Anna Dilnot KC

Professional practice

Anna was appointed King’s Counsel in March 2021.

Anna is ranked for 2024 as a leading Silk for civil fraud and commercial dispute resolution. She is currently described as:

“fantastic – her brain works at a million miles an hour. She is incredibly quick to pick up and explain points.” “A really top quality advocate.” (Chambers & Partners 2024, commercial dispute resolution)

“She is really excellent: a first-rate thinker, super bright, practical and persuasive.” (Chambers & Partners 2024, fraud)

“[An] excellent lawyer who has effortlessly moved from Junior to Silk – strong in all departments – law, on paper, in conference and in court. A formidable opponent.” (Legal 500 2023, fraud)

“Anna is a highly effective oral advocate. She is devastating and forensic in cross- examination, and equally strong on paper.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, fraud)

She has also been described in the directories as having a “superb legal mind”, “outstanding tactical nous” as well as being “absolutely first class”, “combining razor sharp insight with impressive attention to detail” and “a real fighter”. Commentators also note that she is “excellent on her feet” and “always one step ahead of the game”, while also stating that “her written work is of a tremendously high quality”.

Who’s Who Legal ranks Anna as a ‘thought leader’ for asset recovery and states that Anna “draws widespread recommendations for her asset recovery expertise, with commentators endorsing her as “an absolutely excellent silk””. She is also described as having a “super sharp mind”, being both a “persuasive advocate” and “very impressive on her feet in complex proceedings”.

Anna has considerable commercial litigation experience having qualified as a commercial litigation solicitor in 2002, becoming a solicitor advocate and then being called to the Bar in 2008. She took Silk in March 2021 and was elected a Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn in 2023.

Since taking Silk, Anna has developed a successful appellate practice and has been incredibly busy. More generally, Anna has a broad commercial and commercial chancery practice, with particular specialisms in conflicts of laws, civil fraud and committal proceedings, and has extensive experience of both international arbitration and court-based advocacy. Anna is called to the Bar of the BVI and has often been instructed in cases proceeding in the BVI, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guernsey and Jersey.

Before taking Silk, Anna was named commercial litigation junior of the year in 2020 by Chambers & Partners, and was shortlisted for the equivalent award by Legal 500 in 2019. The legal directories recommended Anna as a leading junior for both commercial litigation and civil fraud (Band 1 fraud, Chambers and Partners and Legal 500, Band 1 commercial litigation, Chambers & Partners).

What others say

For 2024, Anna is ranked as a leading Silk for commercial litigation and civil fraud in Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, and is recognised as an expert in asset recovery by Who’s Who Legal.

Before taking Silk, Anna was named commercial litigation junior of the year in 2020 by Chambers & Partners. In 2019, Anna was shortlisted for the equivalent award by the Legal 500. She was also recognised as a leading junior in the legal directories for both civil fraud (Band 1) and commercial litigation (Band 1)(C&P). Between 2018 – 2021 she was one of the few juniors recognised as an expert in asset recovery by Who’s Who Legal. Comments include:

“Fantastically quick to digest points and very responsive. She is great with clients, and a clear and persuasive advocate. She has a knack of simplifying points and often injects a dose of common sense into proceedings.” (Legal 500 2024, commercial litigation)

“Anna Dilnot is fantastic – her brain works at a million miles an hour. She is incredibly quick to pick up and explain points.” “A really top quality advocate.” (Chambers & Partners 2024, commercial dispute resolution)

“Anna spots the key issues immediately and gets right to the heart. She is a real fighter, hard- working and has strategic insight.” “Anna is absolutely brilliant: she is very matter-of-fact, gets on to the important issues and wrestles with them brilliantly.” “She is really excellent: a first-rate thinker, super bright, practical and persuasive.” (Chambers & Partners 2024, fraud)

“Anna has great judgment, and is excellent both on paper and on her feet. Opponents underestimate Anna at their peril.” (Legal 500 2023, commercial litigation)

“Excellent lawyer who has effortlessly moved from Junior to Silk – strong in all departments – law, on paper, in conference and in court. A formidable opponent.” (Legal 500 2023, fraud)

“Anna is a highly effective oral advocate. She is devastating and forensic in cross-examination, and equally strong on paper.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, fraud)

“Anna is technically brilliant and commercially very sound. She gives great advice.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, commercial dispute resolution)

“an absolutely excellent silk.” (Who’s Who Legal Asset Recovery 2023)

“She is excellent in court and always one step ahead of the game. Her written work is of a tremendously high quality and she is a delight to instruct.” “Very, very user-friendly with an exceptional intellect and work ethic.”

