Ruth den Besten KC

Professional practice

Ruth den Besten was appointed KC in 2023 and has substantial expertise in heavy commercial and chancery litigation. She specializes in civil fraud, insolvency and asset recovery and has led teams and appeared in a number of very sizeable fraud trials before the Commercial Court: Suppipat v Narongdej & Ors, Vale v Steinmetz and Tatneft PJSC v (1) Bogolyubov (2) Kolomoisky & Ors.

Ruth also acts in and advises in relation to jurisdictional disputes (notably Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Bavaguthu Shetty), the obtaining and discharge of injunctive relief including freezing orders, anti-suit injunctions and Norwich Pharmacal relief, complex shareholder disputes, company and insolvency matters and HNW divorce cases giving rise to multi-jurisdictional corporate issues. She has also appeared extensively in the ADGM in the NMC Healthcare litigation.

Ruth is named as a Global Elite Thought Leader in Asset Recovery (Who’s Who Legal) and is recommended in Chancery: Commercial, Commercial Dispute Resolution and Fraud: Civil (Chambers & Partners), UK, Dispute Resolution:

Commercial Chancery (Chambers Global), and Commercial Litigation, Civil Fraud and Insolvency (Legal 500). She was awarded Legal 500 Commercial Litigation Junior of the Year in 2022. She is described variously as “Ferocious, but in a good way” “Superwoman” “a Star Litigator”, “Very to the point and no-nonsense” “First-class” and “A real master of her brief who does brilliant cross-examination and can own the witness“. It is also said that she “is the epitome of calm and confidence” and “writes beautifully and with brevity”.

What Others Say

Chambers & Partners 2025, Commercial Dispute Resolution:

“Ruth is a fantastic lawyer, with an easy and reassuring manner.”
“She tells it how it is and is at ease making big judgement calls.”
“Her advice is exceptionally commercial.”

Chambers & Partners 2025, Chancery: Commercial:

“Ruth is very bright and really on top of matters.”
“She has excellent drafting skills, is a skillful cross-examiner and is the epitome of calmness and confidence.”
“She’s good at the paperwork and gives good advice; she has the confidence of the clients.”

The Legal 500 2025, Commercial Litigation:

“Ruth is extremely strategic and able to direct the most complex and difficult matters. She is a go-to silk for difficult cases.”

The Legal 500 2025, Fraud: Civil:

“Her advocacy is highly targeted and she is able to pick out the points that will work for her client and present them effectively.”

Chambers & Partners 2024, Commercial Dispute Resolution:

“Ruth is a tremendous all rounder. She is good on both the law and the facts and is great with clients and solicitors.”
“Ruth den Besten is very good at being quietly persuasive.”
“Extremely reliable and hard working.”
“A great advocate and a real asset to any team. She is incisive, user friendly and good on her feet.”

Chambers & Partners 2024, Fraud: Civil:

“Ruth is very good at being quietly persuasive.”
“She has a brilliant intellect and is really tactically astute. She is a star litigator: bright, efficient and very user-friendly.”
“Ruth is a fantastic advocate and extremely adept at large fraud cases. Judges really listen to her.”

Chambers & Partners 2024, Restructuring/Insolvency:

“Very bright and really on top of matters, Ruth is a very safe pair of hands.”

Chambers & Partners 2024, Chancery: Commercial:

“Very clever and really on top of matters.”
“Well liked by clients, as she’s both approachable and commercially aware.”
“A very impressive advocate.”

The Legal 500 2024, Fraud: Civil:

‘Very steady pair of hands and an effective cross-examiner.‘

The Legal 500 2023, Commercial Litigation:

“Very cool, calm and incisive advocacy. Always on top of her brief.”

The Legal 500 2023, Fraud: Civil:

“Ruth is extremely smart and hard-working with a very impressive knowledge of the law across a wide range of areas. She is also a pleasure to work with.”

The Legal 500 2023, Company:

“Very cool calm and incisive advocacy. Always on top of her brief.”

Chambers & Partners 2023, Commercial Dispute Resolution:

“She has excellent drafting skills and is a talented cross-examiner.”
“Ruth is incredibly bright and well known for handling heavy commercial litigation.”

