Justina is ranked as a Leading Junior in Chambers UK Bar, Chambers Global, Legal 500 and Legal 500 Middle East.
Comments in legal directories have included:
‘phenomenally bright’
‘really and truly excellent in all respects, oral advice, service ethos, written and oral advocacy. Surely destined for silk within the next year or two’
‘an absolute delight to work with’
‘a formidable advocate, whose oral and written advocacy are top notch’
‘a hard-hitting litigator. She is able to parachute into a dispute and turn it 180 degrees in favour of her clients’
‘brilliant for banking litigation’
a ‘leading crypto barrister in the UK’
‘[s]he is all at once charming with a no-nonsense, to-the-point laser focus on the issues at the heart of the matter’
‘an excellent eye for detail [who] always thinks outside the box’
‘no matter how stressful the situation, Justina has a way of calming matters so that the focus is always on the issues at hand’
‘super-bright and on top of every fact and detail’
‘strong, dynamic and commercial’
‘one of the leading juniors in this area [crytoassets]. She is fantastic on all things crypto’
‘great to use on difficult insolvency claims’
‘a highly intelligent and tenacious litigator, she is also far more financially literate than most barristers’
‘incredibly impressive and a force to be reckoned with’
‘a fantastic communicator’
‘a phenomenal addition to any team when you have claims against banks’
‘outstanding legal acumen’
‘proactive in moving difficult issues forward’
‘extremely bright, responsive and a punchy advocate. She is excellent at forming a view on complex cases and is great at framing her arguments to they can be grasped by clients and the court alike. A real team player and a pleasure to work with’
‘[a] go to on technical points of regulation on banking disputes. Will methodically work through reams of difficult legislation to arrive at clearly presented practical advice. She has good tactical nous’
‘she spots problems but also has the solution on hand’
‘well liked by big lender clients’
‘clarity of thought and ability to grasp and present complex matters in a judge-friendly manner’
‘an impressive practice in the cryptoasset space. She has significant expertise in cryptocurrency fraud matters and is well versed in cross border disputes’
Justina was shortlisted as Data, Technology and Crypto Junior of the Year (Legal 500) in both 2023 and 2024.
She has also been shortlisted as Junior of the Year 2025 (English Bar in the Middle East: Commercial (Legal 500)).
Before coming to the Bar, Justina was an international investment banker, working with top-ranked corporate finance teams on complex transactions. This, together with her economics degrees, gives her a level of financial acumen and familiarity with financial products that is rare at the Bar.
She was appointed to the Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown for many years, and is registered with both the DIFC (Part II registration) and ADGM Courts.
Examples of cases in which Justina has been involved are provided below.
Justina’s background as an international investment banker and economist means that she can understand the more technical and mathematical aspects of financial products – a skill that is often invaluable in banking and financial services cases. She has been involved in a range of high-profile and innovative banking and financial services cases.
Examples of instructions:
2022 to date – Huobi OTC DMCC v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd & anr – a claim relating to a crypto-fraud and concerning the obligations owed by an investment bank to a seller of bitcoin. The Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts refers to this as “one of the first cryptocurrency litigation disputes in the region and one of the few reported cases anywhere in the world which addresses issues such as the safe transfer of cryptocurrency … and the obligations owed by a custodian of cryptocurrency …”. Following 3-day appeal (led by Andrew Spink KC), succeeded in securing a re-trial.
2023 to date – Hedge Fund v Various – instructed by a hedge fund to advise on the realisation of security over assets concerning a suite of security documentation and assets located in numerous jurisdictions.
2023 to date – Major corporate v Several major investment banks – complex regulatory and fraud matter involving the sale of exotic FX derivatives to a major Spanish entity.
2021 to 2024 – DIFC Authority – instructed by the DIFC Authority to advise on and draft new laws of secured transactions and digital assets and consequential amendments to numerous other laws, which resulted in the enactments of the DIFC’s Digital Assets Law and (new) Law of Security. This involved consideration of myriad issues, from the law on relatively well-known financing methods to more exotic issues concerning financial collateral and digital assets. These ground-breaking projects required analysis of approaches, not just in England & Wales but numerous jurisdictions.
