Ricky Diwan KC

Professional practice

Ricky Diwan KC has a global practice in the fields of international commercial litigation,

international commercial arbitration, international investment arbitration, and public international law with his practice also extending beyond these core areas. His practice frequently involves multi-jurisdictional disputes that give rise to both court and arbitration related claims as well as interlocutory applications under the Arbitration Act 1996 and the CPR (including anti-suit injunctive relief). He also has extensive experience in the execution of awards and judgments including against states and state entities, raising issues of sovereign immunity and other public international law related issues as well as seeking relief under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions defrauding creditors).

He appears both before the English Courts, foreign Courts and in international arbitrations in London and abroad under a wide variety of rules (including HKIAC, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, UNCITRAL and VIAC). He has appeared in important international cases both before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. This includes NIOC v Crescent [2023] EWCA Civ 826, [2024] 1 WLR 71, NIOC v Crescent [2025] EWCA Civ 1211 (currently pending before the Supreme Court: UKSC/2025/0190) and Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48, [2022] 1 CLC 275. .

The subject matter of his cases is diverse and includes energy (oil & gas) in which he has acted in some of the largest international arbitrations (e.g. Crescent v NIOC), civil fraud (including conspiracy) both in court (e.g. Crane Bank v DFCU Bank and others (Claim No.CL-2020-000859), 13 week court trial currently pending in a case alleging fraud in the banking sector (recently been listed in The Lawyer Top 20 cases of 2026) and in arbitration (ICC arbitration now currently pending before the Paris Court), telecommunications in which he has again acted in some of the largest international arbitrations, investment projects (infrastructure, power, mining, natural resources) that have given rise to international commercial and investment claims, joint ventures, pharmaceuticals, franchise arrangements, shareholder disputes, international supply contracts and disputes of a more technical nature involving construction and engineering.. Given the nature of his international practice, he has a great deal of experience in cross-examining and making submissions (both in court and arbitration) under a wide variety of common law and civil law systems (including Angolan law, French law, Iranian law, Kuwait law, Libyan law, Polish law, Russian law, Sudanese law, Ukrainian law and Turkish law). See by way of example Crescent v NIOC [2024] 1 WLR 3487 involving cross-examination of Iranian law experts on concepts of Iranian property law and Tatneft v Ukraine [2021] 1 WLR 1123 involving cross-examination of Ukrainian law experts on the legality of investments under Ukrainian law..

His practice further extends to the field of art law (Brewer Management Corporation v Christie Manson & Woods Limited BL-2025-000613) involving claims concerning a Picasso painting that raises issues of duty of care, misrepresentation and the Money Laundering Regulations of 2017 and he is also currently acting in a case pending before the Supreme Court raising important points of property, trust and insolvency law under respectively s.53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 and s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (NIOC v Crescent UKSC/2025/0190).

Other recent cases of note include VXJ v FY [2025] EWHC 2394 concerning the scope of the power to order witness summons and disclosure against third parties to an arbitration; CC/Devas v India [2025] EWHC 964 concerning the question of whether ratification of the New York Convention amounts to a waiver of state immunity; Star Hydro v NTDC [2024] EWHC 3258 concerning anti-suit injunctive relief in the context of the New York Convention; Aiteo Eastern v Shell [2024] EWHC 1993 raising questions as to appearance of bias (and successful challenge to an arbitral award on that basis).

He is a co-author of the Third Edition of Mustill & Boyd, Commercial and Investor State Arbitration (published in 2024) and he is a member of the HKIAC and SIAC panel of arbitrators, a member of the UK ICC Arbitration Committee and sits on the advisory board of the Mauritian International Arbitration Centre. He was involved in the reforms to the Arbitration Act in 2025 and in that context gave evidence to a Special Public Bill Committee of the House of Lords and co-authored (with Lord Hoffmann, Sir Richard Aikens and Salim Moollan KC) an article concerning the reforms (“An important realignment and opportunity missed” published in Arbitration International, Vol.41, Issue 3 (Sept 25)). Prior to practicing at the English Bar, Ricky was admitted to the New York Bar and practiced in New York at the leading international law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton.

