View Short CV

Practice Summary

Tony de Garr Robinson's practice covers a diverse range of disciplines. Described by Chambers and Partners as ‘rapidly becoming one of the leading commercial silks of his generation’ and by the Legal 500 as ‘an outstanding advocate with impeccable judgment and a tremendous work ethic', he undertakes substantial High Court and appellate proceedings, offshore litigation, international arbitration and advisory work. He has acted as an English law expert in foreign proceedings and he sits as an arbitrator.

Educated at Oxford (where he was an Open Scholar and a Gibbs Prize winner) and Harvard (where he was a Kennedy Scholar), he is identified as a leading practitioner in many fields. He is recommended in both Chambers UK and The Legal 500 in Banking & Finance; Chancery/Commercial; Commercial Dispute Resolution; Company; Fraud/Civil and Restructuring/Insolvency.

As can be seen from his full CV, the range of disciplines he covers is unusually diverse. For example:

  • He undertakes all forms of banking and banking-related litigation, including LIBOR-related claims, investment advisory claims and regulatory claims. He has experience of CDO and other asset-backed security transactions, structured investments and derivatives and he is familiar with fund management and hedge fund business structures and also with private banking relationships.
  • He has acted in innumerable shareholder disputes, section 994 petitions and derivative actions. He is often involved in company claims against directors and other fiduciaries and in corporate joint venture disputes. He frequently advises on and acts in disputes relating to large and complex corporate transactions.
  • He has experience of a wide range of commercial transactions, including for example CDO transactions, commercial leasing transactions, corporate acquisitions, derivatives, financing transactions, fund management contracts, software and other IT licences (including FRAND licences), mobile virtual network operator contracts, PFI transactions and securitisations.
  • He has undertaken many cases involving the misuse of commercially valuable confidential information and personal privacy.
  • He has acted in countless fraud and conspiracy cases, and has huge experience of the forms of damages, restitutionary and proprietary claims to which such cases can give rise, including tracing claims made by way of ancillary proceedings in other countries.
  • He has long experience of all forms of insolvency proceedings.
  • He frequently acts in joint venture and partnership cases, often involving fiduciary claims.
  • He has substantial experience of multinational litigation and arbitration, including claims governed by foreign laws. He has acted in many jurisdictional disputes and forum challenges and he regularly deals with conflicts issues and cases involving expert evidence of foreign law,
  • Equally at home in the Commercial Court and the Chancery Division, he often acts in offshore cases. Over the years, he has been admitted as a member of the Bar in the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands. He is currently registered as a foreign lawyer to practise in Singapore and appear before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and as an advocate in the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (DIFC).

He has been ranked in Chambers and Partners and in the Legal 500 for over 20 years and certain themes can be discerned from the comments made about him during that time. These include his determination to understand all aspects of a case rather than just the big picture, making it possible to spot solutions (and problems) which others might miss; his aptitude for thinking creatively about the law to achieve practical solutions, taking concepts from one field and applying them to others; his ability to express complex points in a simple and attractive way; his faculty for communicating with clients and understanding their concerns and objectives, and his strategic approach to dispute resolution. He enjoys working as part of a team and he likes examining witnesses (his longest ever cross examination took the best part of a month).

Some examples of recent comments about him:

"Very clever and brilliant on paper - his written work is top-notch." "He has an outstandingly forensic mind and is academically one of the best lawyers out there." (Chambers & Partners 2020 - Banking & Finance)

"Extremely responsive and someone who offers the most practical legal advice." (Chambers & Partners 2020 - Company)

"He remains a go-to silk for banking and commercial matters. He's fantastic - hard-working, incredibly intelligent, and a great team player with excellent judgement. He's never been known to put in a bad performance. He's a thoroughly nice human being." (Chambers & Partners 2020 - Chancery)

"He's very charming, which can be dangerous for the opposition." "He doesn't lose the judge, even with a mountain of detail, as he picks and selects the right points that demonstrate where the merits of a case lie." (Chambers & Partners 2020 - Civil Fraud)

"Tony has shown great skill in getting to grips with complex accounting issues, and he's a good team player." (Chambers & Partners 2020 - Commercial Dispute Resolution) 

"Outstanding – a leading advocate in the area of banking litigation." (Legal 500 2019 - Banking & Finance) 

"He is an outstanding company silk." (Legal 500 2019 - Company)

"The advocate I would most like to have in the trenches next to me on the most demanding matters." (Legal 500 2019 - Civil Fraud)

"His legal expertise, eloquence and diligence stand out, and the quality of his work is simply superb." "Has a keen eye for detail, and is great at finding the pressure points." "A popular silk with a broad practice that includes banking, shareholder disputes, insolvency and partnership matters. He is an excellent litigator who takes a cerebral approach to legal problems. works incredibly hard, and because he does a wide range of work he's really good at taking concepts from one area and applying them to others. He's just a superb litigator, and charming with it." (Chambers and Partners 2018 - Commercial Dispute Resolution)

"An outstanding advocate; incredibly intelligent, extremely hardworking and has fantastic judgment." Legal 500 - Banking & Finance

"Excellent for Company Law" - Legal 500 - Company

"Agreat all-rounder, he has fabulous amounts of energy and a willingness to get immersed in the detail." - Legal 500 Fraud: Civil

"Very hard-working and approachable, he's a deft advocate who employs just the right amount of humour and intellectual firepower." "He is very meticulous and has a real mastery of detail." (Chambers and Partners 2018 - Banking and Finance) 

"Great advocate who has an excellent bedside manner with clients." "Fantastic. Unbelievably clever and super charming." (Chambers and Partners 2018 - Fraud: Civil)

 "He combines a tremendous work ethic with immensely good client-handling skills." (Chambers and Partners 2018 - Company) 

