Richard Hoyle

Professional practice

Richard has over a decade of experience as a litigator and international arbitration counsel, with an advocacy and advisory practice which spans the full range of domestic and international commercial disputes, as well as overlapping issues in areas such as contentious trusts, proceeds of crime, public corruption and public international law. He is ranked as a Leading Junior for Banking & Finance, Civil Fraud and Proceeds of Crime & Asset Forfeiture, and was previously recognised as one of the leading practitioners amongst his peer group, featuring three times in the Legal 500’s ‘Top Ten under Eight Years’ Call’ as well as a ‘Rising Star’ for Commercial Litigation. Richard was shortlisted for Social Mobility Bar Champion of the Year at the Legal 500 ESG Awards 2024.

Richard’s matters are generally substantial, complex, high value and often involve multiple parties. They regularly require him to be ‘hands on’ and to take a leading case management role, often involving the conduct of oral advocacy against KCs. On the client side, his previous experience as Chair of the Young Bar, including convening and participating in discussions with representatives of Government, the Civil Service and other senior stakeholders, means that he is comfortable advising in conference at the highest levels.

Richard is one of very few English juniors to have been called (ad hoc) to the Bar of Trinidad & Tobago (2024-ongoing, representing the Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago) and was recently appointed to the SFO’s “A” Panel of Counsel (Proceeds of Crime and International Assistance). In addition, he has sought-after niche specialisms in: (a) obtaining cross-border evidence and Letters of Request; (b) the interaction between open justice and confidentiality / publicity restrictions / private hearings; and (c) classic car disputes.

Notable ongoing or recent cases include:

Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Josef Stava [2024] EWHC 2102 (Comm) (Commercial Court – 2 week section 67 Arbitration Act challenge against an investment treaty arbitration award said to be worth c$700m, concerning PIL, international arbitration and the law of Liechtenstein discretionary trusts. One of The Lawyer’s Cases of 2024, listed for a 5 day appeal in the Court of Appeal in early 2025)
Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates LP [2024] EWHC 2037 (Comm) (Commercial Court – section 67 Arbitration Act challenge against an investment treaty arbitration award said to be worth c$100m, concerning PIL, international arbitration, and M&A activity by the National Pension Fund of Korea, as well as public/private hearings/confidentiality restrictions in the context of the KORUS FTA transparency provisions and sensitive Government materials. Listed for a 2 day appeal in the Court of Appeal in early 2025)
Al Aggad v Al Aggad [2024] 1 WLR 5261 and [2024] 4 WLR 35 (Commercial Court – jurisdiction challenge focusing on “real risk of substantial injustice” aspect of forum conveniens and open justice/confidentiality restrictions)
Re Smith / Harbour v Thomas et al (also referred to as SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors / the Orb Litigation) (Commercial Court – ongoing enforcement efforts following a major fraud trial in 2021, now considering the impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR judgment on rights established at that trial based on a trust created by a litigation funding agreement)
In the matter of Baroness Mone and Douglas Barrowman (Crown Court – restraint order under POCA freezing c£75m of assets in relation to the NCA’s criminal investigation into PPE Medpro)
Moyses Stevens Flowers Ltd v Flower Station Ltd [2024] EWHC 4 (Ch) (Chancery Division – summary judgment / strike out application seeking an account following a corporate demerger / business separation)
Procuritas Partners AB & Anr v Blomfield and Mentzer [2023] EWHC 167 (KB) (KBD – Letter of Request for deposition evidence from investment bankers for use in Danish private equity dispute)
Phoenix v Harbour & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 36 (Court of Appeal – equitable assignment / Loan Notes and Liquidation Inter-Creditor Settlement Agreement)

Richard also has considerable experience of arbitration under a variety of major sets of arbitration rules, including ICC, LCIA, LMAA, LME, UNCITRAL and SIAC, as well as ad hoc arbitration and investment treaty arbitration. He also takes cases via Advocate (formerly the Bar Pro Bono Unit) where the subject matter is appropriate.