“My first choice of counsel when I need a senior junior or junior silk on a civil fraud case – she combines excellent knowledge with outstanding tactical nous.”

“Exceptionally knowledgeable, analytical, superb on paper and in Court, delightful to work with and very hard working.”

“One of the very best juniors I have had the pleasure of working with, deservedly very busy and highly sought after by clients.”

“She has excellent judgment, good legal knowledge, bags of confidence, is quick thinking, and works incredibly hard.”

“Incredibly hard-working, very diligent and excellent on her feet, she’s got a wide-ranging practice and is very well known in fraud law. She is commercially savvy and quick to get to the issues.”

“She has a superb legal mind and is fantastic to work with. Incredibly hard-working, very diligent and excellent on her feet.”

“She is amazing at getting to grips with a case.” “Clever, hardworking and highly recommended for commercial fraud work.”

“She has extremely good judgment about what will interest and appeal to the judge.” “She is commercially savvy, quick to get to the issues and a real fighter in court.”

“She handles pressure really well and is a really tough fighter who absolutely does not throw in the towel.”

“Incredibly thorough and very brainy. User-friendly and prepared to roll her sleeves up.” “She has a superb legal mind and is fantastic to work with.” “Incredibly hardworking, very diligent and excellent on her feet.”

“Absolutely first class. She combines razor-sharp insight with impressive attention to detail.”

“A brilliant junior: smart and immensely energetic.”

“Her work is stellar. She really is excellent, very knowledgeable, very matter-of-fact.” “A first- class junior; very bright, responsive, good to work with and good on her feet.”

“Very good on her feet, and has a fearless and combative style.” “A tenacious and determined operator with a user-friendly style.”

“Very intelligent and quick to get to the issues. She’s a real fighter and can be trusted with serious cases. Good on her feet and gave good advice in meetings.”

“She is identified as an impressive fraud junior by both peers and solicitors.”

“A real fighter and someone to be trusted with serious cases.”

“Very intelligent and quick to get to the issues.” “Hardworking, clever and good on her feet.”

“Commercially savvy and quick to get to the issues.”

“She’s very thorough and has a really good commercial focus.”

“Well regarded junior with substantial experience in a diverse array of areas. She is considered a leading junior for fraud proceedings…”

“Her preparation is extremely thorough and she has that rare ability to thoroughly consider the material, and identify and focus quickly on the key issues.”

“Her experience and approach belie her year of call.”

“A dynamic and experienced junior whom sources regard as “going places”. Her practice is international in nature and has a particular focus on civil fraud cases.”

“She belies her years of call with an impressively mature commercial and chancery practice. Dilnot is particularly noted for her handling of multi-jurisdictional disputes.”

“She impresses interviewees with the strength of her written submissions and is one to look out for when it comes to fraud work.”

“Tough and tenacious. Though only called to the Bar in 2008, Dilnot has extensive experience in fraud and asset-tracing work ….”

“Her high-profile work includes acting for Prince Jefri in his ongoing dispute with Brunei.”

Examples of recent cases

Anna is currently acting in a number of important international commercial cases, including for France in the EUR 1.5 billion Prestige case, for the Public Institution for Social Security, the Kuwait national pension and social security fund, in bribery claims worth c. $1 billion against its former Director General and several financial institutions, and in proceedings brought against the Central Bank of Venezuela to determine which board (that appointed by Juan Guaidó or Nicolas Maduro) is authorized to represent the BCV. Anna also recently obtained the dismissal of the well- known contempt proceedings brought against Oleg Deripaska and has also acted in several of the most heavy- weight commercial fraud and committal proceedings of recent years such as Suppipat v Siam Bank, Wirecard, BMF Finance v Hussain, Kazakhstan Kagazy, Accident Exchange, Madoff and National Bank Trust v Yurov. Several of her recent cases have also involved US, EU and UK sanctions.

Recent cases include:

Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan & Ors: Anna, with Stuart Ritchie KC and Hugh Norbury KC, represent the Kuwait pension and social security fund in its claims for c.$1 billion brought in respect of alleged bribes paid (and money laundering offences committed) by various financial institutions to its former Director General over a 30-year period. Currently one of the largest claims in the Commercial Court.

Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2023] EWHC 788 (Comm): Anna, with Thomas Grant KC and Katie Ratcliff acted for Oleg Deripaska in defending successfully the long-running contempt proceedings brought by Navigator Equities and Mr Churnukhin.

Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch v Receivers [2023] EWHC 1942 (Comm): Anna successfully obtained the release of monies held by Receivers on behalf of the Central Bank of Venezuela in the face of an assertion of state immunity by the Central Bank Board appointed by the Maduro Government.