2024 to date – Re: Undisclosed mortgage commission claims – advising firm on launch of claims on high-volume basis. Involves tort of bribery, accessory liability claims, claims against lender assignees, potential orders under s.140B CCA 1974.
2023 to date – Various v Liquidators – instructed by liquidator in connection with the enforceability of a litigation funding agreement, its interpretation in relation to tax liability, potential liability for breach of duty in connection with entry into the agreement and distribution of proceeds of settlement.
2022 to date – A v B, A v C (arbitrations) – multi-mln USD claims by company specializing in sports wagering, using proprietary trading models. LCIA Arbitration Rules.
2023 to 2024 – Ministry of [Confidential] – advising on the wholesale restructuring of state’s banking sector. Led by David Russell KC.
2023 – NMC Healthcare Ltd (in administration) & ors v Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC & ors – claims concerning receivables due from insurance companies in the context of parallel ADGM and onshore UAE proceedings.
2019 to 2023 – Taylor & ors v Shoosmiths LLP & ors – claim by beneficiaries and PRs of deceased’s estate against a solicitor (appointed attorney under EPA Act 1985) and firms of solicitors, for c.£4 mln in relation to an investment of £9 mln in single premium life insurance offshore bonds. Settled.
2022 – Client v Several major law firms – c. £60 mln claim arising out of the allegedly negligent drafting of standard form documents – from guarantees to security over cash, securities and real estate. Led by Nick Stallworthy KC.
2020 to 2021 – Major Spanish corporate v Major investment bank – a claim concerning the alleged default of €9m under an ISDA Master Agreement in the context of complex FX derivatives and complaints to the FCA and Spanish regulator. Settled.
2021 – Re: SO FX Ltd – parallel civil and criminal proceedings against directors of a company providing FX trading “educational” courses, FX “signals”, copy trading and referrals to brokers.
2020 – Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd v MBL Highway Development Co Ltd – application for summary judgment in a claim for over USD17mln. Complex security documentation, questions regarding the court’s entitlement to enter judgment under Art 15 Hague Convention, the test for alternative (retrospective) service under CPR r.6.15, inconsistent dispute resolution clauses in the context of an Indian corporate insolvency resolution process. Successful.
2019 – ECU Group Plc v HSBC Bank Plc & ors – advising ATE insurer on merits. Allegations of “front-running” and misreporting of execution prices concerning foreign exchange “stop-loss” orders of ECU, a provider of multi-currency debt management services. Claims for damages and/or an account of profits.
2015 to 2017 – Barnett Waddington Trustees (1980) Ltd v RBS litigation concerning embedded swaps and abuse of process ([2015] EWHC 2435 (Ch) and [2017] EWHC 834 (Ch)). Led by Mark Warwick KC. Successful.
2013 to 2014 – FCA v Micalizzi – Instructed by the FCA in relation to a massive hedge-fund fraud, resulting in the largest FCA penalty of its kind at the time.
Justina is ranked in Tier 1 (Crypto and Blockchain Assets) by Legal 500 and in Band 1 (Cryptoassets) by Chambers & Partners (Cryptoassets), and is known as one of the UK’s leading barristers specialising in digital assets.
She was shortlisted by Legal 500 as the Technology, Data and Crypto Junior of the Year in both 2023 and 2024.
Justina’s expertise ranges from digital assets to smart contracts and electronic trade documents. She is well known for her work in the crypto-fraud and regulatory spaces. Her work in the tech space is also a natural adjunct to her banking, financial services and company law practices.
Examples of instructions:
2022 to date – Huobi OTC DMCC v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd & anr – a claim relating to a crypto-fraud and concerning the obligations owed by an investment bank to a seller of bitcoin. The Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts refers to this as “one of the first cryptocurrency litigation disputes in the region and one of the few reported cases anywhere in the world which addresses issues such as the safe transfer of cryptocurrency … and the obligations owed by a custodian of cryptocurrency …”. Following 3-day appeal (led by Andrew Spink KC), succeeded in securing a re-trial.
2021 to 2024 – DIFC Authority – instructed to advise on and draft new laws of secured transactions and digital assets and consequential amendments to numerous other laws, which resulted in the enactments of the DIFC’s Digital Assets Law and (new) Law of Security. These laws are ground-breaking in the digital assets and smart contracts context.