Richard is regularly involved in ‘thought leadership’ activities on a wide range of topics, including a joint Associazione Italiana per l’Arbitrato / DIS seminar in 2024 (Post M&A Disputes and W&I Policies), a Polish/English/US comparative seminar for the Krakow Bar of Attorneys in 2024 (Cross-Examination of Witnesses), a long form article in the Journal of International Banking and Financial Law (The Fiduciary’s Divestment Dilemma: ESG and the age of climate change), LIDW 2023 Climate Change Law Conference (Climate Change in Commercial Disputes: Corporate Greenwashing), Asset Recovery Americas 2022 (I say discovery, you say disclosure (and that’s before we get to 1782 and Norwich Pharmacal), CIArb London Branch’s December 2021 Lunchtime Discussion Webinar (Tribunal Secretaries – a path to arbitral efficiency or an abdication of responsibility).

What Others Say

The Legal 500 2025 Banking and Finance

“Excellent barrister. Very strong written and oral advocacy. Good on strategy. Client and user-friendly.”

The Legal 500 2025 Fraud: Civil

“He is very intelligent and has a total grasp on the facts of a case.”

Chambers & Partners 2025 Fraud: Civil

“Richard is really good – a very bright junior indeed who is very pleasant to work with as well.”

The Legal 500 2025 Proceeds of Crime & Asset Forfeiture

“He is incredibly bright and wears it well. He is very personable, engaging, enthusiastic and easy to work with.”

The Legal 500 2024, Fraud: Civil and Banking and Finance

“Tenacious and diligent, and a good fighter in court.”

The Legal 500 (Previous Editions), Commercial Litigation: ‘Rising Star’ / ‘Top Ten under Eight Years’ Call’:

“Pleasant, intelligent and hard working. Always good to work with and will do his best to understand what drives clients and solicitors in particular cases and to tailor his approach, strategy and style of advice accordingly. On my list to recommend to my colleagues.”

“A promising and rising barrister whose grasp of the law is impressive.”

“Not afraid to express an opinion (which is always considered) and to think strategically. He also works well as part of a team. One to watch.”

“Very bright, pragmatic, and works well with junior and senior team members.”

Arbitration

Richard has considerable commercial arbitration experience under a variety of major sets of arbitration rules, including ICC, LCIA, LMAA, LME, UNCITRAL and SIAC, as well as ad hoc commercial arbitration and experience of investment treaty arbitration. The arbitrations in which he has been involved, or given advice in relation to, have been seated in various jurisdictions around the world as well as London, and a number of them have been governed by foreign law (both civilian and common law), in whole or in part, which has given rise to complex jurisdiction and applicable law issues. The underlying subject matter of the arbitrations has been extremely varied, reflecting the diversity of Richard’s general commercial / commercial chancery practice. Examples include:

Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Josef Stava [2024] EWHC 2102 (Comm) – acting (led by Graham Dunning KC, Lucas Bastin KC and with Peter Webster and Katherine Ratcliffe) in a section 67 Arbitration Act challenge against an investment treaty arbitration award said to be worth c$700m, concerning PIL, international arbitration and the law of Liechtenstein discretionary trusts. One of The Lawyer’s Cases of 2024, listed for a 5 day appeal in the Court of Appeal in early 2025.

Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates LP [2024] EWHC 2037 (Comm) (Commercial Court – acting (led by Sam Wordsworth KC and with Peter Webster) in a section 67 Arbitration Act challenge against an investment treaty arbitration award said to be worth c$100m, concerning PIL, international arbitration, and M&A activity by the National Pension Fund of Korea, as well as public/private hearings/confidentiality restrictions in the context of the KORUS FTA transparency provisions and sensitive Government materials. Listed for a 2 day appeal in the Court of Appeal in early 2025.

Acted (led by James Sheehan KC) in an LCIA Arbitration (2023-2024) in relation to the operation and management of luxury London Hotels.

Advised a company as to its options regarding the continuation of a distributorship agreement and the commencement of an ICC Arbitration (2022), including the application of the emergency arbitrator provisions under the ICC Rules and the availability of injunctive relief in Court under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Acted (leading Lorraine Aboagye) for the Claimants in a consolidated LCIA Arbitration (2021 -2022) against a State and a State-owned entity in a c.US$250m claim related to the failure to ensure exclusive supply of LPG to the Claimants and their subsequent exclusion from a long -term project to build an energy terminal. The claim settled after the Claimants’ claim submissions had been provided and two procedural hearings (at the latter of which the Claimants obtained peremptory orders against the Respondents).