Manek v 360 WAM Ltd [2023] EWHC 710 (Comm): Anna, with Joshua Crow, successfully defended the jurisdiction challenge brought by the defendant IIFL Wealth Group. Case concerned the correct application of Art. 4 of Rome II and s.32 Limitation Act 1980.

1.5 billion obtained by those states against the Club as liability insurer of the M/T Prestige, the total loss of which caused huge environmental and economic damage to the states.

Anna successfully represented France in the 5-day appeal which saw the Court decline jurisdiction in respect of both claims commenced by the Club.

Nopporn Suppipat & Ors v Narongdeg & Ors [2022] EWHC 1806 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 3259 (Comm), [2020] EWHC 3191 (Comm): Anna, leading Helen Morton and James Petkovic, represented defendants in a complex fraud case involving allegations of deceit, conspiracy, forgery and asset stripping in relation to Thailand’s largest renewable energy provider.

Boston Trust Co Ltd v Szerelmey Ltd [2022] 1 All ER (Comm) 1013; [2020] Bus.L.R. 1647: Anna represented the claimants pursuing a derivative claim for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance. Permission to continue derivate claim granted and upheld on appeal.

Civil fraud & asset recovery

Anna has over the past 20 years obtained substantial experience of domestic and international commercial fraud, bribery and committal proceedings. Anna is ranked in the directories for 2024 as a leading Silk (including in Who’s Who Legal Asset Recovery):

“Anna is a highly effective oral advocate. She is devastating and forensic in cross- examination, and equally strong on paper.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, fraud)

“Excellent lawyer who has effortlessly moved from Junior to Silk – strong in all departments – law, on paper, in conference and in court. A formidable opponent.” (Legal 500 2023, fraud)

“an absolutely excellent silk.” (Who’s Who Legal Asset Recovery 2023)

“She’s incredibly hard-working, very intelligent and has a fantastic manner when working with clients. She really rolls her sleeves up and gets to grips with the technical stuff.”

While a junior, she was ranked in Band 1 by both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500.

Anna has particular experience of seeking and resisting applications for freezing and proprietary injunctions, including in support of arbitrations, committal applications and seeking passport, cross-examination and third-party disclosure/Norwich Pharmacal orders.

Examples of cases include:

Manek v 360 WAM Ltd [2023] EWHC 710 (Comm): Anna, with Joshua Crow, successfully defended the jurisdiction challenge brought by the defendant IIFL Wealth Group. The case concerns alleged deceit and conspiracy in the defendants ‘flipping’ an Indian i-payments business, Hermes, to Wirecard AG.

Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 661 (Ch); [2022] EWCA Civ 1264: Anna, with Alex Riddiford, represented the Issuers in a securitization structure in respect of committal proceedings brought against an individual for a series of breaches of an injunction. The case has produced several reported decisions on various aspects of committal applications and injunctions, including bench warrants, the right to silence, circumstantial evidence and retrospective dispensation of personal service. The maximum 24-month sentence was imposed following trial in February 2022, and upheld on appeal.

Suppipat & Ors v Nop Narongdeg & Ors [2020] EWHC 3191 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 3259 (Comm), [2022] EWHC 1806 (Comm): Anna acted (with Helen Morton and James Petkovic) for three defendants in substantial and hugely complex fraud proceedings commenced by the former owner of Thailand’s largest renewable energy company. 17 defendants were joined to the proceedings, by which the claimants claimed between £1-2 billion.

Magdeev v Tsvekov [2020] EWHC 887 (Comm): with Steven Berry KC, successful defence of a claim for the repayment of substantial sums invested in a Graff diamond boutique in Limassol. Anna also acted for the defendant in the subsequent LCIA arbitration and s.66 proceedings.

Akhmedova v Akhmedov [2019] EWHC 2561 (Fam): Anna obtained a £350 million freezing order against various Lichenstein Anstalts and trust companies in which the defendant husband believed to have concealed assets.

RP Explorer Ltd (formerly Master Fund) v Malhotra [2020] EWHC 1225 (Comm): Anna represents RP Explorer in a long-running fraud and conspiracy case. The judgment addresses the correct approach (not considered in any prior case) under ECHR Article 6 where a defendant is in prison abroad and unable to attend trial.