Chambers & Partners 2023, Fraud: Civil:

“Ruth is a calm and effective cross-examiner who is always fully on top of her brief.”
“Ruth has excellent judgement and is calm under pressure.”
“Ruth has got excellent drafting skills and is a skilful cross-examiner. She is the epitome of calm and confident.”

Chambers & Partners 2023, Restructuring/Insolvency:

“She is very good on insolvency work.”
“Ruth is a robust advocate.”

Chambers & Partners 2023, Chancery: Commercial:

“Very to the point and no-nonsense.”
“Excellent at drafting and a skilful cross-examiner, she enjoys the full confidence of clients.”
“She is first-class.”

The Legal 500 2022, Fraud Civil:

“Great at assimilating a lot of information and distilling it into clear advice and/or elegant pleadings. She has a sense of what the important points are in a case, which assists a team in focusing its energy on the key areas”

Chambers & Partners 2022, Restructuring / Insolvency:

“Brilliant.” “She’s very well regarded and very good.”

Chambers & Partners 2022, Chancery Commercial:

“Ferocious but in a good way, she knows her stuff and is not afraid to argue her client’s case. You know she is always coming from a position of strength; she doesn’t put forward anything that doesn’t hold water.”

Chambers & Partners 2022, Fraud: Civil:

“She conducts brilliant cross-examinations.” “She’s wonderful with clients and is a very personable individual.” “She is a real all-rounder – she’s excellent on her feet and a pleasure to be against.”

Chambers & Partners 2022, Commercial Dispute Resolution:

“A real master of her brief who does brilliant cross-examination and can own the witness.”

The Legal 500 2021, Commercial Litigation

“Exceptionally clever senior Commercial and Chancery Junior – heading for the very top.”

The Legal 500 2021, Fraud: Civil

“A phenomenal junior for the most hard fought fraud cases – very bright, and knows fraud inside out. A strong advocate, not intimidated by QCs on the other side of the room.”

Chambers & Partners 2020, Chancery Commercial

“She’s truly excellent.”

Chambers & Partners 2020, Commercial Dispute Resolution

“She’s a very good advocate and an excellent communicator, whose client skills are perfect.”
“A well-liked commercial chancery junior with a strong civil fraud practice… a very valued member of the team”.
“A personable and friendly advocate who can absorb huge amounts of information and get to the heart of the issue.”

Chambers & Partners 2020, Fraud: Civil

“An accomplished barrister who focuses on sizeable commercial fraud litigation. Her cases pertain to the full swathe of allegations including breach of trust and misappropriation of assets.”
“Very knowledgeable and very experienced.”
“Level-headed under pressure. She cuts through complicated details to provide insightful analysis on the key points.”

The Legal 500 2019, Fraud: Civil

‘Disarmingly affable – a robust and sharp counsel with precise drafting skills’

Chambers & Partners 2019, Insolvency

“A highly regarded junior with a well-regarded insolvency practice, supported by her broader expertise in fraud, chancery and commercial matters. She regularly advises on a wide range of insolvency matters and is particularly adept at handling cases involving CVAs”

The Legal 500 2019, Insolvency

“She has substantial expertise in insolvency law.”

The Legal 500 2019, Company

‘She has strengths in abundance – excellent with clients, calm, commercial, tenacious, expert, a team player and very polished ’

Chambers & Partners 2018, Chancery Commercial

“A decent, fair-minded and tenacious opponent.”
“Her drafting of skeletons is superb; she just writes beautifully and with brevity.”

Chambers & Partners 2018, Commercial Dispute Resolution

“Turns work around quickly, diligently and to the highest standard, and is brilliant on strategy.”

Chambers & Partners 2018, Fraud: Civil

“Very responsive and bright. She tells it like it is.”

The Legal 500 2017, Fraud: Civil

“Fantastic at getting stuck into the papers, producing pleadings in no time at all.”

Chambers & Partners 2015, Company

“She’s a tough and tenacious litigator, who fights through to the end.”

The Legal 500 2015, Insolvency

“Bright, incisive and approachable.”