Acted as sole counsel in an LCIA Arbitration (2020) concerning the failure to remit payments due in respect of fees and charges incurred in the performance of a Direct Sale, Direct Purchase contract relating to crude and refined petroleum products. The case involved consideration of the principles of agency, as well as legal and equitable set off, and was ultimately settled the evening before the procedural hearing.

Acted (led by Charles Ciumei KC) in an LCIA Arbitration (2019) on behalf of a former partner of a global law firm, involving inter alia the principles governing the interpretation and termination of LLP agreements, as well as the meaning and effect of the employment provisions of the Rome I Regulation and the application of mandatory provisions of foreign law, unfair prejudice and restraint of trade. The case settled at the time that further disclosure was due to be provided by the law firm.

Acted (led by Paul Key KC) in a SIAC Arbitration (2018-2019) concerning software licensing, involving consideration of the impact of non-assignment and transfer clauses on the parties to the arbitration agreement and the substantive agreement, in the context of a corporate reorganisation of one of the parties under foreign law.

Acted (led by Hugh Mercer KC and with Freddie Onslow) in an LMAA Arbitration (2016-2019) resulting from the collapse of a Share Purchase Agreement between two ferry companies and involving counterclaims based on the alleged mismanagement of the target company, involving a 4 week hearing with an amount in dispute of up to €90m.

Banking & Finance

Richard has been involved in a range of banking & finance disputes, with a particular focus on issues which arise out of or are related to corporate investment, including: post M&A disputes, the alleged proprietary effect of certain transaction documents, the rights and duties of funded parties under litigation funding agreements, introducer / broker commissions, investment adviser conduct, sovereign and commercial bond issues and sales, and FX trading. In addition, Richard’s specialist expertise in obtaining cross-border evidence (detailed separately) is often sought in the context of complex financial disputes where the main proceedings are taking place in the US. Examples of Richard’s work where the main proceedings are taking place in England & Wales include:

Sousa Enterprises Ltd and Eltsar Ltd v Aspire Global Ltd – acting (led by Stephen Houseman KC) for the defendant buyer of an e-gaming / gambling company in an earnout dispute with the sellers claiming additional consideration of cEUR36m.

Anglia Maltings (Holdings) Ltd v Hemera Vermögensverwaltungsgesellschaft MbH – acting for the claimant seeking substantial damages for fraudulent breach of warranty under a share sale agreement, alleged to arise due to undisclosed non-compliance with applicable environmental regulations.

Advise an SME in relation to issues concerning events of default and potential acceleration of a suite of commercial loans worth c£3m against the background of business interruption due to COVID-19

Ticehurst & Ors v Harbour & Ors [2022] EWHC 3053 (Comm) – acted (led by Elizabeth Jones KC and Daniel Saoul KC, and with Lorraine Aboagye) for the Settlement Parties on one of the enforcement issues arising out of the SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors litigation concerning whether the funded parties under a litigation funding agreement had an active role as trustees and were required to take positive steps to get in assets, as well as broader questions about the operation of commercial trusts. The subsequent approved ruling made significant adverse costs orders against the remaining trustee-beneficiaries and disapplied their indemnity in respect of those costs orders.

Acted on behalf of a company seeking a declaration of non-liability resisting a prospective claim from an investment adviser for a transaction fee alleged to have been earned through completion of an asset sale agreement, where the advice was ostensibly sought in relation to raising new debt (settled after provision of the company’s draft statement of case).

Advised a University concerning an ongoing investment made for the purposes of establishing a community retail Bank, including consideration of its status as a corporation incorporated by Royal Charter and also as an exempt charity.

Advised a company about claims for breach of warranty and misrepresentation relating to the content of a customer database purchased as part of an asset purchase agreement.

Acted on behalf of an introducer / broker in relation to an entitlement to a six-figure transaction fee alleged to have been earned by a €88m share sale agreement having been closed.

Advised a corporate financier in relation to an entitlement to a six-figure introduction fee alleged to have been earned by introducing a company to an investment fund which led to a €53m investment by the fund.