KMG International NV v (1) Chen and (2) Chipper [2019] EWHC 2389 (Comm); [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm): claim to enforce a US$200 million arbitration award against the DPH Group. Freezing orders were obtained against the Defendants, alleged to have implemented an unlawful scheme of dissipation, together with orders for ancillary and third-party disclosure.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip:

[2018] EWHC 369 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 3374 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1115 (Comm); [2017]

EWHC 1116 (Comm); [2017] CP Rep 6; [2017] 1 WLR 467; [2017] 1 WLR 1360; [2015]

EWHC 3059 (Comm); [2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

Anna represented defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors, resulting in a 3-month trial. The case produced a series of interlocutory decisions by the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal and involves issues relating to freezing orders, fiduciary duties and powers, limitation, discretionary trusts, contribution claims and s.423 IA 1986.

Accident Exchange v Autofocus & Ors [2018] 4 WLR 26: Anna represented Accident Exchange in what has been described as the largest ever fraud on the civil justice system

where thousands of expert reports and witness statements containing false information were deployed in legal proceedings against Accident Exchange and other credit hire providers.

Bank of Moscow v Andrew Chernyakov & Ors: Anna acted for Bank of Moscow in its claims to enforce Russian judgments of over $200 million against the former owner of the largest construction group in Moscow.

Alliance Bank JSC v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm): Anna represented the defendants in a $300 million fraud and conspiracy claim brought by Alliance Bank in respect of a series of outstanding loans.

Conapro v Ministry of Petroleum of the Gambia: Anna acted for the Claimant in its claim for loss of profits arising out of an oil supply contract with the Ministry of Petroleum of The Gambia. The Ministry claimed the contract was void by reason of bribery of the former Gambian ambassador to Qatar.

Kazatomprom v Dzhakishev & Ors: Anna acted for the state atomic agency of Kazakhstan in its claims proceeding in the BVI against its former directors and others in respect of alleged diversion of interests in uranium assets worth some $250 million.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS) v (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2014]: Anna defended parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds.

The State of Brunei Darussalam & the Brunei Investment Agency v HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008] EWHC 1247 (Ch): committal proceedings for alleged breaches of freezing and disclosure orders and the submission of evidence without an honest belief in its truth.

Generally between 2008 and 2011, acting for HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah in his long running dispute with Brunei and the Brunei Investment Agency.

The State of Brunei Darussalam & the Brunei Investment Agency v HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008] EWHC 1248 (Ch): successful application for permission to cross-examine the Sultan of Brunei involving questions of sovereign immunity.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands: (1) the State of Brunei Darussalam (2) the Brunei Investment Agency v (1) Sol Properties, Inc (2) HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008]: application for rectification of the share register of a Cayman Islands incorporated company; involved the question of whether a non-money judgment could be enforced at common law.

Commercial Dispute Resolution

Anna is ranked as a leading Silk in Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners 2024.

“Anna has great judgment, and is excellent both on paper and on her feet. Opponents underestimate Anna at their peril.” (Legal 500 2023, commercial litigation)

“Anna is commercially savvy and quick to get to the issues. She is a real fighter who can be trusted with serious cases.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, commercial dispute resolution)

Anna deals with all kinds of commercial disputes, including commercial fraud, banking, financial services, shareholder and company disputes and all kinds of conflicts, jurisdiction and state immunity issues. She is equally at home in court or international arbitration, and has substantial experience in many and varied forms of injunctive relief.

Before Anna took Silk in March 2021, she was named commercial litigation junior of the year in 2020 by Chambers & Partners, and was shortlisted for the equivalent award by Legal 500 in 2019. She was ranked in Band 1 for Commercial Litigation.

Recent decisions and examples of work include:

France v London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd [2023] EWHC 2474 (Comm): Anna, with Naomi Hart, successfully appealed an arbitral award which granted injunctive relief against France on the basis that the arbitrator had no power to grant such relief under s.48 Arbitration Act 1996 where the Court also had no power to grant it by reason of s.13 State Immunity Act 1978. A separate question of whether the remedy of equitable compensation is available as a matter of law in a conditional benefit / ‘DRO’ case, is proceeding to a second appeal to the Court of Appeal in 2024 under s.69(8) Arbitration Act 1996.

Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch v Receivers [2023] EWHC 1942 (Comm): Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 for a receivership order in respect of funds belonging to the Central Bank of Venezuela. Anna successfully obtained the release of monies held by Receivers in the face of an assertion of state immunity by the Central Bank Board appointed by the Maduro Government.

The proceedings have been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England.

1.5 billion obtained by those states against the Club as liability insurer of the M/T Prestige, the total loss of which caused huge environmental and economic damage to the states.

Anna successfully represented France in the 5-day appeal which saw the Court decline jurisdiction in respect of both claims commenced by the Club.