2023 to 2024 – Ministry of [Confidential] – advising on the wholesale restructuring of state’s banking sector, including in relation to stablecoins. Led by David Russell KC.
2023 – Re: Aubit International – advising on the merits of claims by prospective liquidators in relation to the alleged fraud concerning Freeway (the crypto trading platform) and associated investments in Freeway’s “Supercharger” program (described as stablecoin crypto equivalents).
2021 to 2023 – DIFC Authority – wide-ranging advice on open finance/banking related issues, including regulatory and industry structure issues.
2022 – Chechetkin v Payward Ltd (aka Kraken) – advised litigation funder on merits of claims against Kraken under FSMA 2000, and Kraken’s jurisdiction challenge and challenge of the enforceability of a Californian arbitration award in favour of Payward on the ground of public policy.
2021 – Blockchain company – shareholder dispute concerning alleged misappropriation of significant funds.
From 2022 – Numerous cross-border, multi-jurisdictional claims, including some of the most high-profile crypto-fraud cases, e.g.:
Claims against Binance and Kraken arising from hacking of wallet leading to loss of c.1,400 bitcoin. Multi-jurisdiction proceedings – Singapore, Honk Kong, US (Circuit Court of State of Florida).
Claims against Nexo – for allegedly invalid margin calls, leading to liquidation of collateral assets.
Claims concerning the Terra ecosystem – advising on potential claims and viability of tracing methodology.
applications for freezing and disclosure orders as well as ancillary orders such as committal applications;
acting in trials involving allegations of fraud and dishonesty;
asset recovery and tracing claims;
recognition and enforcement of judgments.
The leading legal directories note her significant expertise in cryptocurrency fraud matters and that she is well versed in crypto cross-border disputes.
Her background in finance gives her a particular advantage when it comes to unravelling complex frauds.
Examples of instructions:
2022 to date – Huobi OTC DMCC v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd & anr – a claim relating to a crypto-fraud and concerning the obligations owed by an investment bank to a seller of bitcoin. The Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts refers to this as “one of the first cryptocurrency litigation disputes in the region and one of the few reported cases anywhere in the world which addresses issues such as the safe transfer of cryptocurrency … and the obligations owed by a custodian of cryptocurrency …”. Following 3-day appeal (led by Andrew Spink KC), succeeded in securing a re-trial.
2024 to date – Client confidential – significant claim (up to USD 1 bln) against, among others, a major Latin Amercan banking entity. Claims in fraud, conspiracy (among others). Led by Andrew Spink KC.
2023 to date – Hedge Fund v Various – instructed by a hedge fund to advise on the realisation of security over assets concerning a suite of security documentation and assets located in numerous jurisdictions, in the context of the borrower having been the subject of highly publicised findings of fraud and the consequences of these on title of assets, including artwork.
2022 to date – Holmes v Downing & ors – context is widely publicised alleged fraud involving Christopher Downing, Home Reit and various charities, with allegations of widespread bribery. This was first trial concerning issues relevant to the broader alleged fraud. Following 6 day trial, successful on behalf of claimant, a property agent, in relation to unpaid fees. Numerous interim applications, on which largely successful.
2023 to date – NMC Health Plc (in administration) & ors v [confidential] – claims against a former director of NMC Plc for recovery of payments to X, in the context of the well-known fraud. Involves novel issues of the application of knowing receipt in the context of ADGM law and payments involving both onshore UAE banks and banks in common law jurisdictions.
2023 to 2024 – Re: Ketteringham – advised personal representatives of deceased’s estate on options to recover significant sums that allegedly had been misappropriated by co-shareholder and director. Wide ranging advice provided on equitable winding up petition, s.994 petition, derivative action, exercising powers under Articles, etc. Settled.
2021 to 2024 – DIFC Authority – advised on bona fide purchase rules for a range of asset classes.
From 2022 – numerous cross-border, multi-jurisdictional claims, including some of the most high-profile crypto-fraud cases, e.g.:
Claims against Binance and Kraken arising from hacking of wallet leading to loss of c.1,400 bitcoin. Multi-jurisdiction proceedings – Singapore, Honk Kong, US (Circuit Court of State of Florida).