He has been variously described in the legal guides as “the absolute master of both the details and the big picture. He shows total commitment to his cases in a way that puts other silks in the shade”, “a very clear, analytical thinker who can transform that into persuasive advocacy”, “a very strong advocate”, “an advocate who “glues the attention of the court”, whose “understated but powerful performance at hearings is advocacy at its best”, “razer-sharp intellect”, “always thinking about the bigger picture”, “extremely bright”, “exceptionally sharp and extremely pleasant to work with”, “meticulous, extremely hard-working and always on top of all the detail” and “widely recognised and recommended figure in the market.” In 2020, he was one of three nominees for international arbitration silk of the year at the Chambers Bar Awards. Two of his cases have also been shortlisted by international guides for awards for their legal significance (GAR Awards 2019 and 2020) and the breadth of his international practice is recognized in Chambers and Partners Global, where he is ranked as a Global Market Leader and in Lawdragon 500 where he is recognised as a leading global litigator.

Examples of cases (more information available on request)

ART LAW

Brewer Management Corporation v Christie Manson & Woods Limited (BL-2025-000613) involving claims concerning a Picasso painting that raises issues of duty of care, misrepresentation and the Money Laundering Regulations of 2017.

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

Crane Bank (and others) v DFCU Bank (and others) (Claim No.CL-2020-000859). Representing two of the co- defendants in a civil banking fraud claim alleging unlawful means conspiracy concerning a Ugandan Bank that was placed into statutory management and receivership by the Bank of Uganda and subsequently sold. The case is on-going and is currently fixed for a 13 week court trial.
Crescent v NIOC [2025] 1 WLR 3487. 5 day trial concerning the ownership of London real estate and whether it was transferred for the purposes of avoiding creditors within the meaning of s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Raised issues of property ownership under Iranian and English law, with some of the English law issues now pending before the Supreme Court. .
Ness Global Services v Perform Content Services Ltd. International dispute between two global companies concerning the supply of software development services. The case gave rise to a jurisdictional battle involving US and English proceedings raising issues under the Brussels Regulation Recast (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012) that went to the Court of
Appeal: Perform v Ness [2021] EWCA Civ 981.
Tatneft v Ukraine [2021] 1 WLR 1123. Commercial Court re-hearing trial of issues under Ukrainian law concerning validity of investment for the purposes of a BIT.
Bouhadi v Breish [2016] EWHC 602; Libyan Investment Authority v Société Générale [2015] EWHC 1720 and [2015] EWHC 1925. International commercial litigation concerning control over the Libyan Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund of Libya, turning on the question of which entity was to be recognised as the government of Libya following the fall of the Gaddafi regime applying principles to be derived from cases such as British Arab Commercial Bank plc [2011] EWHC 2274; Somalia v Woodhouse [1993] QB 54; Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways (Nos 4. And 5) [2002] 2 AC 883.
Yegiazaryan v Smagin [2015] EWHC 1944. Commercial court re-hearing trial to determine whether signature on an agreement was a forgery.

Energy: Oil & Gas

Crescent v NIOC acting on behalf of Crescent with respect to an on-going multi-billion dollar dispute concerning a long-term gas supply contract entered into with the Iranian State owned company NIOC giving rise to London and Geneva seated arbitrations and numerous interrelated court applications (with details of the cases appearing in the public domain including on the italaw website).
Acted in a Gapzrom related arbitration dispute against a major oil and gas company (arbitration seated in Istanbul, Turkish law, ICC).
Acted on behalf of leading oil and gas companies in the context of the decommissioning dispute.
Acted on behalf of an African State in an oil and gas pipeline dispute with its joint venture partners (claims in excess of USD 1 billion).

Franchise agreements

Acted on behalf of Kout Food Group concerning a dispute arising out of a franchise development agreement between two Middle Eastern companies in the food and beverage industry (ICC Rules, Paris seat). The case gave rise to court related proceedings that went to the Supreme Court in England (in which Ricky acted): Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48 as well as the Cour de Cassation in France.

Infrastructure, mining, power and other joint venture projects

Acted for a Caribbean government in a joint venture dispute with a South American aluminium company relating to the engineering, design and construction of an aluminium smelter and downstream facilities pursuant to a long term joint venture agreement (ICC Rules, Miami seat and London seat (two related arbitrations), claims in excess of USD 100 million).
Acted for a mining company against an African State relating to long term oil concession giving rise to taxation issues (UNCITRAL, claims in excess of USD 400 million).
Acted for a power company (Dowans) against relating to an emergency power off-take agreement agreement with Tanesco (state entity), which came into the public domain through enforcement proceedings: Dowans v Tanzania Electric Supply Company [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 475 and 2012 [EWHC] 350 (ICC Rules, Tanzian seat, claims in excess of USD 65 million).
Acted for a mining company against an African State relating to long term diamond mining concession (London seat).