'He has shown great skill in getting to grips with complex accounting issues and is a good team player.' 'He's extremely bright and good on his feet.' (Chambers and Partners 2017 - Commercial Dispute Resolution)

'Anthony delivers advice that is tangible and practical and is incredibly user-friendly.' 'He is very technically gifted and very hard-working.' (Chambers and Partners 2017 - Banking and Finance)

'He is a great advocate who has an excellent bedside manner with clients.' 'He's impressive and thorough.' (Chambers and Partners 2017 - Civil Fraud)

'An incisive advocate with a brilliant mind.' (Chambers and Partners 2017 - Company)

'He is incredibly bright and a master strategist' (Chambers Global 2016)

‘He's the complete package in the sense that he has tremendous gravitas with the court, fantastic analytical abilities and top-notch client-handling skills’. ‘His cross examination is phenomenal. He draws out the story persuasively but, equally, gets the evidence out of the witness' (Chambers UK 2016)

'The real deal; an outstanding advocate with impeccable judgment and a tremendous work ethic' (Legal 500 2016)

‘As good as they come’. 'He's rapidly becoming one of the leading commercial silks of his generation; he always has the ear of the court and is extremely user-friendly' (Chambers UK 2015)

'Extremely incisive and insightful' (Legal 500 2015)

'He combines formidable intelligence with unbelievable industry and endless charm to turn in brilliant performances’ (Chambers Global 2014)

'Intelligent and charismatic. He reassures clients that every angle has been covered. He's brilliant on litigation tactics and blends commercial simplicity with detailed legal analysis to form a potent approach to any case' (Chambers UK 2014)

[He] is noted for 'his fantastic ability to handle clients'. Possessed of a 'winning courtroom style', he is a man whose 'unassuming manner belies a formidable intellect', and someone who is 'amongst the most tactically astute lawyers' at the Commercial Bar' (Chambers UK 2013)

Some notable recent cases:

Novatrust Ltd v Kea Investments Ltd (2016) He acted for the claimant in an appeal from the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of its claims regarding a £130 million joint venture. Amongst other things, the appeal raised fundamental questions regarding the nature of derivative proceedings, the jurisdiction of the English court to authorise a shareholder to bring such proceedings on behalf of a BVI company and the jurisdiction of the court to grant declarations. The defendant agreed terms for the appeal to be allowed.

RP Explorer Master Fund v Sanjay Malhotra (2015) He acted for a bank in a US$77m conspiracy claim relating to the issue of Global Depositary Receipts on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. The claimants alleged that the bank had facilitated a conspiracy to obtain US$200m from institutional investors by means of various deceits regarding what was alleged to be a fictitious project to acquire and construct an oil refinery in India.

MDNX Group Ltd v Richard Cunningham (2015) He acted in a £10m claim by the buyers of an IT company for breach of warranty by the sellers of that company. The case involved complex issues of contractual construction, accounting and valuation.

Myriad Group AG v Oracle America Inc (2014) He spent much of 2014 acting in a $120m-plus dispute about Oracle America’s open access licensing regime for Java software. The dispute had commenced with litigation in California and Delaware but ultimately resulted in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London, where he was lead counsel for Oracle.

Geoffrey Logue and Another v Project Grande (Guernsey) Ltd (2013) He acted for the Candy brothers and their associated companies in a £12m conspiracy claim relating to the One Hyde Park development. The unlawful means alleged included breach of confidence, the tort of abuse of process and unlawful interference. The defendants hotly disputed both liability and quantum.

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp v Recoletos Ltd [2014) 1 BCLC 581; [2013] 4 All ER 157 & [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 295 (Court of Appeal) and [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 365 (Teare J) Acting for a defendant in a £100m shipping fraud claim, he successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court after a 5-day hearing, on the basis that it is not possible to establish jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation by piercing the corporate veil. The claimants appealed, effectively arguing that the corporate veil should be pierced under European law. The appeal was dismissed, as was the claimants' application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

EXAMPLES OF RECENT CASES

  • Arbitration

    Add to Portfolio

    ‘He is one of the best barristers I have seen, and is very clear-minded. He loves thinking about the result and the strategy of the case’. (Chambers UK 2014, International Arbitration)

    '[He] serves as both counsel and arbitrator. He is commended by sources for his approachable manner, and praised as an 'exceptional advocate and draftsman’. (Chambers UK 2013, International Arbitration)

    [He] 'really comes to the fore as a master tactician’. (Chambers UK 2012, International Arbitration)

    He frequently acts as counsel in international arbitrations and sits as an arbitrator. He also has experience of enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention.

    Relevant cases over the past few years include:-

    He is currently acting in an ICC arbitration whose seat is in Germany. The arbitration involves German law claims for willful deceit, culpa in contrahendo, breach of contract and restitution (there are no issues of English law). The amounts at stake exceed $150 million.

    He acted for Oracle America in a $120m-plus UNCITRAL arbitration relating to Oracle’s FRAND licensing regime for Java software. The dispute had commenced with litigation in California and Delaware but ultimately resulted in arbitration in London, where he was lead counsel for Oracle.

    He acted for a major investment fund in an ICC arbitration of a claim for breach of a non-competition agreement entered into as part of a substantial investment in Turkey.

    He acted for the claimants in an LCIA arbitration of a £100m claim for serious breaches of a joint venture arrangement regarding a large bank in a former Eastern Bloc country which was alleged to have resulted in a huge (and involuntary) dilution of the bank's majority shareholders.