Claims against Nexo – for allegedly invalid margin calls, leading to liquidation of collateral assets.
Claims concerning the Terra ecosystem – advising on potential claims and viability of tracing methodology.
2021 to 2023 – Re: London Capital & Finance plc and London Oil & Gas Ltd – high-profile claim involving allegations against former directors of fraudulent trading, breach of duties owed as directors, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance.
2021 – Goldman Sachs International v J Garcia Carrion SA – counterclaim alleging fraud in the context of the sale by Goldman Sachs of exotic FX derivatives.
2021 – Cesfin Ventures LLC and anr v Ghaith Hamel Khadem Al Ghaith Al Qubaisi – application for a worldwide freezing order arising from attempts to enforce a final arbitration award in a New York seated ICC arbitration and a parallel claim in New York. Allegations of contempt.
2021 – Guangdong Shirong Zhaoye Co Ltd & anr v Leong – application for freezing orders, in the context of proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California alleging that the defendants were part of a conspiracy to misappropriate substantial funds and transfer these from China, by way of payments under sham contracts.
2021 to 2022 – X v Y (arbitration) – acted for Y (respondent). X alleged wide-ranging fraudulent misrepresentation by Y and breach of an introducer agreement. Concerned establishment of a family office for a prominent UAE family. Following receipt of a detailed Response to Request for Arbitration drafted by JS, X abandoned the arbitration.
2018 to 2019 – Re Drinks Enterprises Ltd (in CVL) – applications in relation to alleged £23 million MTIC fraud.
2018 to 2019 – Instasol LLC v EM Digital & ors – claim relating to Indian defence procurement contract of hundreds of millions of USD. Involved network of international companies, question of existence of joint venture and allegation of misrepresentation.
2018 to 2019 – AGT Ltd v La Fenice & another – claim relating to construction project in Abu Dhabi, allegations of bribery and illegality.
2017 – Re LME metals trading – claim in excess of £20m by fund of funds against investment manager and broker in relation to LME metals trading. Included allegations of conspiracy and dishonest assistance.
2013 to 2014 – FCA v Micalizzi – instructed by the FCA in relation to a massive hedge-fund fraud, resulting in the largest FCA penalty of its kind at the time.
Re: Natural Wealth Consultants Ltd, Proctor Capital Limited, Land Security Management Ltd – public interest petition, allegations of land banking in context of complicated network of companies.
See further Justina’s cases in the category “Insolvency & Restructuring”.
Justina is ranked as a Leading Junior in insolvency and has been described in legal directories as “great to use on difficult insolvency claims”.
Justina’s insolvency/restructuring practice spans all areas of corporate and personal insolvency. She is instructed by creditors, debtors, companies and office-holders, and is particularly experienced in antecedent transactions.
Her appointment to the Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown involved frequent instruction by HMRC, the Secretary of State and the Insolvency Service on insolvency-related matters.
2023 to date – Hedge Fund v Various – instructed by a hedge fund to advise on the realisation of security over assets concerning a suite of security documentation and assets located in numerous jurisdictions, in the context of the borrower having been the subject of highly publicised findings of fraud and the consequences of these on title of assets, including artwork and the borrower’s bankruptcy.
2023 to date – Various v Liquidators – instructed by joint liquidators in connection with the enforceability of a litigation funding agreement, its interpretation in relation to tax liability, potential liability for breach of duty in connection with entry into the agreement and distribution of proceeds of settlement.
2024 – Trustee in bankruptcy client – claims against trustee in negligence relating to the sale of property allegedly for multi mln £ less than it ought to have been (application under s.304 of the Insolvency Act 1986).
2023 – Re: Aubit International – advising on the merits of claims by prospective liquidators in relation to the alleged fraud concerning Freeway (the crypto trading platform) and associated investments in Freeway’s “Supercharger” program (described as stablecoin crypto equivalents).
2021 to 2024 – DIFC Authority – advising on legislative reform in relation to insolvency laws in the digital assets context. Included advising on conditions under which a digital asset could be “money” or “currency” and the treatment of digital assets held on trust on an unallocated commingled basis.
2021 to 2023 – Re: London Capital & Finance plc and London Oil & Gas Ltd – high-profile claim by administrators involving allegations against former directors of fraudulent trading, breach of duties owed as directors, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance.
