Instructed for the individual defendant in relation to an alleged £130 million ‘Ponzi’ scheme. (Commercial Court)
- Hotel Cipriani Srl v Cipriani International SA and others [2011]. Instructed for the defendants on their application to discharge a worldwide freezing on the grounds, amongst other things, of material non-disclosure relating to without prejudice discussions held between the parties following the claimant’s success against the defendants for passing off.
- Dadourian Group Int’l v Simms [2009] 1 Lloyds Reports 601. Claim for fraudulent misrepresentation inducing entry into an option agreement for the purchase of hospital equipment in Bangladesh. Charles successfully resisted an appeal against the trial judge’s findings of liability and quantum. The case is important as regards the principles for assessing and proving damages for deceit, and on when the court will discharge a freezing order where it has failed on some of the claims in court even though it has won overall. Guidance was also given by the Court in relation to applications to strike out appeals on the grounds of alleged forgery of documents and perverting the course of justice.
- Dadourian Group Int’l v Simms [2008] EWHC 1784. Court permitted use by claimant of allegedly unlawfully obtained evidence on the grounds that the documents were not subject to legal professional privilege or, if they were, the so-called ‘fraud exception’ applied. See also related decision at [2007] EWHC 2634 dismissing application against claimant for delivery-up of such evidence on grounds that claimant was not party to original order.
- Primus Telecommunications v Kumar [2007]. Acted for the defendant in a £3m commercial fraud claim relating to pre-paid telephone cards. Allegations involved dishonest manipulation of computer security systems and the forgery of documents.
- Dadourian Group Int’l v Simms [2007] 2 AER 329. Permission to use evidence obtained under compulsion from a defendant under a freezing order, for purposes other than for policing the freezing order.
- Dadourian Group Int’l v Simms [2006] 1 WLR Establishment of Court of Appeal guidelines on the enforcement of worldwide freezing orders abroad: “the Dadourian Guidelines”.