Chambers & Partners 2015, Fraud: Civil

“She’s superwoman”

Banking & financial services

Ruth has a very strong banking and finance practice. She has recently represented the chairman of one of Thailand’s largest banks, Siam Commercial Bank, in a 21 week trial in the Commercial Court (Suppipat v Narongdej & Ors), and successfully resisted the determination of claims brought by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank against Dr Shetty, arising out of the collapse of NMC Healthcare, in this jurisdiction. Previously, she represented GLG Partners Asset Management in a claim brought by the Libyan Investment Authority, acted in the Lehman Administration and was engaged on behalf of JSC BTA Bank of Kazakhstan in the proceedings brought against its former chairman, Mukhtar Ablyazov, for the substantial misappropriation of monies.

Notable/recent cases include:

Suppipat v Narongdej: Ruth acted for the chairman of Siam Commercial Bank in this substantial Commercial Court trial concerning an alleged fraud affecting a Thai wind energy company, with accompanying allegations of bribery. The case is said to be worth $1bn and was noted as one of the Lawyer’s top 20 cases of 2022.

Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm). Ruth (led by Paul McGrath KC) acted on behalf of GLG Partners Asset Management in respect of claims made by the LIA that certain investments were procured by the bribery and corruption of Walid Giahmi, including a $200m investment in notes structured by Credit Suisse with a return referable to a GLG Partners Fund. GLG applied successfully to strike out the claim on the grounds of limitation and because the proprietary tracing claims were misconceived in law.

Atlantica Holdings Inc v Samruk-Kryzna JSC [2019] EWHC 319 (QB) Instructed to resist examination under Letters of Request issued to obtain evidence in support of US proceedings concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of JSC BTA Bank of Kazakhstan.

The Joint Administrators of LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Limited & Ors (Lehman Brothers – Waterfall I) [2017] UKSC 38. Successfully appeared for the administrators of Lehman Brothers Limited (“LBL”) in the Supreme Court in respect of directions relating to the obligation to pay statutory interest accrued during administration. Also acted for LBL in the Waterfall III proceedings, concerning whether a claim for contribution might in any event as a matter of fact lie against LBL including in respect of subordinated debt [2017] EWHC 2032 (Ch), and in further applications concerning the ranking of subordinated debt.

Edgar Lavarello & Adrian Hyde v Jyske Bank (Gibraltar) Limited. Instructed on behalf of Jyske Bank in respect of claims made in dishonest assistance and knowing receipt.

Cinque Ports & Ors v Federal Bank of the Middle East (FBME). Represented FBME in its application to set aside a default judgment obtained in the sum of £200m. and which could, if enforced, have had significant repercussions for the Cypriot banking system.

Belltrey v Newcote International Limited [2013] EWHC 3500 (Ch). Dispute concerning the grant of security to the principal funder of a substantial gaming company.

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors [2013] EWHC 510 (Comm). Successfully represented BTA Bank of Kazakhstan in proceedings brought to recover $1.5bn misappropriated by the Bank’s majority shareholder and chairman.

Bank of St Petersburg OJSC & Anor v Vitaly Arkhangelsky & Anor [2012] EWHC 2842 (Ch). Represented the Bank and its chairman in proceedings to recover over £50m. claimed to be due from a former Russian oligarch.

Re Coroin Limited; McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Limited [2012] EWHC 2343 (Ch). Instructed in a dispute between shareholders of Coroin, the owner of Claridges, the Berkeley and the Connaught hotels, concerning, inter alia, the enforcement of a series of bank charges upon alleged default.

Civil fraud & asset recovery

Ruth is particularly well known for her civil fraud practice. She has recently led a team in the 21 week trial of Suppipat v Narongdej, concerning a substantial alleged fraud said to have been committed in respect of a Thai energy company, and likewise in Vale v Steinmetz, a fraud claim concerning the entry into of a Guinean mining JVA, in which complex issues of tracing arose concerning Ruth’s clients. She previously appeared (as junior to Mark Howard KC) in the longest running virtual Commercial Court trial: Tatneft v (1) Bogolyubov and (2) Kolomoisky and (as junior to Paul McGrath KC) in both the LIA v Credit Suisse proceedings, and Arcelormittal v Essar actions. Having cut her teeth as a junior in (amongst other fraud cases) Lexi Holdings, BTA v Ablyazov and Bank of St Petersburg, she is currently retained by Dr Shetty in respect of claims arising from the collapse of the NMC Healthcare Group.