2021 – Re Axell Wireless – claims by joint administrators for c.£20m for breach of directors’ duties and under s.238 Insolvency Act 1986, arising from an alleged waiver given by a company in relation to significant obligations owed under a loan agreement.
2021 to 2022 – Re Cartwright Holdings Ltd – claims by joint liquidators and administrators for c.£30mln, for wrongful and fraudulent trading and breach of directors’ duties.
2019 to 2021 – Clark v Finneran – a claim by a trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to ss.284, 339, 340 and 423 Insolvency Act 1986, and further involving offshore family trust and allegations of sham declarations of trusts.
2021 – Blockchain company – advising a shareholder and director of a blockchain company in relation to an alleged sham loan agreement and inflated company valuation facilitating an unlawful distribution and rendering the company insolvent.
2019 – Lender client – advising on whether a lender was entitled to rely on subrogation in order to appoint LPA receiver and if so, how the proceeds of sale should be distributed.
2018to 2019 – Re Drinks Enterprises Ltd (in CVL) – applications in relation to alleged £23 million MTIC fraud.
2018 to 2019 – Re: Railbookers – claim by liquidators against director for c.£8m, for alleged wrongful trading, breaches of directors’ duties, preferential payments (s.212, 214, 239 Insolvency Act 1986).
2017 to 2019 – Liquidator client – claim against former director and shareholder pursuant to s.216-7 Insolvency Act 1986 (prohibited names/phoenix companies), in context of potential criminal liability under s.393 and s.414 CA 2006.
2017 – Re Grabal Alok (UK) Ltd t/a Store Twenty One (in liquidation) – acted for the liquidators following the high profile demise of a retail chain.
2015 – Centenary 6 Ltd v (1) Caven (2) Mawer (Joint Liquidators of Centenary Holdings III Ltd (in liquidation) – application for payment of over £22m by liquidators.
2013 – Bilta UK Ltd (in liquidation) & ors v (1) RBS plc (2) Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Ltd – an offshoot of the important Bilta v Jetivia litigation.
Justina has extensive experience in:
shareholder disputes (unfair prejudice petitions, just and equitable winding up petitions, derivative actions);
boardroom disputes;
directors’ rights and duties;
partnerships and LLPs
directors’ disqualifications;
non-contentious work (e.g. reductions of share capital, cross border mergers, schemes of arrangement, share transactions and takeovers, and share schemes).
Examples of instructions:
2024 – Various investors – significant derivative action under Bermudan law.
2021 to 2023 – Re: London Capital & Finance plc and London Oil & Gas Ltd – high-profile claim by administrators involving allegations against former directors of fraudulent trading, breach of duties owed as directors, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance.
2021 – Re Axell Wireless – claims by joint administrators for c.£20m for breach of directors’ duties and under s.238 Insolvency Act 1986, arising from an alleged waiver given by a company in relation to significant obligations owed under a loan agreement.
2021 to 2022 – Re Cartwright Holdings Ltd – claims by joint liquidators and administrators for c.£30mln, for wrongful and fraudulent trading and breach of directors’ duties.
2021 to 2022 – Re:UHNI individuals& a company – Claim for over £700m involving allegations of breach of duties owed as de facto/shadow director and fiduciary duties owed pursuant to a partnership agreement.
2021 to 2022 – Arbitration – claim for over US$60mln arising from alleged breaches of a partnership agreement relating to the establishment of a family office.
2021 – Blockchain company – advising a shareholder and director of a blockchain company in relation to an alleged sham loan agreement and inflated company valuation facilitating an unlawful distribution, contrary to Companies Act 2006.
Michel v Michel – a significant shareholder dispute resulting in the award of indemnity costs for Justina’s clients.
Numerous directors’ disqualification cases – instructed by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy;
2019 – Project X – advising a private equity investor on a potential purchase of shares in a holding company and specifically on whether steps taken in relation to a complex reorganisation of the group were effective, whether dividends were lawful and what steps should be taken to protect the client’s position in event of purchase.
2016 to 2017 – T v V (arbitration) – instructed by former partner of accountancy partnership. Allegations of unlawful expulsion from partnership, breach of equitable duties, misrepresentation and non est factum. LCIA Arbitration Rules.