Commercial chancery disputes

Richard has a strong commercial chancery practice which covers a broad range of business disputes, for example in relation to: share / asset purchases / post M&A (including SPA and APA warranties / representations), joint ventures, corporate governance and director conduct, control or entitlements as members or officers of corporate vehicles (including companies, LLPs, LPs, partnerships), unincorporated associations, trusts and offshore structures. Richard’s cases have involved many different equitable doctrines and principles, including: express, constructive and resulting trusts, bona fide purchasers, solicitors’ liens, equitable assignment, trustee and receiver indemnities, security interests, equitable priorities, tracing, various reliefs under the Court’s equitable jurisdiction (including Beddoe, Berkley Applegate, Buckton, Public Trustee v Cooper), accessory liability and the economic torts, conversion and bailment. Examples of litigation-oriented cases (arbitration experience is detailed separately) include:

Harbour v Thomas et al – acting (led by Daniel Saoul KC) in ongoing enforcement efforts following the SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors litigation, now considering the impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR judgment on rights established at that trial based on a trust created by a litigation funding agreement.

Moyses Stevens Flowers v Flower Station Ltd and Cohen [2024] EWHC 4 (Ch) – acted for the claimant seeking an account following a demerger / business separation and including issues of agency, directors’ duties and the position of shadow and de facto directors. The case settled shortly before a consequentials hearing at which permission to amend and permission to appeal against the above judgment was being sought by the claimant.

SMA Investment Holdings Ltd v Harbour & Ors [2023] EWHC 428 (Comm) – acted (led by Daniel Saoul KC and with Lorraine Aboagye) for the Settlement Parties on one of the enforcement issues arising out of the SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors litigation and following on from Ticehurst & Ors (see below), concerning a jurisdiction challenge against orders requiring the transfer of assets into the hands of new trustees, a late application for a stay of proceedings and abuse of process.

Phoenix v Harbour & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 36 – acted (led by Daniel Saoul KC) for the Settlement Parties on a point arising out of the SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors litigation (see below) concerning whether a Loan Note and a Liquidation Inter-Creditor Settlement Agreement effected an equitable assignment of the shareholder surplus in several offshore liquidations the Respondents’ Notice which put in issue the conceptual nature of rights and obligations under a trust did not ultimately need to be determined).

Ticehurst & Ors v Harbour & Ors [2022] EWHC 3053 (Comm) – acted (led by Elizabeth Jones KC and Daniel Saoul KC, and with Lorraine Aboagye) for the Settlement Parties on one of the enforcement issues arising out of the SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors litigation (see below) concerning whether the funded parties under a litigation funding agreement had an active role as trustees and were required to take positive steps to get in assets, as well as broader questions about the operation of commercial trusts. The case also considered the validity of the purported appointment of a replacement trustee, trustee removal, and the appointment of receivers over trust property. The subsequent approved ruling made significant adverse costs orders against the remaining trustee-beneficiaries and disapplied their indemnity in respect of those costs orders.

Ulrich Pelz v Harbour & Ors – acted (leading Lorraine Aboagye) in proceedings related to the SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors litigation (see below) which would determine whether Mr Pelz would outrank certain of the Settlement Parties’ equitable interests at a Phase II Trial. A final settlement was achieved between the PTR and the commencement of the 2 week Commercial Court trial in October 2022.

HPII UK Ltd & Anr v Ruhan and Stevens – acted (led by Daniel Saoul KC) in proceedings related to the SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors litigation (see below) which would determine issues of principle affecting HPII’s ability to establish upstream tracing claims with the potential to outrank the Settlement Parties’ equitable interests which were due to be determined at a Phase II Trial to take place at a later date. Issues included the application and interpretation of sections 21 and 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, but a final settlement was achieved between the PTR and the commencement of the 3 week Commercial Court trial in November 2021 (which as between the remaining parties was later reported at [2022] EWHC 383 (Comm)).

SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors (also referred to as Re Gerald Martin Smith / the Orb Litigation) – since 2019, Richard has acted as part of a team of counsel (led variously by Daniel Saoul KC, Nathan Pillow KC, Tim Akkouh KC), and latterly as lead junior counsel (to Lorraine Aboagye), in this case which is one of the few cases in the Commercial Court of a sufficient size and complexity to require case management by a designated judge (Mr Justice Foxton). Richard appears on behalf of the SFO, Enforcement Receivers, the Viscount of the Royal Court of Jersey, Stewarts Law, Harbour and Joint Liquidators of several BVI companies, in a dispute involving 48 parties in a range of jurisdictions, which determined equitable rights in a variety of assets including shares, real property and chattels following a major fraud. The case involved very complicated issues relating to express, constructive and resulting trusts, bona fide purchasers, equitable liens and security interests, equitable priorities and tracing. The trial judgment following a 7 week trial ([2021] EWHC 1272 (Comm)) and the associated strike out judgment (SFO & Anr v HP II UK Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 1273 (Comm)) are leading authorities in this area, including in relation to the availability of constructive trusts over real property in Jersey (a point on which Richard was responsible for the oral advocacy) and the principles of backwards tracing. Various interlocutory decisions were also reported, including on technical case management issues arising out of dealing with multiparty trust claims: [2020] EWHC 788 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 1280 (Comm) (advertisement and guillotine orders); [2020] EWHC 2077(Comm); [2020] EWHC 3548 (Comm); [2021] EWHC 2803 (Comm) (costs).

Acting or advised as sole counsel in several different disputes arising out of corporate sales claiming for introduction / broker fees on completion.

Fighting Fit Sports Limited v Stadium Capital West Limited – acted pro bono (via Advocate/the Bar Pro Bono Unit) as sole counsel in long-running proceedings culminating in a 2 day trial. The dispute concerned the disposal of the fencing equipment and other items by a commercial landlord following the termination of the lease of a unit, raising difficult issues of contractual interpretation, conversion, bailment and equity. Pro bono costs orders totalling £26,000 were obtained for the Access to Justice Foundation.

Commercial dispute resolution

Richard’s practice spans the full range of commercial disputes, whether domestic or international. He has advised or represented individuals, companies and other legal entities, international organisations, NGOs, States and Governments in a diverse range of scenarios and legal contexts. Richard’s broad experience across other related practice areas means that he is often able to bring a different perspective to the resolution of the disputed issues. Recent litigation examples include:

Al Aggad v Al Aggad [2024] 1 WLR 5261 and [2024] 4 WLR 35 – acting (led by Stephen Houseman KC and with Wei Jian Chan) on behalf of the First and Second Defendants to a breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy claim relating to a family dispute about the shares in a Saudi company. The jurisdiction phase focused on the “real risk of substantial injustice” aspect of forum conveniens and also involved consideration of the interaction between the principle of open justice and countervailing confidentiality considerations.

Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago v Ramlogan and Ramdeen – acting in the High Court of Trinidad & Tobago (ad hoc call, led by Jonathan Cohen KC) on behalf of the Attorney General in proceedings concerning alleged kickbacks.

Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago – advising (led by Kennedy Talbot KC) the Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago in relation to a set of sealed proceedings.

SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors (also referred to as Re Gerald Martin Smith / the Orb Litigation) – acting as lead junior counsel (led by Daniel Saoul KC) for the Settlement Parties since mid 2021 (formerly part of a team of counsel since 2019). Numerous reported decisions on many key aspects of the interaction between equity and commercial law – for further detail, see the Commercial Chancery drop-down.

Phoenix v Harbour & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 36 – acted (led by Daniel Saoul KC) for the Settlement Parties on a point arising out of the SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors litigation concerning whether a Loan Note and a Liquidation Inter-Creditor Settlement Agreement effected an equitable assignment of the shareholder surplus in several offshore liquidations.

Procuritas Partners AB & Anr v Blomfield and Mentzer [2023] EWHC 167 (KB) – represented the applicants (a private equity fund and one of its officers) seeking deposition evidence from senior officers of an investment Bank pursuant to a Letter of Request from the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court, for the purposes of their defence of proceedings in Denmark alleging liability for misrepresentations in the conduct of a corporate sale.

James Kemball Ltd v “K” Line (Europe) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2239 (Comm) – acted (led by James Collins KC) on behalf of the Defendant to a breach of contract claim arising from the alleged failure to provide the required number of container transport jobs to a road haulage company after the ONE merger between Japanese container line businesses. Issues included the operation of the trigger events within a contractual termination clause, the scope and operation of a “sole and exclusive remedy” clause and the proper quantification of any losses.

A range of disputes relating to high value classic car purchases, including: a 1964 AC Cobra, a Ferrari 330 GTC, a Maserati Sebring, and a 1956 Mercedes 300C.