Notable/recent cases include:

NMC Healthcare v Dr Shetty & Ors: Ruth has appeared in the ADGM Courts for Dr Shetty on repeated occasions throughout 2023/2024 including in respect of (i) the question of the primacy of trial of the ADGM or English claims brought by the NMC administrators, (ii) the arguability of the administrators’ claims made under the ADGM Insolvency Regulations in respect of the period before the NMC entities were continued into the ADGM, and (iii) the question of whether the NMC Proceedings should be joined with claims raised by ADCB against Dr Shetty in the ADGM.

Magomedov & Ors v 1291 Private Office & Ors [2024] EWHC 252. Ruth resisted the grant of Norwich Pharmacal relief sought against a DIFC incorporated financial institution in respect of the payment of an alleged bribe. The case is the leading authority on the correct procedure by which to make a Norwich Pharmacal application.

Direct Investments Ltd (BVI) v Vartika Mittal & Ors Ruth has been instructed by the receivers of a BVI company which forms part of the Mittal family trust structure in relation to funds alleged to have been transferred in breach of a BVI court order. Freezing relief was granted by Foxton J in March 2024, with a number of hearings then taking place to establish the parameters of the freezing relief ordered.

Suppipat v Narongdej: Ruth acted for the chairman of Siam Commercial Bank and a leading Thai lawyer in this substantial, 21 week, Commercial Court trial concerning an alleged fraud, governed by Thai law, affecting a Thai wind energy company, with accompanying allegations of bribery. The case is said to be worth $1bn and was noted as one of the Lawyer’s top 20 cases of 2022.

Jinxin v MPS LLC: Ruth is representing one of a series of corporate defendants who are alleged to have made material misrepresentations in the sale of a media rights company to a Chinese corporation. The misrepresentations are alleged to concern the obtaining of rights to broadcast Serie A and FIFA matches by bribery and corruption, and also as to the EBITDA of the company sold. Ruth successfully applied to strike out certain allegations in fraud raised against her client: [2022] EWHC 2988 (Comm).

Vale International SA v Beny Steinmetz & Ors: Ruth was instructed to defend this $1.2bn claim in fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy on behalf of a Leichtenstein Foundation and a holding company alleged to have participated in the fraud, and to have received substantial proceeds from it. In the event, Vale abandoned their claim 4 weeks into trial, when significant doubt was cast upon the adequacy of their disclosure processes.

Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm). Ruth (led by Paul McGrath KC) acted on behalf of GLG Partners Asset Management in respect of claims made by the LIA that certain investments were procured by the bribery and corruption of Walid Giahmi, including a $200m investment in notes structured by Credit Suisse with a return referable to a GLG Partners Fund. GLG applied successfully to strike out the claim on the grounds of limitation, and because the proprietary tracing claims were misconceived in law.

Tatneft PJSC v (1) Bogolyubov, (2) Kolomoisky & Ors Acted for the successful Defendants in this substantial fraud case relating to the alleged $200 million misappropriation of oil monies by Ukrainian oligarchs. The trial of proceedings took place virtually before Moulder J. for the duration of the Michaelmas Term 2020, requiring cross-examination of key witnesses who remained in Moscow and Kiev. During the trial important judgments were given on issues of privilege [2020] EWHC 2437 and [2020] EWHC 3225 and also the late tender of witness evidence [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm). The Defendants won: [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm). Prior to trial, there were a substantial number of interlocutory hearings concerning, amongst other matters, the provision of asset disclosure, the terms of a confidentiality club, security for costs and disclosure: [2017] EWCA Civ 1581, [2018] 4 WLR 14 and 22 June 2018 (Cockerill J., Comm Ct), [2019] EWHC 1400 (Butcher J, Comm Ct).

ArcelorMittal USA LLC v Essar Steel Ltd [2019] EWHC 724 (Comm, Jacobs J). Acted for individual respondents to search and Norwich Pharmacal orders obtained in support of a worldwide freezing order, itself intended to support enforcement of an arbitral award. The case considered the appropriateness of ancillary relief, and available means for service of a search order.