Manek v 360 WAM Ltd [2023] EWHC 710 (Comm): Anna, with Joshua Crow, successfully defended the jurisdiction challenge brought by the defendant IIFL Wealth Group. Application of s.32 Limitation Act 1980.

RP Explorer Ltd (formerly Master Fund) v Malhotra [2020] EWHC 1225 (Comm): the correct approach under ECHR Article 6 where a defendant is in prison abroad and unable to attend trial.

KMG International NV v (1) Chen and (2) Chipper [2019] EWHC 3634 (comm); [2019] EWHC 2389 (Comm); [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm): claim to enforce a US$200 million arbitration award against the DPH Group. Freezing orders, jurisdiction and reflective loss.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip: [2018] EWHC 369 (Comm); [2017]

EWHC 3374 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1115 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1116 (Comm); [2017] CP

Rep 6; [2017] 1 WLR 467; [2017] 1 WLR 1360; [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm); [2015] 404

(Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

Anna represented defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud, conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors, resulting in a 3-month trial. The case produced a series of interlocutory decisions by the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal and involves issues relating to freezing orders, fiduciary duties and powers, limitation, discretionary trusts, contribution claims and s.423 IA 1986.

Accident Exchange v Autofocus & Ors [2018] 4 WLR 26: Anna represented Accident Exchange in what has been described as the largest ever fraud on the civil justice system where thousands of expert reports and witness statements containing false information were deployed in legal proceedings against Accident Exchange and other credit hire providers.

Tau Power BV & Ors v (1) The Republic of Kazakhstan (2) JSC Shulbinsk (3) JSC Kamenogorsk GES [2018]: Anna acted for Tau Power, along with David Foxton KC, to obtain injunctions against the defendants, including the Republic of Kazakhstan, to prevent escrow monies from being paid away following a substantial ICSID arbitration.

London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association v (1) Spain and (2) France (the Prestige) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 309; [2013] EWHC 2840 (Comm) and [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 33: Anna represented France and Spain in resisting s.66 applications to enforce Awards made against them so as to block their attempts to seek compensation for losses caused by the ecological disaster arising out of the sinking of the M/T Prestige in 2002.

Alliance Bank JSC v (1) Zhuns (2) Arip [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm): Anna represented the defendants in a $300 million fraud and conspiracy claim brought by Alliance Bank in respect of a series of outstanding loans.

Northampton Town Football Club v Grossman & Ors: Anna represented Northampton Town FC in its claims for breach of duty and an account from parties involved in the redevelopment of the facilities at the Sixfields Stadium and adjoining land.

Burger King Corporation v King Franchises Ltd [2013] EWHC 1761 (Comm): Anna successfully represented Burger King in obtaining declaratory relief and mandatory final injunctions against its former Cypriot franchisee.

Commercial chancery disputes

Many of Anna’s cases are of a commercial Chancery nature involving issues related to director’s and fiduciary duties and powers, fraud, company and partnership law, trusts, property, insolvency and professional negligence.

Anna also acts in a number of company matters (including s.994 petitions), insolvency matters as well as on financial services and professional negligence matters (valuers, tax advisors and solicitors).

Manek v Wirecard AG [2022]: Appeal in relation to the application of the Recast Insolvency Regulation and the effect of the liquidation of Wirecard AG in Germany on English proceedings.

Rudan v Leo Services & Ors [2022]: Defending an unfair prejudice petition presented against the holding company of a fiduciary services group. Allegations of forgery and acting in breach of duty by transferring subsidiaries out of group ownership.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip: [2018] EWHC 369 (Comm); [2017]EWHC 3374 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1115 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1116 (Comm); [2017] CP Rep 6; [2017] 1 WLR 467; [2017] 1 WLR 1360; [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm); [2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

LCIA Arbitration: Anna successfully represented the Claimant in a shareholders’ dispute, obtaining specific performance of a shareholders’ agreement and the transfer of shares to her client.

Premier Telecom v Grant Thornton: Anna acted for Grant Thornton, along with Simon Salzedo KC, in defending a valuer’s negligence claim.

Red October International SA v CJSC “VMZ Red October” & Ors: Anna acted for several of the NCAD defendants against which freezing orders had been granted in the BVI under the Chabra jurisdiction. Cross-border and insolvency.

RP Explorer Master Fund v (1) R Chilukuri (2) Spice International Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1307: Anna represented a Cayman investment fund in a dispute concerning global depository receipts issued on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange.