Conflict of laws & private international law

The international nature of many of Richard’s cases means that he is familiar with the usual conflict of laws and private international law issues which arise in the course of litigation or arbitration. This includes: State immunity (jurisdictional and enforcement); jurisdiction challenges / questions as to the scope of jurisdiction or arbitration agreements, including competing dispute resolution clauses; service (including the Hague Service Convention and service by alternative methods); cross-border evidence (including the Hague Evidence Convention and bilateral Civil Procedure treaties); notarization and legalization (including the Hague Apostille Convention), determination of applicable law and mandatory / public policy overrides (including the Rome Convention and Rome I Regulation); and foreign governing law (both civil law and common law, including past cases governed in whole or part by BVI, Greek, German, Indian, Italian, Jersey, Jordanian, Liechtenstein, Saudi, Singaporean, Ukrainian and US law).

Employment, Partnership and LLP Disputes

Richard has advised and acted for both employees and employers (and their equivalents in LLPs and other structures) in various business protection disputes, including in particular in relation to issues such as breach of contract, enforceability of PTRs, breach of confidence, and the full range of economic torts. Examples include:

Digital Realty Trust v Coogan – acted as sole counsel on behalf of an employee who had previously been subject to interim orders requiring disclosure / access to devices and accounts to be given to IT professionals for a search for allegedly confidential information. A settlement was achieved after exchange of skeleton arguments prior to a CMC at which the sustainability of the employer’s case in light of those findings was due to be scrutinized.

Advised a company as to the steps which could be taken against a former employee and former contractor who appeared to be in possession of and utilising the employer’s confidential information.

Advised (with Charles Ciumei KC) a partner at a global law firm as to the requirements and restrictions under the firm’s LLP agreement, prior to a negotiated withdrawal from the partnership.

Fraud, Asset Recovery and Proceeds of Crime

Richard’s cases routinely involve allegations of fraud and he has a broad range of experience with the substantive causes of action involved in such cases, and the procedural applications involved in securing assets, establishing claims against them, and taking enforcement steps if required. The majority of his commercial chancery experience involves these types of issues arising across multiple jurisdictions and requires an in-depth understanding of the operation of some of the most complex onshore and offshore legal structures which are encountered when litigating such claims.

This expertise has led to Richard appearing in some of the most difficult, complicated and novel cases in the related (civil) field of proceeds of crime – he was also appointed to the SFO’s ‘A’ Panel of Counsel (Proceeds of Crime and International Assistance) in 2024. Separate examples are given below.

Civil Fraud

SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors (also referred to as Re Gerald Martin Smith / the Orb Litigation) – acting as lead junior counsel (led by Daniel Saoul KC) for the Settlement Parties since mid 2021 (formerly part of a team of counsel since 2019). Numerous reported decisions on many key aspects of the interaction between fraud, equity and commercial law – for further detail, see the Commercial Chancery drop-down.

S v R – acted pro bono (via Advocate/the Bar Pro Bono Unit, leading Katherine Ratcliffe) in the Family Court on behalf of a former wife in discharging a without notice freezing injunction obtained by the former husband under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, including on the basis of a failure to respect the procedural safeguards and the principles of full and frank disclosure.

Advised (via Advocate/ the Bar Pro Bono Unit) an individual who had been the victim of an alleged fraudulent scheme involving a fictitious educational institution.

Proceeds of Crime: Criminal Justice Act 1988:

SFO & Anr v LCL & 45 Ors – acting (led by Daniel Saoul KC) for private parties in proceedings concerned with establishing their pre-existing proprietary rights so as to enjoy priority over the SFO’s c£70m confiscation order, consideration of the interaction of those rights with the operation of orders for management / enforcement receivership, including costs orders and the Piggott condition jurisdiction, variation of restraint orders and the issuance of a certificate of inadequacy.

Proceeds of Crime: POCA 2002:

DPP v Krasniqi – acting for the Defendant in one of the first sets of civil recovery proceedings brought by the DPP under Part 5 POCA, where a CRO valued at c£2m is sought based on several separate allegations of foreign criminality said to have been committed by non-parties to the proceedings so as to meet the dual criminality threshold.

In the matter of Baroness Mone and Douglas Barrowman – acted (led by Kennedy Talbot KC) for the CPS to obtain a restraint order over assets worth c£75m pending the NCA’s criminal investigation into PPE Medpro.