    He acted for an AIM-listed investment fund in an LCIA arbitration of a claim for damages against the Fund's former investment manager for serious breaches of the contractual and fiduciary duties it owed to the Fund. The Fund's claim was hotly disputed, and the manager counterclaimed for more than £112m in damages for wrongful termination of its appointment as investment manager and also for a substantial profit share/carried interest payment alleged to be due under the manager’s investment management agreement.

    He acted for the claimant in an UNCITRAL arbitration of a claim relating to the financial and indemnity provisions contained in a series of transponder leases pursuant to which transponders in satellites were used for television broadcast across Asia.

  • Banking and Financial Services

    Add to Portfolio

    ‘An outstanding advocate; incredibly intelligent, extremely hardworking and has fantastic judgement.’ Legal 500

    "Very hard-working and approachable, he's a deft advocate who employs just the right amount of humour and intellectual firepower." "He is very meticulous and has a real mastery of detail." (Chambers and Partners 2018 - Banking and Finance) 

    ''Anthony delivers advice that is tangible and practical and is incredibly usr-friendly.' 'He is very technically gifted and very hard-working.' (Chambers and Partners 2017 - Banking and Finance)

    'He is the real deal. An outstanding advocate with impeccable judgement. Add in a tremendous work ethic and fantastic client handling skills and you have the complete package'. 'A very hard working and approachable lawyer, who provides deft advocacy with just the right touch of humour and intellectual firepower'. (Chambers UK 2016, Banking & Finance)

    'Particularly recommended for complex fraud-related banking disputes’. (Legal 500 2015, Banking and Finance)

    [He] stands out as an 'incredibly persuasive advocate' who demonstrates 'a great facility for finding winning points'. Sources add: 'He is able to pick a path through tricky jurisprudence to create a credible and convincing legal argument. (Chambers UK 2012, Banking & Finance)

    [A] lawyer with 'a great knowledge of complex banking products and structures’. (Chambers UK 2011, Banking & Finance)

    He undertakes all forms of banking and banking-related litigation, including LIBOR-related claims, investment advisory claims and regulatory claims. He has experience of CDO and other asset-backed security transactions, structured investments and derivatives and he is familiar with fund management and hedge fund business structures and also with private banking relationships.

    Relevant cases over the past few years include:-

    He is currently acting in a claim by 84 investors who invested in certain funds via life assurance wrappers provided by a well-known insurance company based offshore. He acts for the insurance company, which is alleged to be subject and to have breached various regulatory provisions contained in COBs and various implied terms in the investors’ policies regarding the selection and supervision of the funds in which they invested.

    RP Explorer Master Fund v Sanjay Malhotra and others In 2015, he acted for a Portuguese bank in a US$77m conspiracy claim relating to the issue on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange of Global Depositary Receipts. In the course of these proceedings, he obtained an order from the English court authorising his client to use and disclose information and documents that are subject to strict obligations of Portuguese banking secrecy. This order was unprecedented as a matter of English law.

    In 2013 and 2014, he acted for a major bank in a £300m claim against a group of companies which had borrowed from and entered into a substantial interest swap with the bank, on the security of various portfolios of ground rent assets. In an attempt to prevent enforcement, the defendants made some serious allegations against the Bank, including allegations of LIBOR rigging and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. He assisted the Bank in providing a robust and comprehensive response to these allegations and achieving a settlement on confidential terms.

    In 2013, he advised a large financial institution on a multi-million-pound claim arising from its sale of a banking group based in England. The purchaser asserted a claim under a contractual indemnity given in relation to various PPI-related liabilities of the target banking group. The claim raised issues regarding the scope and operation of the indemnity and required a detailed understanding of the regulatory regime regarding the sale of PPI, of the various PPI complaints handling time bars since 2008, and of how the FSA's/FCA's practices have changed during that period. His advice assisted his client in achieving a favourable settlement.

    Sir Keith Mills v Coutts & Co (Asplin J) In 2012, he acted for Coutts in the much-publicised claim brought by Sir Keith (now Lord) Mills in relation to advice he was given to invest £65m in an AIG bond in December 2007.

    Aberdeen Global (Luxembourg) v Satyam Computer Services Limited (Gloster J) In 2012, he acted for the Aberdeen Asset Management Group in a $150m claim against Satyam Computer Services Limited, the well-known Indian software services company now called Mahindra Satyam. In 2009, it was discovered that the company had overstated its accounts by over $1bn (the ensuing public scandal became known as "India's Enron"). Having invested substantial amounts in Satyam shares, Aberdeen issued proceedings in the Commercial Court claiming damages for fraud. Satyam challenged the jurisdiction and, after a four-day hearing, the parties agreed to settle the claim for $68m.

    FGIC UK Ltd v Havenrock II Ltd and others He acted for the liquidity provider to a $20bn asset-backed commercial paper programme whose obligations under various swap arrangements were supported by a financial guarantee from a monoline insurer. In proceedings in London, the insurer claimed that it was not liable on the true construction of the relevant contracts and, in proceedings in New York, the insurer and its US parent claimed rescission of those contracts for fraud, misrepresentation and non-disclosure. He advised and acted in relation to these claims and the forum conveniens disputes which they provoked.

    He has acted in or advised on a variety of asset-backed security disputes, including cashflow waterfall disputes and disputes regarding the proper operation of the transaction documents and the actions that should have been taken by the various office holders (administrators, security trustees, investment vehicle directors etc)

    Over the years, he has advised various financial institutions on the appropriate tariff bases, fees and levies payable under the FSA and FCA Handbooks, both to the FCA and to the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme).