Independent Trustee Services Ltd v (1) GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Ors (2) Susan Morris [2012] EWCA Civ 195: A decision on when the ‘purchaser aspect’ of the bona fide purchaser defence is to be assessed; rescission; setting aside of a consent order.

BNE v Greatline Developments [2013]: Anna represented a commercial property agent in enforcing a profit share agreement against a property developer.

Rookledge v (1) Topological Systems Ltd (2) Tomassi [2012] Ch D (CR Baister): s.994 (unfair prejudice) proceedings.

Company law

Anna has experience of a wide range of company and personal insolvency applications, including shareholder disputes and s.994 petitions, as well as obtaining injunctions to prevent the presentation of winding up petitions.

Manek v Wirecard AG: Appeal in relation to the application of the Recast Insolvency Regulation and the effect of the liquidation of Wirecard AG in Germany on English proceedings.

Rudan v Leo Services & Ors: Defending an unfair prejudice petition presented against the holding company of a fiduciary services group. Allegations of forgery and acting in breach of duty by transferring subsidiaries out of group ownership.

LCIA Arbitration: Anna successfully represented the Claimant in a shareholders’ dispute, obtaining specific performance of a shareholders’ agreement and the transfer of shares to her client.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS)-v- (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors: Anna defended parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds.

Rookledge v (1) Topological Systems Ltd (2) Tomassi: s.994 (unfair prejudice) proceedings concerning a technology company.

Liquidators of Connor Williams Ltd v Williams & Ors: Anna defended misfeasance and negligence proceedings brought against a director of a substantial insolvent corporate group.

CHRS Ltd (In Liquidation) v (1) Kirby (2) Kirby: Anna successfully acted for the Liquidator in proceedings for specific performance of a settlement agreement and declarations as to the validity of the Liquidator’s security over the Defendant’s beneficial interest in real property.

Conflict of laws & private international law

While not listed out in this section individually, nearly all of Anna’s cases are international in nature and therefore involve conflicts issues. Anna is regularly instructed in relation to jurisdiction challenges and cases involving the application and proof of foreign law.

London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Association Ltd v Spain [2021] EWCA 1589: Anna acted for the French State in two actions brought by the London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Association against France and the Kingdom of Spain in relation to judgments in excess of EUR 1.5 billion obtained by those states against the Club as liability insurer of the M/T Prestige, the total loss of which caused huge environmental and economic damage to the states.

Anna successfully represented France in the 5-day appeal which saw the Court decline jurisdiction in respect of both claims commenced by the Club. Anna also represents France in a substantial related ad-hoc arbitration before Dame Elizabeth Gloster concerning anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions.

Deutsche Bank v the Central Bank of Venezuela: Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 for a receivership order and to determine whether the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela appointed by Juan Guaidó or that appointed by Nicolás Maduro is authorised to represent the Central Bank in an LCIA arbitration. The proceedings have been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England.

Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 981: Anna, with Wei Jian Chan, acted for Ness Global in a contractual dispute over software development services. Successful defence of jurisdiction challenge at first instance and on appeal in the context of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause and the Brussels Recast Regulation.

KMG v (1) Chen (2) Chipper [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm): Anna, together with Alain Choo Choy KC and Sophie Weber, acted for KMG in claims based on an unlawful scheme of dissipation under Dutch law and conspiracy under English law. Case decided whether the rule against reflective loss was substantive or procedural for the purposes of Rome II.

London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association v (1) Spain and (2) France (the Prestige) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 309; [2013] EWHC 2840 (Comm) and [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 33: Anna represented France and Spain in resisting s.66 applications to enforce arbitral Awards. The case involved questions of the classification of causes of action/issues from the perspective of English private international law as well as the enforcement regime under the Judgments Regulation.

Energy & natural resources

Nopporn Suppipat & Ors v Narongdeg & Ors [2020] EWHC 3191 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 3259 (Comm), [2022] EWHC 1806 (Comm): Anna, leading Helen Morton and James Petkovic, represented defendants in a complex fraud case involving allegations of deceit, conspiracy, forgery and asset stripping in relation to Thailand’s largest renewable energy provider.

Conapro v Ministry of Petroleum of The Gambia: Anna acted for the Claimant in its US$30 million claim for loss of profits arising out of an oil sales contract entered into with The Gambia. The case involved allegations of bribery of the former ambassador of The Gambia to Qatar.

AJ Crane Ltd v BP (Caspian Sea) Ltd: Anna acted for a supplier of cranes in a dispute with BP concerning the provision of substantial amounts of equipment for an energy project in Azerbaijan.

LCIA arbitration: Anna acted as sole advocate in a two week arbitration representing a seller of wafers for photovoltaic panels in a dispute relating to a long-term ‘take or pay’ contract.