International sale transactions & supply agreements

Counsel for an Indian company in dispute with a German company relating to the supply of high-tech manufacturing equipment raising complex engineering issues (ICC Rules, Singapore seat).
Counsel for a company being part of a Swiss insurance group, relating to its acquisition of a Russian insurance company, raising issues of Russian law, and warranty and indemnity claims (LCIA Rules, London seat).

Telecommunications

Acting on behalf of a Dubai incorporated company in relation to dispute arising out of a supply agreement with a French telecom company (ICC Rules, Paris seat, claims in excess of USD 150 million).
Acted on behalf of a Malaysian company relating to the acquisition of an Indian mobile telecommunication operator (SIAC Rules, Singapore seat, claims in excess of USD 250 million).
Acted for a mobile telecom operator relating to a loan agreement (LCIA Rules, London seat, New York law, claims in excess of USD 400 million).
Acted for a French mobile operator against a German mobile operator raising contractual and tortious disputes (VIAC Rules, Polish law, claims in excess of EUR 2 billion).

International Investment treaty arbitration

Tatneft v Ukraine [2021] 1 WLR 1123 raising questions as to the validity of the investment under the Ukraine-Russia BIT.
Republic of Korea v Dayyanis [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 212 raising questions of treaty interpretation under the Iran-Republic of Korea BIT.
Raymond Eyre & Montrose Development v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/25. Acted on behalf of Sri Lanka in investment treaty arbitration (UK-Sri Lanka BIT) concerning a hotel development project raising multiple jurisdictional questions and leading to the dismissal of the claim. The Award (of 5 March 2020) gave raise to ICSID annulment proceedings and a Decision rejecting annulment (of 2 December 2020)..
Griffin v Poland [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 410 raising issues of treaty interpretation under the Treaty between Poland, Belgium and Luxembourg and being a successful challenge to an investment award.
A v B (UNCITRAL). International arbitration case raising issues concerning interpretation of a stabilisation clause in the context of increased taxation imposed by a State.
Advised on jurisdictional issues arising out of Slovak Republic v Achema (C-248/16) Advised on investment treaty claims arising out of the annexation of Crimea.

Arbitration & related court applications

New York Convention 1958 (ss.100-103 Arbitration Act 1996)

CC/Devas v India [2025] EWHC 964
Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group[2021] UKSC 48 (and also Court of Appeal [2020] 1 CLC 90 and also first instance decision)
Tatneft v Ukraine[2021] 1 WLR 1123
Travis Coal v Essar [2014] EWHC 2510
Dowans v Tanzania Electric Supply Co Ltd[2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 475 and 2012 [EWHC] 350
IPCO v NNPC [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 59

s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 (stay)

Wilson v Assaubayevs [2015] CP Rep 10 (CA)

s.37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981; 44 Arbitration Act 1996 (injunctions, anti-arbitration injunctions, anti-suit injunctions and other relief) ·

VXJ v FY [2025] EWHC 2394
Star Hydro v NTDC [2024] EWHC 3258
Gerald v Timis Trust [2016] EWHC 2327
Assaubayevs v Wilson [2012] EWHC 350

s.43 Arbitration Act 1996 (witness summons)

VXJ v FY [2025] EWHC 2394

s.66 Arbitration Act 1996 (enforcement)

Crescent v NIOC (see below)
Hays v Bloomfield Investments (see below)
Y v S [2015] 1 Lloyds’ Rep 703

s.67 Arbitration Act 1996 (jurisdiction)

NIOC v Crescent [2023] EWCA Civ 2641 (and also [2022] EWHC 2641)
Port De Djibouti SA v DP World Djibouti [2023] EWHC 1189
Republic of Korea v Dayyanis[2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 212
Griffin v Poland[2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 410
Petrotrin v Samsung [2017] EWHC 3055
Yegiazaryan v Smagin[2015] EWHC 1944, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 85

s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 (serious irregularity)

Aiteo Eastern v Shell [2024] EWHC 1993 (Comm)
Polski Koncern v Yukos International [2013] Folio 736 (Comm)
Petrochemical Industries v Dow Chemical Company [2012] EWHC 2739

s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 (error of law)

NIOC v Crescent [2022] EWHC 1645

s.72 Arbitration Act 1996 (jurisdiction)

TNEB v ST-CMS [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 93

s.73 Arbitration Act 1996 (waiver)