R (Private Prosecutor) v B – acted (led by Kennedy Talbot KC) for a private prosecutor in restraint proceedings where a restraint order over assets exceeding £2m has been secured pending the resolution of the private prosecution.

R v Luckhurst [2022] UKSC 33 – acted (led by Kennedy Talbot KC) for the CPS in the leading Supreme Court case concerning the effect of the POCA framework for restraint orders on the availability of exceptions permitting reasonable legal expenses to be paid out in parallel civil proceedings, including issues relating to Art 6 and Art 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Richard has also provided advice concerning Property Freezing Orders under Part 5 POCA and investigatory orders under Part 8 POCA.

Public international law

Richard has a long-standing academic interest in public international law, which includes a master’s thesis on State Succession to Treaties (as part of his BCL) and past participation in the Directed Studies programme of the world-renowned Summer Course at the Hague Academy of International Law. In the course of his practice, Richard regularly deals with the treaties concluded under the auspices of the Hague Conference concerning aspects of international civil procedure. Further, Richard has been involved in a number of cases which have raised technical or controversial PIL issues, including:

A consolidated LCIA Arbitration (2021- 2022) – advised the Claimant as to certain State immunity issues (both jurisdictional and enforcement) which were likely to arise in its commercial claim against a State and State-owned entity.

Law Debenture Trust v Ukraine [2018] EWCA Civ 2026 and [2017] EWHC 655 (Comm) – acted (led by Bankim Thanki KC, Professor Malcolm Shaw KC, and Simon Atrill) on behalf of the Ukraine seeking to resist the Trustee’s summary judgment application in respect of the nonpayment of a $3bn Eurobond issue and in preparing Ukraine’s appeal to the Court of Appeal. The case raised a variety of complicated questions concerning the relationship between international law and English commercial law, including conflict of laws questions concerning the capacity of states when operating under domestic law, and the impact of public international law upon English law in the context of duress and implied terms, particularly regarding the status of unincorporated treaties and customary international law. One of The Lawyer’s Cases of 2017.

Oschadbank v Russia – assisted Professor Malcolm Shaw KC in the preparation of an expert report on the novel questions of treaty interpretation involved in the arbitration, the first Bilateral Investment Treaty claim in relation to Russia’s conduct during the annexation of Crimea to have had an Award rendered. In particular, the report examined the treatment, for jurisdictional purposes, of investments which were once on domestic territory where that territory has subsequently been subject to a forcible change of control by another sovereign state.

‘In the matter of the Status of Norfolk Island as a Non-Self-Governing Territory’ – advised (with Professor Vaughan Lowe KC, Dr Christopher Ward SC and Dr Stephen Tully) the Norfolk Island People for Democracy in an opinion addressing the legal aspects of whether Norfolk Island can be considered a Non-Self-Governing territory within the meaning of Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations as part of the ongoing high profile dispute between Norfolk Island and Australia.

‘In the matter of an International Organisation’ – advised (with Professor Dan Sarooshi KC) an international organisation in relation to complex issues of the international law of the civil service, including the potential liability of an international organisation for third party torts committed against members of staff on mission.

Shipping & admiralty

Richard’s experience is focused on issues which arise at the intersection of the shipping and transportation industries (which therefore requires an understanding of relevant operational aspects) with broader corporate or commercial disputes. Examples include:

Scorpio LR2 Pool Ltd v Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd [2021] EWHC 1305 (Comm) – acted (led by Jern Fei Ng KC) on behalf of the Defendant, raising the defence of financial impossibility as it applies to mandatory injunctive relief under a maritime letter of indemnity.

James Kemball Ltd v (1) K Line (Europe) Ltd (2) Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33 – acted (led by James Collins KC) on behalf of the second Defendant in an appeal concerning a claim for inducing breach of contract said to arise out of the ONE merger between Japanese container line businesses. The Court below found that it had jurisdiction over the claims, but awarded the second Defendant indemnity costs due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with its duty of full and frank disclosure: [2019] EWHC 3422 (Comm). On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the jurisdiction finding and held in favour of the second Defendant that there was no reasonable prospect of success on the Claimant’s inducing breach of contract argument.

Advised owners as to the governing law and limitations of certain contractual claims relating to replacement parts for a vessel ordered under the ORGALIME General Conditions, as well as jurisdiction and governing law over potential tort claims relating to the original parts.