LCIA arbitration: Anna acted for an international energy commodity trader in an LCIA international commercial arbitration concerning an oil pipeline in Ghana.

Financial Markets

Deutsche Bank v the Central Bank of Venezuela: Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to determine whether the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela appointed by Juan Guaidó or that appointed by Nicolás Maduro is authorised to represent the Central Bank in an LCIA arbitration. The proceedings have been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England.

Anna made novel use of receivership orders to protect DB against both contractual default and the imposition of US sanctions.

Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 661 (Ch); [2022] EWCA Civ 1264: Anna, with Alex Riddiford, represents the Issuers in a securitization structure in respect of committal proceedings in the Financial List brought against an individual for a series of breaches of an injunction. The case has produced several decisions on various aspects of committal applications, and an order of committal was made following trial in February 2022.

Anna and Alex were successful on appeal in July 2022.

Cayman hedge fund: Anna advised the investment advisor to a Cayman hedge and feeder fund structure in relation to claims brought by an investor for a proprietary interest in the assets of the fund.

LCIA Arbitration: Obtained the appointment of receivers pursuant to s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 over a termination sum payable pursuant to the early termination of a gold bullion swap governed by an ISDA Master Agreement.

RP Explorer Master Fund v (1) R Chilukuri (2) Spice International Ltd [2020] EWHC 1225 (Comm): Anna represented a Cayman investment fund in a dispute concerning global depository receipts issued on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip [2017] CP Rep 6; [2016] EWHC 2363

(Comm); [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm); [2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

Anna represented defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud, conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors. The case involved allegations that the proceeds of KK’s 2007 IPO on the LSE and the proceeds of a bond issue on the KSE were misappropriated.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS) v (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2013]: Anna defended parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds.

Interest rate swap litigation (various): Anna acted for various businesses which have brought claims in respect of the alleged mis-selling of interest rate swap hedging products.

Anna has advised banks and others on a number of disputes concerning FOREX trading, breaches of the ISDA Master Agreement and termination as well as the construction of contracts governing futures and interest rate swaps. Further, a substantial part of her fraud work has involved the operation of Cayman and BVI hedge funds.

Insolvency

Anna has experience of a wide range of company and corporate and personal insolvency applications, including obtaining injunctions to prevent the presentation of winding up petitions.

Manek v Wirecard AG: Appeal relating to the application of the Recast Insolvency Regulation and the effect of the liquidation of Wirecard AG in Germany on English proceedings.

Liquidators of Connor Williams Ltd v Williams & Ors: Anna defended misfeasance and negligence proceedings brought against a director of a substantial insolvent corporate group.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS) v (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors: Anna defended parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds.

CHRS Ltd (In Liquidation) v (1) Kirby (2) Kirby: Anna successfully acted for the Liquidator in proceedings for specific performance of a settlement agreement and declarations as to the validity of the Liquidator’s security over the defendant’s beneficial interest in real property.

International Arbitration

Anna advises and acts in a wide range of arbitral proceedings conducted both domestically and internationally. She also has experience of seeking (and resisting) injunctive relief (including anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions) and receivership orders pursuant to s.44 of the 1996 Act, enforcing or resisting the enforcement of arbitral awards and appeals to the High Court pursuant to ss.68 and 69. Recent examples of cases include:

Anna represented France in the substantial ad hoc arbitration before Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE involving the application of the conditional benefit principle to third parties, equitable compensation for breach of an arbitration agreement, anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, as well as damages in lieu under the successor to Lord Cairn’s Act.

London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Association Ltd v Spain [2021] EWCA 1589: Anna also represented France in two jurisdiction challenges involving complex and novel issues of arbitration law, jurisdiction and state immunity. Anna successfully represented France (and indeed Spain) in the 5-day appeal which saw the Court decline jurisdiction in respect of both claims commenced by the Club.

Deutsche Bank v the Central Bank of Venezuela: Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 for a receivership order and to determine whether the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela appointed by Juan Guaidó or that appointed by Nicolás Maduro is authorised to represent the Central Bank in an LCIA arbitration. The proceedings have now been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England. Anna made novel use of a receivership order to protect the bank against both contractual default and the imposition of US sanctions.

Also, in Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch v Receivers [2023] EWHC 1942 (Comm) Anna successfully obtained the release of monies held by Receivers on the basis of the proper construction of an arbitration agreement and immunity waiver clause in the ISDA Master Agreement.