SKAT (the Danish Custom and Tax Authority) v Solo Capital Partners LLP (In Special Administration) & Ors Represented an agent in proceedings concerning an alleged $billion fraud on the Danish Revenue in respect of claims for reimbursement of withholding tax.

Edward Wojakowski v Arthur Matyas & Ors Acted on behalf of a former director in proceedings in which multiple misappropriations of company assets were alleged.

Jill Jehan Barley v Graeme Muir [2018] EWHC 619 (QB), and John Bennington Sears v Minco Plc [2016] EWHC 433 (Ch). In each case appeared for the Claimant at trial in respect of claims for procurement of investment by alleged fraudulent misrepresentation.

Barclays Pharmaceutical v Antoine Mekni & Ors (Comm Court, 23 October 2017, Carr J.). Appeared on behalf of Barclays Pharmaceutical seeking worldwide freezing and ancillary orders in support of the enforcement of a judgment including as against third parties on the Chabra basis; the decision also concerns the disclosure of legal funding information.

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Bestfort Development LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1099. Successfully obtained security for costs in ancillary freezing order proceedings brought by entities associated with the government of Ras Al Khaimah. In addition, in Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Bestfort v Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1014; [2018] 1 W.L.R. 1099, substantially resisted the grant of ancillary freezing and other relief.

Pugachev v Diligence LLC. Brought proceedings on behalf of Sergei Pugachev in respect of the perceived threat to his life and limb caused by the installation of tracking devices by investigators and claimed to have caused him to flee the jurisdiction.

Edgar Lavarello & Adrian Hyde v Jyske Bank (Gibraltar) Limited. Represented the bank pre-trial in respect of claims made in dishonest assistance and knowing receipt.

Ashman & Ors v Briers. Successfully obtained summary judgment against the chief executive of a charity who had misappropriated substantial funds for his own benefit, supported by freezing relief (Mann J, December 2015).

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors [2013] EWHC 510 (Comm.). Successfully represented BTA Bank of Kazakhstan in proceedings brought to recover $1.5bn misappropriated by Mukhtar Ablyazov, the Bank’s majority shareholder and chairman.

Bank of St Petersburg OJSC & Anor v Vitaly Arkhangelsky & Anor [2012] EWHC 2842 (Ch.). Represented the Bank and its chairman in proceedings to recover over £50m. claimed from a former Russian oligarch.

Lexi Holdings Plc [2009] 2 BCLC 1, [2008] 2 BCLC 725. Acted in this substantial case arising from the collapse of a bridging loan company, with £multi-million misappropriations having been made by its principal, Shaid Luqman (in the event, twice held to be in contempt of court).

Decisions include the leading Court of Appeal authority dealing with the liability of company directors for their negligent failure to act to prevent the commission of fraud and company and Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings Plc & Anor, TLR, 18 August 2008 (CA) (variation of restraint orders) and of the Court of Appeal in relation to the availability of unless orders [2007] EWCA Civ 1501. Also acted in substantial related professional negligence proceedings: Lexi Holdings Plc v Pannone & Partners [2009] 2 BCLC 1.

Commercial chancery disputes

Ruth has been engaged in numerous high value commercial disputes, including a number of substantial shareholder disputes and various matters which cross the threshold between traditional commercial and traditional chancery work. She has also appeared in family proceedings where detailed explanations of corporate holding structures and processes were required.

Notable examples include:

NMC Healthcare v Dr Shetty & Ors: Ruth has appeared in the ADGM Courts for Dr Shetty on repeated occasions throughout 2023/2024 including in respect of the arguability of the administrators’ claims made under the ADGM Insolvency Regulations in respect of the period before the NMC entities were continued into the ADGM.

Vale International SA v Beny Steinmetz & Ors: Ruth was instructed to defend this $1.2bn claim in fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy on behalf of a Leichtenstein Foundation and a holding company alleged to have participated in the fraud, and to have received substantial proceeds from it. The claim raised complex tracing and attribution issues. In the event, Vale abandoned their claim 4 weeks into trial, when significant doubt was cast upon the adequacy of their disclosure processes.

Richards v Kulcyzk: Ruth was instructed to act for a defendant in a claim brought against the beneficiaries of a substantial estate. The claim raised complex issues of corporate liability, cross-border estate management and probate.

Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm). Ruth (led by Paul McGrath KC) acted on behalf of GLG Partners Asset Management in respect of claims made by the LIA that certain investments were procured by the bribery and corruption of Walid Giahmi, including a $200m investment in notes structured by Credit Suisse with a return referable to a GLG Partners Fund. GLG applied successfully to strike out the claim on the grounds of limitation, and because the proprietary tracing claims were misconceived in law. The case also required detailed consideration of claims made in unjust enrichment.

Tatneft PJSC v (1) Bogolyubov, (2) Kolomoisky & Ors Acted for the successful Defendants in this substantial fraud case relating to the alleged $200 million misappropriation of oil monies by Ukrainian oligarchs. The trial of proceedings took place virtually before Moulder J. for the duration of the Michaelmas Term 2020, requiring cross-examination of witnesses who remained in Moscow and Kiev. During the trial important judgments were given on issues of privilege [2020] EWHC 2437 and [2020] EWHC 3225 and also the late tender of witness evidence [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm). The Defendants won: [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm). Prior to trial, there were a substantial number of interlocutory hearings concerning, amongst other matters, the provision of asset disclosure, the terms of a confidentiality club, security for costs and disclosure: [2017] EWCA Civ 1581, [2018] 4 WLR 14 and 22 June 2018 (Cockerill J., Comm Ct), [2019] EWHC 1400 (Butcher J, Comm Ct)..

Edward Wojakowski v Arthur Matyas & Ors Acted on behalf of a former director in unfair prejudice proceedings in which multiple misappropriations of company assets have been alleged.

Global Gaming Ventures (Group Ltd) v Global Gaming Ventures (Holdings) Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 68. Successfully represented a director/shareholder urgently seeking information in relation to the sale of shares by receivers for a nominal sum.

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Bestfort Development LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1099. Successfully obtained security for costs in ancillary freezing order proceedings brought by entities associated with the government of Ras Al Khaimah. In addition, in Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Bestfort v Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1014; [2018] 1 W.L.R. 1099: substantially resisted the grant of ancillary freezing and other relief.

Re Coroin Limited; McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Limited [2012] EWHC 2343 (Ch.). Acted for Patrick McKillen in relation to a dispute over ownership and control of Claridges, the Berkeley and the Connaught hotels.

Commercial dispute resolution

Many of Ruth’s case involve commercial dispute resolution. Whilst the matters listed below exemplify this, there is also often a stage of alternative dispute resolution, including by way of mediation.

Notable examples include:

Vale International SA v Beny Steinmetz & Ors: Ruth was instructed to defend this $1.2bn claim in fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy on behalf of a Leichtenstein Foundation and a holding company alleged to have participated in the fraud, and to have received substantial proceeds from it. In the event, Vale abandoned their claim 4 weeks into trial, when significant doubt was cast upon the adequacy of their disclosure processes.

Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm). Ruth (led by Paul McGrath KC) acted on behalf of GLG Partners Asset Management in respect of claims made by the LIA that certain investments were procured by the bribery and corruption of Walid Giahmi, including a $200m investment in notes structured by Credit Suisse with a return referable to a GLG Partners Fund. GLG applied successfully to strike out the claim on the grounds of limitation, and because the proprietary tracing claims were misconceived in law.

Tatneft PJSC v (1) Bogolyubov, (2) Kolomoisky & Ors: Acted for the successful Defendants in this substantial fraud case relating to the alleged $200 million misappropriation of oil monies by Ukrainian oligarchs. The trial of proceedings took place virtually before Moulder J. for the duration of the Michaelmas Term 2020, requiring cross-examination of witnesses who remained in Moscow and Kiev. During the trial important judgments were given on issues of privilege [2020] EWHC 2437 and [2020] EWHC 3225 and also the late tender of witness evidence [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm). The Defendants won: [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm). Prior to trial, there were a substantial number of interlocutory hearings concerning, amongst other matters, the provision of asset disclosure, the terms of a confidentiality club, security for costs and disclosure: [2017] EWCA Civ 1581, [2018] 4 WLR 14 and 22 June 2018 (Cockerill J., Comm Ct), [2019] EWHC 1400 (Butcher J, Comm Ct).