Brookes (t/a Brookes & Co) v Atlantic Marine & Aviation LLP [2018] EWHC 1168 (Comm) – acted as sole counsel in the trial of preliminary issues as to whether the provision of a fee estimate was, in the circumstances of the case, a condition precedent to liability for solicitors’ fees in respective of certain maritime claims, and also whether an implied retainer had arisen in virtue of the work done.

Taking of Evidence Abroad/Letters of Request

Richard has a sought-after specialist practice in relation to all matters involved in obtaining cross-border evidence. This includes obtaining evidence in support of foreign proceedings / obtaining foreign evidence in support of domestic proceedings, dealing with all aspects of inbound and outbound Letters of Request / Letters Rogatory, the Hague Evidence Convention and bilateral Civil Procedure treaties, as well as issues relating to the availability in the cross-border context of Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust relief, third party disclosure and pre-action disclosure. Richard’s advice on such matters is most often sought on a free standing basis, but is equally available in the course of existing proceedings or as specialist counsel brought in to deal with those aspects of a case. He is also available to be nominated as an examiner for the purposes of taking depositions where the subject matter is appropriate.

In addition to ad hoc advice provided on many occasions, recent examples include:

Sihler et al v Scrancher – representing the witness / deponee in relation to a Letter of Request obtained in class action fraud / RICO proceedings before the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida relating to the alleged involvement of a specialist chargeback company facilitating and processing chargebacks as part of payment processing for Visa and Mastercard in a diet pill fraud overcharging customer credit cards as compared to advertisements.

Health Plans Health Inc v American National Insurance – representing the witness / depone in relation to a Letter of Request obtained by the applicant from the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas relating to reinsurance claims arising out of a ‘bloodless’ heart transplant.

The Burlington Insurance Company v Young – represented the witness / deponee in relation to a Letter of Request obtained by the applicant from the Superior Court of the State of California relating to proceedings in which it is defending an insurance claim. The case involves issues of English law privilege which have required special arrangements to be made for the Senior Master to sit as judicial examiner.

Advised the applicants for a Letter of Request seeking documents and oral examination from representatives of an asset manager for the purposes of defending investor claims in a US securities litigation.

Starman Hotel Holdings LLC v Travelodge Hotels Limited & Ors – advised Travelodge as to how to respond to and challenge an order for documents and oral examination made pursuant to a Letter of Request issued by a US District Court in US proceedings brought to enforce an arbitral award. A consensual variation to the order was achieved which limited it to the production of a much narrower selection of specific documents.

Career

2018 Chair of the Young Bar of England & Wales

2017 Vice Chair of the Young Bar of England & Wales

2013-14 Pupillage at Essex Court Chambers (with Edmund King QC)

2013 Called to the Bar, Lincoln’s Inn

2012-13 Research Assistant to Prof Ben McFarlane, focusing on Proprietary Estoppel

2010 Research Assistant to Prof Johannes Köndgen, focusing on European Banking Regulation

2009 Research Intern, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, as part of the ADR Project Team

Education

2024 Appointed to the SFO’s ‘A’ Panel of Counsel (Proceeds of Crime and International Assistance)

2024 Called (ad hoc) to the Bar of Trinidad & Tobago

2012-13 BPTC, City Law School (Very Competent)

2011-2012 BCL, Brasenose College, Oxford (Distinction)

2011 Directed Studies in Public International Law, Hague Academy of International Law

2009-10 ERASMUS Programme, University of Bonn

2007-11 BA in Jurisprudence with Law Studies in Europe, Brasenose College, Oxford (1st Class Hons)

Awards

2013 Eastham Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

2012 Lord Mansfield Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

Hardwicke Entrance Award, Lincoln’s Inn

2011 Barry Nicholas Studentship for the BCL, Brasenose College

International Law Fund Scholarship, Hague Academy of International Law

All Souls Prize for Public International Law (1st Place in Final Honour School)

College Prize for Outstanding Achievement in Final Honour School

2010 Targetjobs Law Undergraduate of the Year (UK-wide competition)

Honourable Mention for Best Oral Advocate in the Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot

2009 John Marks Prize for Best Oral Advocate in the Philip C Jessup International Law Moot

2008 Open Exhibition, Brasenose College

Barrister at Essex Court Chambers

Professional practice