LCIA arbitration: Dispute between several wealthy Russian businessmen in relation to a diamond business. Anna represented the Respondent, with Sophia Hurst, in the 2-week LCIA arbitration. Arbitration Act proceedings are ongoing.

LCIA Arbitration: Anna successfully represented the claimant in a shareholders’ dispute obtaining specific performance of a shareholders’ agreement and the transfer of shares to her client.

Tau Power BV & Ors v (1) The Republic of Kazakhstan (2) JSC Shulbinsk (3) JSC Kamenogorsk GES [2018]: Anna acted for Tau Power, along with David Foxton KC, to obtain injunctions against the defendants under s.44 AA 1996, including the Republic of Kazakhstan, to prevent escrow monies from being paid away following a substantial ICSID arbitration.

London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association v (1) Spain and (2) France (the Prestige) [2013] EWHC 3188 (Comm) and [2015] EWCA Civ 333: Anna represented Spain and France at first instance and on appeal in resisting s.66 applications to enforce negative declarations granted in Awards made against them in relation to their attempts to seek compensation for losses of over €4 billion caused by the ecological disaster arising out of the sinking of the M/T Prestige in 2002. Sovereign immunity, conflicts of laws, arbitrability, the Judgments Regulation and ss.67/72 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

LCIA Arbitration: Defending proceedings brought by a Turkish intermediary for fees arising out of a consultancy agreement in respect of military hardware provided to the Turkish military.

Ikon International (HK) Holdings Plc v Ikon Finance & Ors: Anna acted for the claimant in an ad hoc arbitration seeking damages in respect of the operation of a joint venture relating to online forex trading.

SIAC arbitration: Anna defended a Delaware company and a director and shareholder of that company in a contract and shareholder dispute with a substantial Indian co-operative. The matter concerned a prospective phosphorus rock off-take agreement in relation to one or more Australian mines.

Ad hoc arbitration: Anna acted for a wealthy individual in a dispute related to the proposed demolition of a valuable London property. Anna also obtained interim relief pursuant to s.44.

LCIA arbitration: Anna represented a seller of wafers for photovoltaic panels in a dispute relating to a long-term ‘take or pay’ contract.

LCIA arbitration (Dubai): Anna acted for a large international law firm in a partnership dispute.

LCIA arbitration: Anna acted for an international energy commodity trader in an LCIA international commercial arbitration concerning an oil pipeline in Ghana.

LCIA arbitration: Anna acted for a large international telecoms and technology company in an LCIA international commercial arbitration concerning the implementation of a 3G network.

Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC 1 (Comm): The first reported (and widely commented upon) decision on the Court’s powers under s. 42 Arbitration Act 1996 with regard to enforcement of a peremptory order made by a Tribunal.

Ad hoc arbitration: Anna acted in the hearing of a very substantial ad hoc commercial arbitration regarding alleged breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties arising out of a business venture in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Offshore litigation

Anna has acted in many cases before the courts of Jersey, Guernsey, the BVI, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Brunei, including in relation to the application of US sanctions. See references above to e.g. the Prince Jefri Bolkiah litigation, Kazatamprom and Red October (see above in other sections).

Professional negligence

A number of Anna’s cases listed above have involved allegations of professional negligence (see RP Explorer (negligence proceedings brought by RP against its former solicitors in respect of breaches of duty arising out of advice and representation in contentious proceedings), Irving Picard, Premier Telecom, Connor Williams and Wilson v Emmott).

Anna has also recently defended a large accountancy practice and a private bank against allegations of negligence. These and many of Anna’s other professional negligence cases against solicitors, directors, accountants, pension fund trustees and auditors, remain confidential.

Unjust enrichment & restitution claims

Many of Anna’s cases involve restitutionary claims, both within and outside of the civil fraud context. But by way of example only:

The State of Brunei Darussalam & the Brunei Investment Agency v HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah: defending claims in restitution made by the Brunei Investment Agency to recover funds allegedly misappropriated by Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei while he was Minister of Finance.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS) v (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors: defending a claim to restitution made by the Liquidator of Bernard Madoff’s investment firm to recover sums paid by that firm to feeder funds as redemptions.

Independent Trustee Services Ltd v (1) GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Ors (2) Susan Morris [2012] EWCA Civ 195: a case on rescission and restitution arising out of the innocent receipt of trust monies. The case involved difficult questions about the consequential effects of rescission and restitutio in integreum.

Career

2023: Elected a Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn

2021: Silk

2008: Call

2005: Solicitor Advocate

2002-2008: Solicitor, Commercial Litigation

Education

1999: Legal Practice Course
1998: Law and French Law at University College London
1997: Université d’Assas