Charles Graham KC

SKAT (Skatteforvaltningen – the Danish Tax Authority) v Solo Capital Partners & ors [2023] EWHC 590 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 1413 (Comm), [2024] EWHC 19 (Comm)
Instructed by Pinsent Masons, Charles is acting for SKAT (the Danish Tax Authority) in relation to a set of consolidated claims in the Commercial Court in which SKAT is seeking the equivalent of approx £1.5 billion against over 100 defendants (including hedge funds, custodians and individuals based in England and Dubai) arising out of a fraud and a conspiracy or conspiracies that led to SKAT paying out sums to persons who were not entitled to them. Charles has acted as one of the lead silks leading a team comprising other silks and multiple juniors. He acted as lead advocate (and cross-examined two Danish tax law experts) at the trial of one of the preliminary issues ordered in the case (see [2023] EWHC 590 (Comm)) and in relation to multiple interim & case management applications (see [2023] EWHC 1413 (Comm), [2024] EWHC 19 (Comm)). Charles also conducted a substantial amount of oral advocacy and cross-examination of multiple factual witnesses at the main trial which lasted 1 year (from April 2024 to April 2025).

SKAT (Skatteforvaltningen – the Danish Tax Authority) v MCML Ltd [2024] EWHC 148 (Comm); [2024] EWCA Civ 371
Instructed by Pinsent Masons, Charles is acting for SKAT, the Danish tax authority, in relation to a second and separate claim brought by SKAT against ED&F Man (which subsequently changed its name to MCML Ltd) and in particular in relation to ED&F Man’s application to strike out that second claim on the grounds of (1) issue estoppel; and (2) abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson). The application was dismissed by Bright J ([2024] EWHC 148). An appeal against that decision was allowed by the Court of Appeal (Nugee, Newey & Popplewell LJJ) as regards issue estoppel but dismissed in relation to abuse of process ([2024] EWCA Civ 371). An application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court as regards issue estoppel is currently before the Supreme Court.

LCIA Arbitration
Instructed by Quinn Emanuel, Charles acted in LCIA Arbitration for a respondent oil and gas company in proceedings brought by a regional government of a state that was seeking to terminate its Production Sharing Contracts with the oil and gas company, whilst the respondent was counterclaiming for very substantial damages for wrongful repudiation of the relevant Production Sharing Contracts. The case involved issues of contractual interpretation and the English law of contractual termination, as well as a complex factual background and complex issues relating to the valuation and exploitation of oil and gas fields. Charles acted as lead advocate and cross-examined the factual and most of the expert witnesses (including experts in gas field operation and exploitation and oil and gas pricing).

Takeover Panel
Charles was retained to advise the Takeover Panel Executive in relation to a long-running and wide-ranging investigation undertaken by the Executive in relation to a breach of Rule 9 and other elements of the Takeover Code by directors and officers of MWB Group plc, including in relation to what compensation might be sought from those directors and officers and what disciplinary measures might be taken against them.

Takeover Panel
Charles was retained by the Takeover Panel Executive in relation to an appeal before the Takeover Appeal Board against a ruling that had been made earlier by the Hearing Committee of the Takeover Panel. The ruling had been made in the context of a takeover of Rangers Football Club. Charles assisted in the drafting of the Executive’s written submissions to the Takeover Appeal Board and conducted the oral hearing of the appeal before the Board. The appellant’s appeal was rejected.

LCIA Arbitration
Instructed by Quinn Emanuel, Charles acted for the claimant (an energy major based in Europe) in a dispute concerning its claim for damages for breach of contract and the respondent’s duty to disclose information under a joint venture agreement involving the respondent (an energy major based in the Far East). The background to the claim was the claimant’s purchase of a multinational oil and gas exploration and production company (the target) for $5.5billion in circumstances where the respondent had failed to disclose the fact that it was pursuing a separate arbitration claim against the target for $8billion. Charles acted as the lead advocate and cross-examined, often through an interpreter, all the factual and expert witnesses called by the respondent.