2018 to 2019 – Re: Railbookers – claim by liquidators against director for ca.£8m, for alleged wrongful trading, breaches of directors’ duties, preferential payments (s.212, 214, 239 Insolvency Act 1986).
2017to 2019 – Liquidator client – claim against former director and shareholder pursuant to s.216-7 Insolvency Act 1986 (prohibited names/phoenix companies), in context of potential criminal liability under s.393 and s.414 CA 2006.
2018 to 2019 – Re: Railbookers – claim by liquidators against director for c.£8m, for alleged wrongful trading, breaches of directors’ duties, preferential payments (s.212, 214, 239 Insolvency Act 1986).
X v Y (arbitration) – instructed by X, a solicitor, to recover sums due under a partnership agreement upon X’s exit from the partnership. LCIA Arbitration Rules.
Justina has wide experience in Professional Negligence cases, including in relation to solicitors, accountants, financial services advisers and managers, insolvency practitioners, and valuers.
Examples of instructions:
2023 to date – Various v Liquidators – instructed by liquidator in connection with the enforceability of a litigation funding agreement, its interpretation in relation to tax liability, potential liability for breach of duty in connection with entry into the agreement and distribution of proceeds of settlement.
2024 – Trustee in bankruptcy client – claims against trustee of negligence relating to the sale of property allegedly for multi mln £ less than it ought to have been (s.304 IA application).
2018 to 2024 – Tax mitigation schemes – various cases involving allegations of negligence against accountants and solicitors concerning tax mitigation schemes (e.g. GSOPs, EFRBSs).
2019 to 2023 – Taylor & ors v Shoosmiths LLP & ors – claim by beneficiaries and PRs of deceased’s estate against a solicitor (appointed attorney under EPA Act 1985) and firms of solicitors, for ca.£4 mln in relation to an investment of £9ln m in single premium life insurance offshore bonds. Settled.
2022 – Client v Several major law firms – c.£60 mln claim arising out of the allegedly negligent drafting of standard form documents – from guarantees to security over cash, securities and real estate. Led by Nick Stallworthy KC.
2018 to 2019 – Flanagan v Lincoln-Lewis & anr – claim against executor of an estate. Settled.
2017 – Shepherd v Byrne & Partners LLP – claim against a firm of solicitors for tax advice on disclosure to HMRC of undeclared offshore income. Successful (led by Hugh Jackson).
Lucas v Notable Services LLP – claim in excess of £3.5m against solicitors for alleged losses arising from alleged breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the SRA Account Rules 2011 and breach of duty owed to in making statements relating to the same.
In line with the nature of her practice areas, Justina is regularly instructed in relation to applications for interim injunctions, freezing orders and disclosure orders, as well as ancillary orders such as commital applications for non-compliance.
Justina is ranked as a Leading Junior in Commercial Dispute Resolution (Chambers & Partners, UK Bar & Global), and Commercial Litigation (Legal 500, UK Bar & Middle East).
Examples of her instructions can be found on her CV, categorised within the following specialisms:
Banking & Financial Services;
Fintech & Digital Assets;
Civil Fraud & Asset Recovery;
Insolvency & Restructuring;
Company, Joint Venture & Partnership;
Professional Negligence.
Justina can act under a variety of institutional arbitration rules and in a variety of seats and is also experienced in arbitration-related court applications and hearings.
Examples:
Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV plc and (2) Schwab Holding AG v The Kingdom of Spain – following application, at which Operafund and Schwab were represented by Lucian Ilie, Justina represented the applicants at a complex consequentials hearing. Issues were particularly complex due to the (then) forthcoming Court of Appeal decision in Infrastructure Services SÀRL & Anor v Kingdom of Spain, which Fraser J considered would involve issues overlapping with the Operafund matter.
A v B, A v C – multi-mln USD claims by company specialising in sports wagering, using proprietary trading models. LCIA Arbitration Rules.
X v Y – acted for Y. X alleged wide-ranging fraudulent misrepresentation by Y and breach of an introducer agreement. Concerned establishment of a family office for a prominent UAE family. Following receipt of a detailed Response to Request for Arbitration drafted by Justina, X abandoned the arbitrate(on. LCIA Arbitration Rules.