  • Company

    Add to Portfolio

    'Excellent for company law.' Legal 500

    "He combines a tremendous work ethic with immensely good client-handling skills." (Chambers and Partners 2018 - Company) 

    'An incisive advocate with a brilliant mind.' (Chambers and Partners 2017 - Company)

    ‘He's an advocate who can read the court and see where the law's going’. ‘"He gets his hands dirty and ploughs through the documentation to make sure he tums everything over’ (Chambers UK 2016, Company)

    ‘A fearless advocate who streamlines his arguments for the appropriate audience’ (Legal 500 2016, Company and Partnership)

    ‘Very thorough, very smart and good to work with’. (Chambers UK 2015, Company)

     Extremely incisive and insightful’. (Legal 500 2015, Company and Partnership)

    A popular choice for a broad range of company cases, including director disputes and section 994 petitions… ‘He is an outstanding practitioner’. (Chambers UK 2014, Company)

    [He] is 'a very decent, straightforward opponent and a really fantastic lawyer'. (Chambers UK 2013, Company)

    [He] is 'excellent at breaking down all the facts of the case methodically and adopting a chessboard strategy '  'He can always work out the next move’. (Chambers UK 2012, Company)

    He has acted in innumerable shareholder disputes, section 994 petitions and derivative actions. He is often involved in company claims against directors and other fiduciaries and in corporate joint venture disputes. In his wider commercial practice, his knowledge and experience of company litigation enables him to identify company law issues which other practitioners might miss.

    He frequently advises on and acts in disputes relating to large and complex corporate transactions. In this context, he has considerable experience, not only of warranty and indemnity claims but also of the provisions and principles (including accountancy principles) to be applied in determining or adjusting the consideration payable for the target company.

    Relevant cases over the past few years include:-

    He is currently acting for certain respondents to an unfair prejudice petition in relation to a company worth more than £1 billion. His clients are the majority shareholders, they hold their shares as professional trustees of a family trust and the petitioner is contending that the company should be treated as a quasi-partnership.

    Novatrust Ltd v Kea Investments Ltd In 2015 and 2016, he acted for the claimant in an appeal from a decision dismissing on jurisdictional grounds its claims regarding a £130 million joint venture ([2014] EWHC 4061 (Ch)). Amongst other things, the appeal raised fundamental questions regarding the nature of derivative proceedings, the jurisdiction of the English court to authorise a shareholder to bring such proceedings on behalf of a BVI company and the jurisdiction of the court to grant declarations. The defendant agreed terms for the appeal to be allowed.

    MDNX Group Ltd v Richard Cunningham In 2014 and 2015, he acted in a £10m claim by the buyers of an IT company for breach of warranty by the sellers of that company. The case involved complex issues of contractual construction, accounting and valuation.

    In the matter of Atex Group Ltd In 2013 and 2014, he acted for the respondent in an unfair prejudice petition relating to a large media company whose principal business is digital content management, advertising and distribution systems. The petition was brought by its former managing director, and it was consolidated with proceedings between the petitioner in the company involving claims by the company alleging misconduct and claims by the petitioner alleging wrongful dismissal.

    Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp v Recoletos Ltd [2014) 1 BCLC 581; [2013] 4 All ER 157 & [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 295 (Court of Appeal) and [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 365 (Teare J) Acting for a defendant in a £100m shipping fraud claim, he successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court after a 5-day hearing on the basis that it is not possible to establish jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation by piercing the corporate veil. The claimants appealed, effectively arguing that the corporate veil should be pierced under European law. The appeal was dismissed, as was the claimants' application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    STV v ITV In 2010 and 2011, he advised and acted for STV in their disputes with ITV Plc regarding the manner in which the affairs of ITV Network Ltd - the company in which they are all shareholders and which operates the Channel 3 network -  were being conducted.

  • Commercial Litigation

    Add to Portfolio

    "His legal expertise, eloquence and diligence stand out, and the quality of his work is simply superb." "Has a keen eye for detail, and is great at finding the pressure points." (Chambers and Partners 2018 - Commercial Dispute Resolution)

    'He has shown great skill in getting to grips with complex accoutning issues and is a good team player.' 'He's extremely bright and good on his feet.' (Chambers and Partners 2017 - Commercial Dispute Resolution)

    ‘He's the complete package in the sense that he has tremendous gravitas with the court, fantastic analytical abilities and top-notch client handling skills’. ‘His cross-examination is phenomenal. He draws out the story persuasively but, equally, gets the evidence out of the witness’. (Chambers UK 2016, Commercial Dispute Resolution)

    ‘Highly regarded and extremely popular’. ‘His legal ability and attention to detail are excellent, and he's also very good strategically’. (Chambers UK 2016, Chancery: Commercial)

    ‘He delivers practical advice’. (Chambers Global 2016, Dispute Resolution: Commercial)

    ‘He is incredibly bright and a master strategist’. (Chambers Global 2016, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery)

    ‘Intelligent and charismatic. He reassures clients that every angle has been covered. He's brilliant on litigation tactics and blends commercial simplicity with detailed legal analysis to form a potent approach to any case’. (Chambers UK 2014, Commercial Dispute Resolution)

    [He]...is noted for 'his fantastic ability to handle clients'. Possessed of a 'winning courtroom style', he is a man whose 'unassuming manner belies a formidable intellect, and someone who is 'amongst the most tactically astute lawyers' at the Commercial Bar. (Chambers UK 2013, Chancery: Commercial)

    He maintains a full range commercial practice, from straightforward contract and tort cases to esoteric disputes involving complex suites of contracts, economic torts, fiduciary allegations and proprietary claims.

    Equally at home in the Commercial Court and the Chancery Division, he often acts in offshore cases. His range of expertise is unusually wide, which allows him to identify and deal with issues that some others might miss – for example, company, insolvency, trust or property law issues.

    He has experience of a wide range of commercial transactions, including for example (in alphabetical order only) CDO transactions, commercial leasing transactions, corporate acquisitions, derivatives (including swaps), all forms of financing transactions, fund management contracts, software and other IT licences (including FRAND licences), mobile virtual network operator contracts, PFI transactions and securitisations.