LCIA Arbitration
Instructed by DLA Piper, Charles acted for the claimant, a special purpose vehicle owned and controlled by Russian investors, in a dispute with a Middle Eastern Bank, concerning ownership of an Armenian Bank. The dispute centred on the terms of a shareholders’ agreement and a contract under which the respondent bank was required to realise a given amount loan assets belonging to the Armenian bank or forfeit some or all of its shares in that bank to the claimant. Charles acted as the lead advocate cross-examining the respondent’s factual witnesses and their expert in Armenian law, especially banking law.

Quartz Assets LLC & Quartz Assets Pte Ltd v Kestrel Coal Midco Pty Ltd
Instructed by Slaughter and May, Charles acted for the Claimant companies in their claim for damages from the Defendant for its breach of a contractual obligation to obtain, exclusively from the Claimants, mezzanine finance for the purposes of acquiring a coalmine in Queensland, Australia.

LCIA Arbitration
Instructed by Stephenson Harwood & its Korean office, Charles acted for a Joint Venture comprising two well-known Korean companies, which was the claimant sub-contractor seeking damages of $750m in major, complex and technical arbitration proceedings brought against the main contractor under a construction project, under which the sub-contractor agreed to construct a nuclear power plant in a Middle Eastern country. Charles acted as lead advocate in the arbitration, cross examining factual and expert witnesses called by the main contractor. The issues in the proceeding including difficult questions of contractual interpretations as well as issues relating to which of several parties were responsible for delays in completing the project and attendant losses.

Brown-Forman Beverages Europe Ltd. v Bacardi UK Limited
Instructed by Eversheds Sutherland, Charles acted for Brown-Forman in a claim against Bacardi UK under a parent company guarantee, which it had provided to Brown-Forman; the claim raised difficult issues of contractual construction, equitable set-off and the rule in Holme v Brunskill.

UNCITRAL Arbitration
Instructed by Eversheds Sutherland, Charles acted for the European subsidiary and US parent company of a well-known international group specialising in the production, distribution and sale of alcoholic and other beverages; these companies were respondents to UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings brought against them by the claimants, the parent company of another international drinks group and its UK subsidiary. Under the arbitration proceedings the claimants sought compensation under the (EU) Commercial Agents Regulation, claiming to have been acting as the respondents’ commercial agents and hence to be entitled to compensation under the Regulation following the (agreed) termination of the commercial relationship between them. The case turned on a detailed analysis of the Regulation and the meaning of and purpose behind many of its key provisions.

SIAC Arbitration
Charles acted for a well-known Korean company that was a respondent to arbitration proceedings brought against it in Singapore (under SIAC rules); the advice concerned which of the defences to the claims brought against the respondent by the claimant were viable and which were not and how the viable defences should best be presented in the respondent’s written and oral submissions. A number of the issues concerned which acts and statements made by certain individual could and should be attributed to the claimant and the inter-relationship between UAE arbitration law and Singaporean arbitration law and whether the claimant was entitled to conduct business in the UAE outside of its particular Free Trading Zone without a licence.

Stork TS UK Limited v JPR Services & anor
Instructed by Eversheds Sutherland, Charles acted for the Defendants in these proceedings, under which the claimant sought to sue on a tax covenant given under and in relation to a share sale agreement under which the Claimant had bought two companies and their subsidiaries from the Defendants. The Defendants successfully applied at a CMC to have the claim struck out, on the basis that under the various terms of the tax covenant each of the claims advanced were subject to a contractual time bar.

ICC Arbitration 
Instructed by Slaughter and May, Charles acted for a Russian company specialising in the fabrication of steel pipes that was the claimant in ICC Arbitration proceedings brought against the respondent German company which manufactured the steel plates that the claimant used in its fabrication of specialist pipes for the subsea transportation of gas. The case turned on whether the claimant could reject the entire consignment of 10,000 plates delivered by the respondent, on the basis that sampling of those plates revealed that about 15 were defective.

Application to Emergency Arbitrator 
at the beginning of the above case the respondent made an application to an Emergency Arbitrator/Referee pursuant to Article 29 of the ICC Rules for interim relief. The application was for an award that the claimant should pay the respondent for plates which had not been shown to be defective. The claimant succeeded in having this application for Emergency Measures refused.