X v Y – instructed by X, a solicitor, to recover sums due under a partnership agreement upon X’s exit from the partnership. LCIA Arbitration Rules.
T v V – instructed by former partner of accountancy partnership. Allegations of unlawful expulsion from partnership, breach of equitable duties, misrepresentation and non est LCIA Arbitration Rules. Included application to remove arbitrator pursuant to s.24 Arbitration Act 1996. Popplewell J commented on Justina’s “very able submissions”.
Justina Stewart is regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and holds a current practising certificate. If you are not satisfied with the service provided, please click here.
"Justina is a good clear drafter."; "She is fantastic on all things crypto."; "Justina is one of the leading juniors in this area."
Cryptoassets, Chambers & Partners 2025
"Justina is very good on disputes with underlying banking issues."; "Justina is super-bright and on top of every fact and detail."; "Justina gives very robust advice and is very proactive."
"She is all at once charming with a no-nonsense, to-the-point laser focus on the issues at the heart of the matter."; "Justina reached the heart of the matter quickly, and applied context above and beyond basic legal opinion."; "We have been extremely grateful for her knowledge, wisdom, approach and availability."; "Justina is responsive, commercial and thorough."
Banking & Finance, Chambers & Partners 2025
‘Has a keen eye for detail and is very pragmatic and commercial. She spots problems but also has the solution on hand. Due her to direct nature she is well liked by big lender clients.’
Insolvency, Legal 500 2025
'A go to on technical points of regulation on banking disputes. Will methodically work through reams of difficult legislation to arrive at clearly presented practical advice. She has a good tactical nous.'
Financial Services and Fintech Regulation, Legal 500 2025
‘Clarity of thought and ability to grasp and present complex matters in a judge-friendly manner.’
Crypto and Blockchain Assets, Legal 500 2025
‘Justina is truly excellent in all respects - oral advice, service ethos, and written and oral advocacy. Surely destined for silk.'
Commercial Litigation, Legal 500 2025
‘She has a background in financial services and is really and truly excellent in all respects, oral advice, service ethos, written and oral advocacy. Surely destined for silk within the next year or two.’
Banking and finance, Legal 500 2025
"Strong intellectual capabilities which translate well into pragmatic and commercial advice. She demonstrates a dexterity not often seen in barristers."
Middle East: The English Bar, Commercial, Legal 500 EMEA 2024
"Justina combines vast investment banking experience with top notch advocacy skills. Empathetic and easy to work with, she gets up to speed very quickly."; "Justina has an excellent eye for detail and always thinks outside the box."; "Justina provides straight and robust advice."
"Justina produces very good written product and assured advocacy."; "Justina Stewart knows the technical side of things and is also robust in her advice."; "She's really bright, gets to the nub of the problem really quickly and is not shy about giving advice on what to do next."
Banking & Finance, Chambers & Partners 2024
"She is excellent, very knowledgeable with a real interest in the area. A good communicator as well."; "A leading crypto barrister in the UK."
Cryptoassets, Chambers & Partners 2024
'Justina is extremely bright, responsive and a punchy advocate. She is excellent at forming a view on complex cases and is great at framing her arguments to they can be grasped by clients and the court alike. A real team player and a pleasure to work with.
Middle East- Commercial, Legal 500, 2024
‘Justina delivers exceptional advice in a no-nonsense, pragmatic and digestible way. She is passionate about the work that she does, the law and advocating for her clients.’
Insolvency, Legal 500, 2024
‘Justina is a formidable advocate, whose oral and written advocacy are top notch.’
Commercial Litigation, Legal 500, 2024
'Very knowledgeable, clear understanding of client needs, proactive in moving difficult issues forward.'
Banking & Finance, Legal 500, 2024
“Justina is personable, responsive and someone with a forensic attention to detail.”
Commercial Dispute Resolution, Chambers and Partners 2023
“She is an expert on financial and banking matters, and gives very clear and succinct advice.”
Commercial Dispute Resolution, Chambers and Partners 2023
“Justina displays an impressive ability to grasp the technical details of a case.”
Cryptoassets, Chambers and Partners 2023
“Justina is very responsive and helpful.”