    All the cases identified in this CV are commercial cases.  Relevant cases just in the past 12 months include:-

    He is currently acting for The Financial Times in a case in which it is alleged that the Financial Times conspired with The Guardian and others to injure the claimant by unlawful means. The unlawful means which they are alleged to have used include misuse of confidential information and breach of contract.

    He is currently acting in an ICC arbitration whose seat is in Germany. The arbitration involves German law claims for willful deceit, culpa in contrahendo, breach of contract and restitution (there are no issues of English law). The amounts at stake exceed $150 million.

    He is currently acting in a claim by some 84 investors who invested in certain funds via life assurance wrappers provided by a well-known insurance company based offshore. He acts for the insurance company, which is alleged to have been bound by and to have breached various regulatory provisions contained in COBs and various implied terms in the investors’ policies regarding the selection and supervision of the funds in which they invested.

    Wabtec UK Holdings Ltd v Baron Tanlaw and others In 2015 and 2016, he acted for the sellers of an international rail industry manufacturing group on a series of warranty claims by the purchaser, a subsidiary of the Westinghouse group. The purchaser claimed that, at the time of the sale, the target group was in breach of various large supply contracts with several overseas customers, which were governed by the laws of several jurisdiction.  The claims raised some interesting issues of foreign law, of contractual construction and of valuation.

    RP Explorer Master Fund v Sanjay Malhotra and others  In 2015, he acted for a Portuguese bank in a US$77m conspiracy claim relating to the issue on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange of Global Depositary Receipts. In the course of these proceedings, he obtained an order from the English court authorising his client to use and disclose information and documents that are subject to strict obligations of Portuguese banking secrecy. This order was unprecedented as a matter of English law.

    Novatrust Ltd v Kea Investments Ltd In 2015 and 2016, he acted for the claimant in an appeal from a decision dismissing on jurisdictional grounds its claims regarding a £130 million joint venture ([2014] EWHC 4061 (Ch)). Amongst other things, the appeal raised fundamental questions regarding the nature of derivative proceedings, the jurisdiction of the English court to authorise a shareholder to bring such proceedings on behalf of a BVI company and the jurisdiction of the court to grant declarations. The defendant agreed terms for the appeal to be allowed.

    As a result of his involvement in Pell Frischmann Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 2370 (from the commencement of proceedings in Jersey to the final appeal to the Privy Council) and in Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB), he knows a great deal about Wrotham Park damages (also called licence fee or negotiation damages).

  • Breach of Confidence

    Add to Portfolio

    He has undertaken many cases involving the misuse of commercially valuable confidential information and has also acted in personal privacy cases.

    Relevant cases include:-

    He is currently acting for The Financial Times in a case in which it is alleged that the Financial Times conspired with The Guardian and others to injure the claimant by unlawful means. The unlawful means which they are alleged to have used include misuse of confidential information and breach of contract.

    RP Explorer Master Fund v Sanjay Malhotra and others In 2015, he acted for a Portuguese bank in a US$77m conspiracy claim relating to the issue on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange of Global Depositary Receipts. In the course of these proceedings, he obtained an order from the English court authorising his client to use and disclose information and documents that are subject to strict obligations of Portuguese banking secrecy. This order was unprecedented as a matter of English law.

    Geoffrey Logue and Another v Project Grande (Guernsey) Ltd and others In 2013, he acted for the Candy brothers and their associated companies in a £12m conspiracy claim. The claim related to the One Hyde Park development and the unlawful means alleged included breach of confidence and the torts of abuse of process and unlawful interference. The defendants hotly disputed both liability and quantum. The case ultimately settled on confidential terms.

    In 2011, he acted in a case involving allegations of computer hacking and the theft of confidential business information held on various email accounts.

    Purolite International Limited and another v Fujkunda In 2011, he sought and obtained ex parte injunctions in a case involving allegations that the claimants' outgoing global research and development manager had taken highly sensitive trade secrets relating to the claimant's ion exchange resin products and technical processes.

    Pell Frischmann Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 2370 For several years he worked with Jersey Advocates on a claim in Jersey involving the abuse of confidential information relating to a valuable oilfield development contract in Iran. At trial, damages were awarded for abuse of confidence. In the Court of Appeal, it was held that negotiation/ licence fee damages should have been awarded (i.e. damages on a Wrotham Park basis). Subsequently, he appeared on his clients' successful appeal to the Privy Council.

  • Civil Fraud and Investigations

    Add to Portfolio

    A great all-rounder, he has fabulous amounts of energy and a willingness to get immersed in the detail.’ Legal 500

    "Great advocate who has an excellent bedside manner with clients." "Fantastic. Unbelievably clever and super charming." (Chambers and Partners 2018 - Fraud: Civil)

    'He is a great advocate who has an excellent bedside manner with clients.' 'He's impressive and thorough.' (Chambers and Partners 2017 - Civil Fraud)

    An acclaimed commercial and chancery expert with a sizeable fraud practice. He wins respect from market sources for his effective style of advocacy…. 'A powerful and convincing advocate who has the ear of the court straight away. He is likeable but also very, very persuasive and thoughtful, and is trusted by senior judges’. (Chambers UK 2016, Fraud: Civil)

    ‘An excellent advocate with a good eye for detail’. (Legal 500 2016, Fraud: Civil)

    Handles large-scale fraud for large corporations. He has an impressive offshore practice… 'As good as they come'. 'He's rapidly becoming one of the leading commercial silks of his generation; he always has the ear of the court and is extremely user-friendly'. (Chambers UK 2015, Fraud: Civil)

