International Commercial Litigation

Kuwaiti Oil Tanker Company v Q, A and others – Instructed on behalf of a state owned oil company in a dispute arising out of a US$130million fraud. Appeared as junior counsel in one aspect of  the case in the House of Lords- reported at (2004) 1 AC 300 : (2003) 3 WLR 14 : (2003) 3 All ER 501 appeared and advised in various related proceedings including various international enforcement applications.

Svenska v Government of Lithuania and Others – Instructed by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania to defend enforcement proceedings of an ICC arbitration award to the value of US$15million. The case arose from a dispute involving a Joint Venture oil exploration agreement entered into at the time of Lithuanian independence. Part of an international team of lawyers working on parallel enforcement proceedings in England, Lithuania and Germany. Appeared as junior counsel in the English Commercial Court and Court of Appeal hearings and drafted the relevant submissions which were extensive and involved both English and international jurisprudence. Reported both at first instance  [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep page 181 and  in the Court of Appeal [2006]. EWCA Civ 1529, (2007) 2 WLR 876,: (2007) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 193 : (2006) 2 CLC 797, (2007) QB 886, Times 17/11/ 2006,  Independent, 16/11/ 2006.

Barclays Bank Plc v Shetty (DIFC) – Claim for over USD 130 mln against a guarantor for alleged default under ISDA Master Agreement in relation to FX trades.

Fal Oil v Sewa (DIFC Court 2021) – Successfully represented an international energy company in DIFC Court proceedings enforcing a non DIFC judgment valued at over US$300 million. Contested enforcement proceedings involving issues of international jurisdiction and state immunity.

DIFC Court of Appeal in Lakhan v Lamia [2021] CA 001 – Dispute on jurisdiction of the Joint Judicial Committee (“JJC”) in an attempt to obstruct proceedings before the DIFC Courts, arising from contractor engaged with a third party subcontractor for the supply and installation of swimming pools and landscaping works in a prominent hotel development

Appearing before the DIFC Courts on behalf of a client subjected to a freezing order in a $30+ million civil fraud dispute, raising novel questions on the application of “reflective loss” principles in the jurisdiction

Enforcement of a judgment for circa US500m and successful in contested proceedings, matters of private international law and one of the few cases on state immunity in the DIFC Court.

Commodities/fraud concerning the ownership of US30m worth of low sulphur oil. Litigation against 3 swiss banks in DIFC. DIFC Arbitration proceedings against the terminal owner. Successful in the arbitration (online hearing). Successfully achieved 2 world-wide freezing order. Negotiated settlement with the banks after successfully overcoming a jurisdictional objection (which was resolved by the Union Supreme Court).

Instructed by a syndicate of 8 international banks to recover a debt of USD300m against 18 defendants, principal borrower, personal and corporate guarantors. Complicated jurisdictional objections involving parallel proceedings in Dubai.

Childescu v Gheorghiu and ors [2019] DIFC CFI 074 and [2020] CFI 032 (DIFC) which is a dispute arising from a $30+ million civil fraud dispute. The dispute raises novel issues of the application of principles of “reflective loss” in the DIFC Courts (led by Tom Montagu-Smith KC)

Erik Rubinghv Veloqx RSC [2020] ADGMCFI 0006[1] (ADGM) which is an employment dispute in which a judgment for $1 million was obtained, case raised novel issues in respect of the ADGM’s enforcement procedures that have previously been untested

Claim before the DIFC Courts by a business against a bank for negligence and breach of contract, in relation to a number of fraudulent transactions that it processed

Swiss Timing vs Organising Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010, Delhi.  Represented Swiss Timing as lead counsel. The Supreme Court in a landmark decision settled the question of whether an allegation of fraud is “arbitrable”.

Pricol Limited vs. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. & Ors represented Johnson Controls as lead counsel. The Supreme Court addressed a pathological arbitration clause and referred the parties to arbitration by virtually re-drafting the clause. This decision reflects a pro-arbitration approach of the Supreme Court of India since the 2012 decision in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.

“He always finds the right argument, and the right way to deliver it, he also knows when to step in and fits in very well to a client team.” Legal 500; Commercial Litigation (Andrew Spink KC)

“A phenomenal worker who is incredibly intelligent … He is all over every tiny detail.” “He is a truly excellent practitioner and a brilliant team player.” Chambers & Partners; Chancery Commercial (Nicolas Stallworthy KC)

“.. calm and sensible with a loyal client following. He has very good commercial judgement and is easy to work with.” Chambers & Partners; Chancery Commercial (David E Grant KC)

“Extremely bright, enthusiastic and commercial – she produces excellent written work and is able to both empathise with clients whilst providing well considered independent advice.” Legal 500; Commercial Litigation (Justina Stewart)

“A pleasure to work with. She has a great grasp of the detail and strikes a good commercial and pragmatic balance in her advice.” “Her grasp of the fine details and the quality of her work make her a real asset to any team.” Chambers & Partners; Commercial Dispute Resolution (Justina Stewart)