Cryptoassets, Chambers and Partners 2023
"Justina is a hard-hitting litigator. She is able to parachute into a dispute and turn it 180 degrees in favour of her clients."
Middle East - Commercial, Legal 500 2023
"Justina is a strong insolvency lawyer who has the benefit of a non-insolvency background and so can bring a different perspective to cases."
Insolvency, Legal 500 2023
"Justina has a laser like focus on the important issues in any case and is able to whittle away the inevitable fluff, which is often important to the client but clouds the main issues, in a way that is pragmatic and tactful leaving the client feeling they are in safe hands."
Commercial Litigation, Legal 500 2023
"Extremely user friendly, technically strong and commercial astute. Particularly strong in banking due to her career as a former banker. One of thgo to senior juniors for banking work. Also a persuasive advocate and good for difficult cases."
Banking and Finance, Legal 500 2023
"A true expert in the financial regulation space. She is also extremely user friendly and attacks difficult cases with relish, whilst giving sensible and measured advice"
Financial Services Regulation, Legal 500 2023
“Justina is a hard-hitting litigator. She is able to parachute into a dispute and turn it 180 degrees in favour of her clients”.
Legal 500 Middle East
“Justina is a phenomenal addition to any team when you have claims against banks, given her outstanding legal acumen and previous career as an investment banker”.
Chambers Global & Chambers UK Bar 2022
"Phenomenally bright, commercial in a way that most barristers would not dare, and an absolute delight to work with, there is no on the fence with Justina there is an opinion and an answer, usually in very short order"
Commercial Litigation, Legal 500 2022
"Impressive. She is thoughtful and considered, her advice is measured and she comes with bright ideas."
Insolvency, Legal 500 2022
"Brilliant for banking litigation with a background in finance before being called to the bar. She is exactly who you want in the corner when you have a case with tricky technical banking aspects."
Banking and Finance, Legal 500 2022
"No matter how stressful the situation, Justina has a way of calming matters so that the focus is always on the issues at hand. Her grasp of financial markets matters, aided by her first-hand experience of working in an investment bank, is hugely helpful in getting to the kernel of the matter."
Financial Services Regulation, Legal 500 2022
"Extremely bright, enthusiastic and commercial & she produces excellent written work and is able to both empathise with clients whilst providing well considered independent advice."
Commercial Litigation, Legal 500 2021
"Strong, dynamic and commercial. Shes a force and great to use on difficult insolvency claims."
Insolvency, Legal 500 2021
"A highly intelligent and tenacious litigator, she is also far more financially literate than most barristers."
Banking and Finance, Legal 500 2020
"Incredibly impressive and a force to be reckoned with."
Insolvency, Legal 500 2020
"A pleasure to work with. She has a great grasp of the detail and strikes a good commercial and pragmatic balance in her advice… the fine details and the quality of her work make her a real asset to any team."
Commercial Dispute Resolution, Chambers and Partners 2021
"Justina is brilliant. She is sensible, calm and organised as well as being really personable and a fantastic communicator."
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “ACCEPT ALL”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_GRECAPTCHA
5 months 27 days
This cookie is set by the Google recaptcha service to identify bots to protect the website against malicious spam attacks.
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement
1 year
Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie is used to record the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category .
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat
1 minute
This cookie is installed by Google Universal Analytics to restrain request rate and thus limit the collection of data on high traffic sites.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_gid
1 day
Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.
CONSENT
16 years 3 months 8 days 13 hours 10 minutes
YouTube sets this cookie via embedded youtube-videos and registers anonymous statistical data.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Cookie
Duration
Description
IDE
1 year 24 days
Google DoubleClick IDE cookies are used to store information about how the user uses the website to present them with relevant ads and according to the user profile.
test_cookie
15 minutes
The test_cookie is set by doubleclick.net and is used to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE
5 months 27 days
A cookie set by YouTube to measure bandwidth that determines whether the user gets the new or old player interface.
YSC
session
YSC cookie is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos on Youtube pages.
yt-remote-connected-devices
never
YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt-remote-device-id
never
YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
Justina Stewart is regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and holds a current practising certificate. If you are not satisfied with the service provided, please click here.