    'Highly experienced in cases with an international element'. (Legal 500 2015, Fraud: Civil)

    'Particularly recommended for complex fraud-related banking disputes'.  (Legal 500 2015, Banking and Finance)

    Praised for his exceptional advocacy and grasp of detail. His practice has notable offshore aspects… ‘Has a fantastic ability to simplify the most complex issues’. ‘He’s very commercial and client-friendly’. (Chambers UK 2014, Fraud: Civil)

    A tenacious litigator and 'a good engaging advocate', he is a barrister with a noted international practice in fraud and broader commercial disputes. A 'fantastic' silk, he is a frequent presence in high-level litigation and arbitrations…  He is an expert in international asset tracing orders, as well as worldwide freezing and disclosure orders.’(Chambers UK 2013, Fraud: Civil)

    [He] 'combines a first-class mind with highly persuasive skills as an advocate'. (The Legal 500, 2013 Fraud: Civil)

    [He] is a 'genuine fraud specialist with a nice way of presenting cases'. (The Legal 500, 2009 Fraud: Civil)

    He has acted in countless fraud and conspiracy cases over the years, and has huge experience of the various forms of damages, restitutionary and proprietary claims to which such cases give rise, including tracing claims made by way of ancillary proceedings in other countries.

    He also has great experience of freezing orders, search and seizure orders, gagging and privacy orders, and third party disclosure orders, both in England and in offshore jurisdictions such as Jersey, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.

    Relevant cases include:-

    He is currently acting for The Financial Times in a case in which it is alleged that the Financial Times conspired with The Guardian and others to injure the claimant by unlawful means.

    RP Explorer Master Fund v Sanjay Malhotra In 2015, he acted for a bank in a US$77m conspiracy claim relating to the issue of Global Depositary Receipts on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. The claimants alleged that the bank had facilitated a conspiracy to obtain US$200m from institutional investors by means of various deceits regarding what was alleged to be a fictitious project to acquire and construct an oil refinery in India.

    Fern Advisors Limited v Adrian Burford and others [2014] BPIR 581 In 2014, he acted for the claimant (Fern), a private equity company which alleged that its former chief executive had stolen more than £12m from it. After a two-day hearing, Fern obtained summary judgment on this fraud claim, the Judge finding that the defendant had forged bank statements, letters and other documents and had even impersonated Fern's auditors online in order to conceal what he had done. As well as awarding damages and compound interest, the Court declared that Fern was entitled to an equitable charge over a £9 million country estate that the defendant had bought with its money.

    Geoffrey Logue and Another v Project Grande (Guernsey) Ltd and others In 2013, he acted for the Candy brothers and their associated companies in a £12m conspiracy claim. The claim related to the One Hyde Park development and the unlawful means alleged included breach of confidence, the tort of abuse of process and unlawful interference. The defendants hotly disputed both liability and quantum. The case ultimately settled on confidential terms.

    Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp v Recoletos Ltd [2014] 1 BCLC 581; [2013] 4 All ER 157 & [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 295 (Court of Appeal) and [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 365 (Teare J) This was a shipping fraud claim in which he successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court. At first instance, the case involved detailed consideration of whether it is possible to establish jurisdiction under Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation by piercing the corporate veil between a company and its alleged controllers and of the nature and application of the "good, arguable case" test (the so-called 'Canada Trust gloss') where the facts relied on to establish jurisdiction are disputed. The claimants appealed, effectively arguing that the corporate veil should be pierced under European law. The appeal was dismissed, as was the claimants' application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Aberdeen Global (Luxembourg) v Satyam Computer Services Limited (Gloster J) In 2012, he acted for a group of investment funds managed by the Aberdeen Asset Management Group in a claim against Satyam Computer Services Limited, the well-known Indian software services company now called Mahindra Satyam. In 2009, it was discovered that the company had overstated its accounts to the tune of over $1bn. The case was a public scandal in India, becoming known as India's Enron. Aberdeen's investment funds had invested substantial amounts in Satyam shares and they issued proceedings in the Commercial Court claiming damages from the company for fraud. Satyam challenged the jurisdiction and there was a four-day hearing before Gloster J. While judgment was pending, the parties agreed to settle the claim for $68m.

  • Insolvency and Reconstructions

    Add to Portfolio

    Has an excellent commercial chancery practice with a strong focus on corporate insolvency work…. ‘He is an extremely experienced and level-headed practitioner’. ‘He is very clever and has a good reputation in this area’. (Chambers UK 2016, Restructuring/Insolvency)

    ‘Strong in banking and across multiple complementary areas of practice including company, fraud and insolvency law. Sources appreciate his practical and user-friendly advice. (Chambers UK 2016, Banking & Finance)

    ‘Highly regarded and highly experienced’. (Legal 500 2016, Insolvency)

    'Formidably intelligent'. (Legal 500 2015, Insolvency)

    [He] is felt to have a 'brilliant future ahead of him' as he is both 'a deeply clever man' and 'an utter pleasure to work alongside'. (Chambers UK 2011, Chancery: Commercial section)

    He has long experience of all forms of insolvency proceedings.

    Relevant cases include:-

    In 2015, he acted for a major bank in relation to an application in the administration of a group of companies which had borrowed substantial sums from the bank. The controlling shareholder in the group made serious allegations against the bank and the administrators, including allegations that, in breach of various alleged contractual, tortious, fiduciary and statutory duties, they conspired to force the group to go into administration.

    In 2013 and 2014, he acted for a major bank in a large number of administration petitions against a group of companies which had borrowed £250m from and entered into a substantial interest swap with the bank, on the security of various portfolios of ground rent assets. In an attempt to prevent enforcement, the defendants made some very serious allegations against the bank, including LIBOR rigging and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.

