Our Team

Notable Representations

Confidential FCA investigation

Ian recently acted for 4 individuals involved in the various matters relating to Mozambique’s claims against Credit Suisse and others. This has involved representing them before the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, the U.S. Department of Justice and in relation to the recent English High Court case brought by the Republic of Mozambique.

Confidential alleged bribery scheme

Ian acted for an individual caught up in an alleged bribery scheme involving a South Korean individual, who was charged with several offences including bribery offences. The South Korean was arrested, indicted and convicted in the U.S. The company which had allegedly paid the bribes entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. Ian’s client was acquitted on all charges.

Confidential cyber ransom case

Ian acted for a company which had all its systems encrypted by a third party seeking a ransom payment in return for decrypting the systems. Ian worked with the FBI and NCS and negotiated with the threat actors to seek a resolution to the business-critical paralysis of the client’s systems.

Confidential investigations

Ian has led investigations for corporates in numerous countries involving alleged gifts and entertainment breaches in India, bribes paid to local officials in South Africa, and unlawful payments made in Ukraine relating to the Russian subsidiary of a large publishing company. He has acted for two of the world’s largest financial institutions in relation to investigations in China – concerning payments to local officials and alleged slush funds belonging to companies in which the client had an interest. He has acted on numerous money laundering investigations for companies in various sectors including life sciences, technology and mining.

Yuchai Dongte Special Purpose Automobile Company Limited v Suisse Credit Capital (2009) Limited

[2018] EWHC 2580 (Comm)

Ian successfully acted for the Claimant in its claim for payment on a Letter of Credit. The issues before the Court were: (a) whether the Defendant financial services firm was the issuing bank of a Letter of Credit which it communicated through Swift (and thereby liable on the credit pursuant to the incorporated provisions of UCP 600); (b) whether the Defendant had excluded liability using contractual disclaimers; and (c) whether the Claimant was estopped by convention from asserting that the Defendant was the issuer of the credit. The Court found in favour of the Claimant on each of the issues, determining points of principle as to the interpretation and effect of UCP 600 in documentary credits.

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors

[2014] EWHC 2788 (Comm); [2012] EWHC 2543 (Comm); [2012] EWHC 237 (Comm)

Ian acted for Mr Ablyazov in what has become one of the leading cases in relation to allegations of fraud and asset recovery in the English Courts. It spawned numerous judgments and years of litigation involving allegations and counter-allegations of wrongdoing and dishonesty.

Basma Al Sulaiman v (1) Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited and (2) Plurimi Capital LLP

[2013] EWHC 400 (Comm)

Ian succeeded at trial representing the Second Defendant in a hotly contested claim for damages in excess of USD30m, relating to the alleged mis-selling of investments. The claim failed on every issue and the Court found that the Claimant had been dishonest in the way she had pursued the claim. While there was sufficient documentary evidence to determine the case, the Court was not satisfied that the Claimant had complied fully with her disclosure obligations. The case highlighted the importance of defendants not accepting at face value the professed lack of investment inexperience and limited financial position sometimes put forward by claimants in support of such claims. The Claimant was ordered to pay indemnity costs.

Sycamore Bidco Limited v (1) Sean Breslin (2) Andrew Dawson

[2012] EWHC 3443 (Ch)

Ian scored a significant victory for the Claimant in this case where the Court determined that the Defendants’ actions constituted breaches of warranties under a SPA. The Court assessed the financial irregularities and their impact on the sale of the company. It considered the implications of the accounts breaches on the acquisition deal and whether the Claimant had sufficient knowledge of the issues. The Court awarded substantial damages as a result.

UK (Aid) Limited v Mitchell & Ors

[2007] EWHC 1052 (Ch); [2007] EWHC 1940 (Ch)

Ian obtained worldwide freezing injunctions, summary judgment and committal orders for KPMG liquidators in a complex case arising from a multi-million pound fraud on GlaxoSmithKline. The case was reported in the legal press as an example of its type, setting a precedent on the appropriate penalty for contempt of court for a party in breach of a worldwide freezing order.

SBJ Stephenson Limited v Keith Anthony Mandy

[1999] EWHC 276 (QB)

This was an action brought by insurance brokers, for whom Ian acted, against a former employee, Keith Mandy. The Claimant sought the continuation of interim injunctions to enforce the terms of restrictive covenants contained in Mr Mandy's service agreement and damages for alleged breaches of the agreement. It sought the same remedies for alleged breaches of implied terms of fidelity and confidentiality. The Claimant was successful in obtaining the relief sought and this case proved to be the ‘high watermark’ of cases protecting restrictive covenants where the threat of loss of confidential information was central to the case.

Credit Suisse Asset Management Ltd v Armstrong and others

[1996] IRLR 450 CA

Ian acted in the first instance and Court of Appeal hearings for the successful Claimant against several former employees. The case created the precedent that an employer was entitled to enforce a restrictive covenant, preventing an employee who had resigned from dealing with or soliciting business from his former clients for a period of six months after the expiry of his notice period, notwithstanding that during that notice period, itself six months, the employee had been put on "garden leave". There was no basis on which the court could set off the one against the other. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the former employees against the first instance decision granting an injunction enforcing the restrictive covenants in the Defendants' employment contracts for six months following their departure.