NIOC v Crescent [2023] EWCA Civ 2641 (and also [2022] EWHC 2641)
Port De Djibouti SA v DP World Djibouti [2023] EWHC 1189
Tatneft v Ukraine[2021] 1 WLR 1123

s.80 (Extension of time)

Hays v Bloomfield Investments [2022] EWHC 1648

What others say

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2026, International Arbitration: General Commercial & Insurance:

“Ricky is very collaborative, listens to everyone’s views and takes them on board. Ricky Diwan can be relied upon to be the absolute master of both the details and the big picture. He shows total commitment to his cases in a way that puts other silks in the shade. He is one of leading experts on Arbitration Act and Act challenges.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2025, International Arbitration: General Commercial & Insurance:

“Ricky’s brain is encyclopedic about arbitration law, He’s very methodical, with an appetite for detail.” “He’s sure to become one of the grand silks of our age.” “He’s a really excellent advocate and unbelievably thorough.”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2025, International Arbitration: Counsel:

“Ricky’s mastery of the detail is hugely impressive, and he combines a first-rate intellect with a measured style and powerful advocacy performance.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2024, International Arbitration: General Commercial & Insurance:

“Ricky’s knowledge of the relevant case law and his analysis of incredibly complex and tricky issues around arbitration has been unbelievable to witness.” “He is one of the strongest international arbitration practitioners.” “He is really excellent, a hardcore specialist.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2023, International Arbitration: General Commercial & Insurance:

“His mastery of material and law is phenomenal.” “Ricky has a razor-sharp intellect and is always thinking about the bigger picture. He is responsive, incredibly hard-working and a great team-player.” “He is a very clear, analytical thinker who can transform that into persuasive advocacy.”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2023, International Arbitration: Counsel:

“Ricky is a phenomenally effective advocate. He presents extremely complex issues in a clear and logical way without hyperbole. I would instruct Ricky again without hesitation.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2022, International Arbitration: General Commercial & Insurance:

“Ricky is highly experienced in dealing with a tribunal and has a very nice manner with them. He performs extremely well.” “He gives strong, strategic advice.”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2022, International Arbitration: Counsel:

“He provides clear, concise analysis of difficult points. Thoughtful and considered. Excellent all-round knowledge. Very hands-on and responsive. An absolute pleasure to work with.”

Legal 500 UK Bar 2021, International Arbitration: Counsel:

“Extremely sharp and understated at the same time – advocacy at its best.”

Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2021, International Arbitration: General Commercial & Insurance:

“He’s a very strong advocate, extremely bright and completely straightforward.”

“He glues the attention of the court in a very understated and efficient manner.”

Chambers & Partners (2019) and Chambers Global (2020)

“Ricky’s understated but powerful performance at hearings is advocacy at its best. He has a real willingness to exchange ideas and does very careful and detailed analysis.”

Chambers & Partners (2018)

“Highly regarded for his international arbitration practice, which concentrates on commercial and investment issues.

Legal 500 (2019)

“Exceptionally sharp and extremely pleasant to work with.”

Legal 500 (2018)

“An excellent silk who lives and breathes arbitration.”

Who’s Who Legal UK Bar (2019)

“Widely recognised and recommended figure in the market.”

Who’s Who Legal UK Bar (2017)

“Draw[ing] praise for the rate at which he has developed a very strong practice in both international commercial and investment arbitration with one source claiming, “He is one of the best young silks around”.

Who’s Who Legal UK Bar (2016)

“Outstanding Ricky Diwan QC emerges as one of the leading lights in our research and specializes in international commercial arbitration both in London and abroad under a range of laws.” In Chambers and Partners (2017) he was ranked in the field of international arbitration and described as “meticulous, extremely hard-working and always on top of all the detail.”

Career

Called to the Bar of England & Wales: 1998
Admitted as an Attorney and Counsellor at Law by the State of New York: 1996

Education

Cambridge University, Trinity College (1991-1994) BA (Law), First Class Honours (Parts 1A, 1B & Part II) Trinity College Senior and Junior Scholarships

Van Heyden Prize for Academics

ECS Wade Prize for Administrative Law

Harvard Law School, Cambridge Massachusetts, USA (1994-1995)

LL.M. (1994)

Holland Fund Scholarship awarded by Trinity College, Cambridge University for study at Harvard Law School

Inns of Court School of Law, Lincoln’s Inn, London (1997-1998)

Lord Denning Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

Lord Mansfield Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

Bar Association Prize for Commerce, Finance & Industry CCH Editions Prize for Company Law

Finalist of the Robert Wright Mooting Competition