    For other insolvency cases in which he has been involved, see the “Other Notable Cases” Section below.

  • Joint Venture and Partnership Disputes

    Add to Portfolio

    'Extremely incisive and insightful'. (Legal 500 2015, Company and Partnership section)

    [His] 'mastery of documents allows him to be fearless, direct and persuasive in his advocacy '. (Legal 500 UK 2013, Company and Partnership section)

    'Exceptional litigator' Anthony de Garr Robinson QC is 'bright and very quick. He has an excellent manner with clients and is a team player. His ability in court is equally excellent '. (Legal 500 UK 2011, Company and Partnership section)

    He frequently acts in joint venture and partnership cases, often involving fiduciary claims. He has particular expertise in the use of equity to supplement contractual structures/relationships so that they accord with the expectations of the parties and the claims of good conscience. He is familiar with the business and legal structures used in fund management, hedge fund, ABS and other complex investment operations.

    For his expertise in Company and Shareholder Disputes, see the Company section above, relevent cases include:-

    Novatrust Ltd v Kea Investments Ltd In 2015 and 2016, he acted for the claimant in an appeal from a decision dismissing on jurisdictional grounds its claims regarding a £130 million joint venture ([2014] EWHC 4061 (Ch)). Amongst other things, the appeal raised fundamental questions regarding the nature of derivative proceedings, the jurisdiction of the English court to authorise a shareholder to bring such proceedings on behalf of a BVI company and the jurisdiction of the court to grant declarations. The defendant agreed terms for the appeal to be allowed.

    STV v ITV In 2011 and 2012, he advised STV in its disputes with lTV Plc regarding the manner in which the ITV Network was being operated.

    In 2010 and 2011, he acted in an arbitral claim relating to an alleged joint venture regarding the takeover of a large bank in a former Eastern Bloc country resulting in a huge (and involuntary) dilution of its majority shareholder.

    F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Limited v Barthelemy & Culligan In 2009 and 2010, he acted in unfair prejudice proceedings brought by two minority partners in a hedge fund LLP. This was the one of largest unfair prejudice petition ever brought in relation to an LLP. Unfortunately, he was unable to appear at the trial.

  • Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws

    Add to Portfolio

    Manages a diverse commercial practice encompassing company, banking and finance, and civil fraud cases. He is particularly noted for his experience in offshore litigation. (Chambers Global 2016, Dispute Resolution: Commercial)

    Regularly handles offshore cases and appellate matters, and provides client with a wide commercial offering. (Chambers UK 2016, UK Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery)

    Has an excellent commercial chancery practice … He regularly receives instructions on a broad range of domestic, international and offshore work. (Chambers UK 2016, Restructuring/Insolvency)

    'Highly experienced in cases with an international element’. (Legal 500 2015, Fraud: Civil)

    'Everyone who has worked with' [him]... 'holds him in high regard', say sources. A 'class act' and a 'tenacious litigator', he 'gains the trust of the court or tribunal instantly'. He’s an all-round commercial litigator with a truly international practice. (Chambers UK 2011, Chancery: Commercial)

    He has substantial experience of multinational litigation and arbitration. He has acted in many jurisdictional disputes and forum challenges. He regularly deals with conflicts issues and cases involving expert evidence of foreign law, including Dutch law, French law, German law, Indian law, Iranian law, Japanese law, Lebanese law, Russian law, Spanish law, Swiss law and Sharia'a law.

    He has acted or advised in many cases in offshore jurisdictions, including Bermuda, the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, Panama and the United States. Over the years, he has been admitted as a member of the Bar in the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands. He is currently registered as a foreign lawyer to practice in Singapore and appear before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and as an advocate in the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (DIFC).

    He has advised governments on state immunity and related issues.

    He has acted as an English law expert in foreign proceedings (in Switzerland and the United States) and has spent considerable time working with Advocates in Jersey.

    Notable cases include:-

    Novatrust Ltd v Kea Investments Ltd Between 2014 and 2016, he acted for the claimant in an appeal from a decision dismissing on jurisdictional grounds its claims regarding a £130 million joint venture. Amongst other things, the appeal raised fundamental questions regarding the nature of derivative proceedings, the jurisdiction of the English court to authorise a shareholder to bring such proceedings on behalf of a BVI company and the jurisdiction of the court to grant declarations. The defendant agreed terms for the appeal to be allowed.

    Kea Investments Ltd v Novatrust Ltd In 2014 and 2015, he acted for the respondent to a BVI winding up application, in which he challenged the jurisdiction of the BVI court to make a just and equitable winding up order in respect of a BVI company. He also acted in the appeal to that jurisdiction challenge, in relation to which the applicant again agreed terms for the appeal to be allowed.

    Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp v Recoletos Ltd [2013] All ER (d) 174 (Jun) (Court of Appeal) and [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 365 (Teare J) This was a £100m shipping fraud claim in which he successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court in 2012. At first instance, the case involved detailed consideration of (1) whether it is possible to establish jurisdiction under Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation by piercing the corporate veil between a  company which is a party to an English jurisdiction agreement and the company's alleged controllers , (2) the nature and application of the good, arguable case test  (the so-called 'Canada Trust gloss') where the facts relied on to establish jurisdiction are disputed on substantial grounds and (3) when a defendant who makes contempt and other applications in the proceedings can be taken to have entered an appearance for the purpose of Article 24 of the Brussels Regulation. The claimants appealed, effectively arguing that the corporate veil should be pierced under European law. The appeal was dismissed, as was the claimants' application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Aberdeen Global (Luxembourg) v Satyam Computer Services Limited (Gloster J) In 2012, he acted for a large number of investment funds managed by Aberdeen Asset Management in a claim against Satyam Computer Services Limited, the well-known Indian software services company now called Mahindra Satyam. In 2009, it was discovered that the company had overstated its accounts to the tune of over $1bn. Aberdeens investment funds had invested substantial amounts in Satyam shares and they issued proceedings in the Commercial Court claiming damages from Satyam for fraud. Satyam challenged the jurisdiction on forum conveniens grounds and there was a four-day hearing before Gloster J which raised substantial issues of both English and Indian law. While judgment was pending, the parties agreed to settle the claim for $68m.