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development & ors v. Al Refai & ors [2014] EWCA Civ 715
Instructed by Slaughter and May, Charles acted for the 2nd Defendant, Kroll Associates, which was one of the Respondents to an appeal brought by the Claimants against the decision of the Commercial Court that it had jurisdiction to commit a director of the Claimant companies for contempt, even though he was resident out of the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the Court did have jurisdiction to commit him for civil contempt both under CPR 81.4 and under CPR 6.36 and PD 6B para 3.1.

Energy Venture Partners Ltd v. Malabu Oil & Gas Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1295; [2014] EWHC 1390 (Comm); [2013] EWHC 2118 (Comm)
Instructed by Edwards Wildman Palmer, Charles acted for the defendant, Malabu Oil & Gas Limited, in relation to a claim brought by the Claimant company (EVP) for commission of US$200 million said to be due under an oral contract following the surrender by Malabu of its interest in an oil exploration licence, alternatively for a quantum meruit. Malabu defeated the contractual claim for commission but EVP was awarded US$110.5 million by way of quantum meruit. Malabu then had a further claim launched by EVP dismissed. EVP next sought to appeal an interlocutory order made earlier that it should fortify its cross-undertaking in damages. That appeal was dismissed.

UNCITRAL Arbitration
Instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills, Charles acted for a subsidiary of a well-known Indian telecoms group as respondent in an UNCITRAL Arbitration (the arbitration having its seat in Lagos, Nigeria), in relation to a claim brought by the claimant, which was a shareholder in a Nigerian telecoms company. The claimant shareholder claimed that it had been deprived of pre-emption rights when other shareholders in the Nigerian company sold their shares to the respondent Indian subsidiary. By the time of the quantum hearing the claimant was seeking US$4.9 billion in damages. At the quantum hearing the respondent succeeded in limiting the quantum of the claimant’s claim to US$132 million, i.e. only 3% of the total claimed.

ICC Arbitration
Instructed by DAC Beachcroft, Charles acted for a Dubai company (based in an FTZ) which was claimant in an ICC Arbitration under which was seeking from the respondent for sums commission due under an agency contract under which the claimant procured or assisted in the supply of spares for helicopters used by the Indian Navy.

UNCITRAL Arbitration
Instructed by DAC Beachcroft, Charles acted for the claimant in ad hoc Arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules. The claim arose out of a contractual dispute concerning an aluminium smelting plant in Montenegro. The claimant and respondent had entered into a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Contract for the refurbishment of the smelting plant and the dispute concerned the sums payable to the claimant under that contract following the transfer of the plant back to the claimant.

R. Tchenguiz v Serious Fraud Office; V Tchenguiz v Serious Fraud Office
Instructed by Slaughter and May, Charles acted for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in respect of two claims, one brought against the SFO by Robert Tchenguiz and associated companies and trusts of his and the other by his brother Vincent Tchenguiz and associated companies and trusts of his, each brother seeking hundreds of millions of pounds in damages arising from alleged false imprisonment, trespass and/or misfeasance in public office by the SFO.

BG International (NSW) Limited & ors v. Talisman Sinopec Energy UK Limited & ors
Instructed by Womble Bond Dickinson, Charles acted for the Claimant in a dispute in the Commercial Court relating to the meaning and effect of a Transportation, Processing and Operating Services Agreement (TPOSA). The TPOSA governed the sharing, between the parties who were owners of two oil & gas fields, of operating expenditure incurred in relation to transportation of hydrocarbons from the first field (owned by the Claimant) through a jointly owned Floating Production, Storage and Offloading unit (FPSO) in circumstances where the FPSO was already providing transportation services to the Defendant, as owner of the second field.

Ithaca Energy (UK) Ltd v North Sea Energy (UK) Ltd [2012] EWHC 1793 (QB)
Instructed by Womble Bond Dickinson, Charles acted for the Defendant, North Sea, in relation to a dispute concerning the meaning of the expression “appraisal well” in the context of a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) for the operation of an oil and gas field. Under the JOA the Defendant was entitled to opt out of drilling an appraisal well and it had purported to exercise that right in respect of particular well. The Court decided that that even though the well was intended to drill for contingent resources it fell to be treated as a production well rather than an appraisal well.