    Pell Frischmann Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 2370 For several years he worked with Jersey Advocates on a claim in Jersey relating to a valuable oilfield development contract in Iran. At trial, damages were awarded for abuse of confidence. In the Court of Appeal, it was held that negotiation/licence fee damages should have been awarded for breach of contract and confidence (i.e. damages on a Wrotham Park basis). Subsequently, he appeared on his clients' successful appeal, in which the Privy Council considered the principles applicable to Wrotham Park awards and increased the damages awarded from £500,000 to US$2,500,000.

    Catalyst Investment Group Ltd v Lewinsohn and others [2010] Ch 218 He successfully opposed a defendant’s jurisdiction challenge on grounds of lis alibi pendens and forum non conveniens. Barling J dismissed the application, holding that the English Court had no power to decline jurisdiction, since one of the defendants was an English domiciliary. This aspect of the decision decides a point under the Brussels Regulation that had been left open by the European Court of Justice in Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801.

  • Media, Entertainment and Sport

    Add to Portfolio

    'Recommended for contractual disputes and copyright-related matters'. (Legal 500 2015, Media and entertainment)

    He has considerable media experience and is familiar with most forms of media contract, including recording contracts, video contracts, publishing contracts and copyright licences.

    He has experience of protecting the privacy of individuals in the public eye (see the section on breach of confidence above).

    He has advised and acted for a number of football clubs and players, both in High Court and arbitration proceedings, including Tottenham Hotspur, Reading and Fulham.

    Relevant cases include:-

    Myriad Group AG v Oracle America Inc He acted for Oracle America in a $120m-plus UNCITRAL arbitration relating to Oracle's open access licensing regime for Java software. The dispute had commenced with litigation in California and Delaware involving various US intellectual property and unfair competition claims. It ultimately resulted in arbitration in London, where he was lead counsel for Oracle.

    STV Central Ltd and STV North Ltd v ITV Network He acted in a claim by STV (formerly called Scottish Television) in a dispute regarding broadcasting rights held by ITV Network for all its members. The dispute concerned whether ITV Network was entitled to grant closed video-on-demand rights in favour of Virgin and BT without consulting STV.

    Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB) He acted in a claim against a Formula One team brought by a racing driver.

    Christopher Evans v SMG [2003] All ER (D) 348 He acted for Virgin Radio and SMG in the widely publicised claim brought by Chris Evans.

    He acted for the producers of "Riverdance - The Show" in an action brought by Michael Flatley.

    He acted for Tony Visconti in a claim to ownership of the many recordings which Tony Visconti had produced for Marc Bolan and T. Rex.

    He spent a year in court acting for the late theatrical producer Brian Brolly in a claim which involved a detailed investigation of almost all the contracts and other commercial elements involved in creating and producing a musical show (Re Freudiana Holdings Limited).

    He has represented the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association.

  • Other Notable Cases

    Ash & Newman v Creative Devices Research [1991] BCLC 403 This case decided whether an administrative receiver should be restrained by injunction from dealing in property which is subject to a right of pre-emption.

    Re Freudiana Holdings Limited In 1992/3, he acted for the respondent in one of the longest ever unfair prejudice petitions, the trial of which occupied over a year. The respondent succeeded on every significant issue. Ultimately, the petitioner made himself bankrupt and the respondent obtained an order for the costs of the trial (summarily assessed at £2m). These costs were recovered by obtaining a third costs order against the petitioner's pension fund, which had funded the petition.

    Knight v Lawrence [1993] BCLC 215 This case established that an LPA receiver appointed by a creditor owes a duty of care to a guarantor of the debtor.

    Re Mineral Resources Limited [1999] 1 All ER 746 This case considered whether a waste management licence can be disclaimed by a liquidator as onerous property under the Insolvency Act.

    Corporacion Nacional del Cobre de Chile v Sogemin Metals Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1396 This case established that contributory negligence cannot be a defence to a claim based on bribery.

    Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd v Trafalgar Holdings Ltd [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1426 and Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton (No.1) [2001] Ch. 291 Two strike out applications regarding the same claim, each based on delay (Court of Appeal).

    Dardana Limited v Yukos Oil Company [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 261 (Commercial Court) and [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 326 (Court of Appeal) A case regarding the enforcement of an arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention.

    Bowthorpe Holdings Ltd v Hills [2003] 1 BCLC 226 A joint venture case relating to an offshore fund management operation.

    Jewson v Kelly [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 205 A Court of Appeal case on the proper scope and effect of the fitness for purpose/merchantable quality terms implied under the Sale of Goods Act.

    Marketmaker Ltd v CMC Group Pie [2004] All ER (D) 99 He acted for a defendant who successfully discharged injunctions that the claimants had obtained without notice. He subsequently obtained an order that the claimants pay indemnity costs on the basis (amongst other things) that they had breached their duty of full and frank disclosure. He ultimately secured a stay of the entire proceedings on the basis of the claimants' abusive conduct of the proceedings.

    Gregory Projects (Halifax) Ltd v Tenpin (Halifax) Ltd [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 646 A dispute about whether proposed tenant under a conditional agreement for lease from a developer of a large commercial development was entitled to terminate the agreement and thereby avoid taking the lease once the development was complete.