SKAT (the Danish Custom and Tax Authority) v Solo Capital Partners LLP (In Special Administration) & Ors Representing an agent in proceedings concerning an alleged $billion fraud on the Danish Revenue in respect of claims for reimbursement of withholding tax.

Rosalina Investments Ltd v New Balance Athletic Shoes (UK) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1014 (QB). Acted on behalf of the companies owning Marouane Fellaini’s image rights in a dispute with New Balance concerning sponsorship for the 2016-2019 seasons.

Re Coroin Limited; McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Limited [2012] EWHC 2343 (Ch). Acted for Patrick McKillen in relation to a dispute over ownership and control of Claridges, the Berkeley and the Connaught hotels.

Company Law

Ruth has a strong company law practice, having appeared in a number of Chancery proceedings raising particular points of company law, shareholder disputes, just and equitable winding up petitions and unfair prejudice petitions. She is currently retained in respect of a number of shareholder disputes concerning very sizeable and high profile corporate entities. In addition, she has been required to consider and address the requirements and effects of continuance of companies in the context of acting for Dr Shetty in the NMC Heathcare litigation, in which claims have been advanced on behalf of entities continued from the UAE into the ADGM.

Examples include:

Edward Wojakowski v Arthur Matyas & Ors (the Tonstate litigation). Acted on behalf of a former director in substantial unfair prejudice proceedings in which multiple misappropriations of company assets have been alleged, together with further breaches of the applicable directors’ duties.

The Joint Administrators of LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Limited & Ors (Lehman Brothers – Waterfall I) [2017] UKSC 38. Successfully appeared for the administrators of Lehman Brothers Limited (“LBL”) in the Supreme Court in respect of the circumstances in which a claim for contribution as against shareholders might arise. Also acted for LBL (the Lehman service company) in the Waterfall III proceedings, concerning whether a claim for contribution might in any event as a matter of fact lie against LBL [2017] EWHC 2032 (Ch).

Vale International SA v Beny Steinmetz & Ors: Ruth was instructed to defend this $1.2bn claim in fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy on behalf of a Leichtenstein Foundation and a holding company alleged to have participated in the fraud, and to have received substantial proceeds from it. The case raised complex issues of attribution and the viability of tracing claims. In the event, Vale abandoned their claim 4 weeks into trial, when significant doubt was cast upon the adequacy of their disclosure processes.

Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm). Ruth (led by Paul McGrath KC) acted on behalf of GLG Partners Asset Management in respect of claims made by the LIA that certain investments were procured by the bribery and corruption of Walid Giahmi, including a $200m investment in notes structured by Credit Suisse with a return referable to a GLG Partners Fund. GLG applied successfully to strike out the claim on the grounds of limitation, and because the proprietary tracing claims were misconceived in law. The case also required detailed consideration of the law of unjust enrichment.

ArcelorMittal USA LLC v Essar Steel Ltd [2019] EWHC 724 (Comm, Jacobs J). Acted for individual respondents to search and Norwich Pharmacal orders obtained in order to try and obtain corporate documentation.

Rossano Ferretti v Santoro Acted on behalf of the Respondent to a wide-range of company law and other claims, including derivative claims, supported by an application for wide-ranging injunctive relief.

In Re Quiet Moments Limited [2013] EWHC 3806 (Ch). Shareholders’ dispute and winding up petition brought in respect of substantial property development company.

Belltrey v Newcote International Limited [2013] EWHC 3500 (Ch). Dispute concerning the grant of security to the principal funder of a substantial gaming company and a just and equitable winding up petition.

Re Coroin Limited; McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Limited [2012] EWHC 2343 (Ch). Instructed in a dispute between shareholders of Coroin, the owner of Claridges, the Berkeley and the Connaught hotels, concerning, inter alia, the enforcement of a series of bank charges upon alleged default.

Dimitri Iesini v Westrip Holdings & Ors [2009] EWHC 2526 (Ch). Leading authority on applications for permission to bring derivative actions.

Injunctive Relief

Ruth has extensive experience of both obtaining and resisting applications for injunctive relief be they freezing, search, anti-suit, confidentiality club, receivership or other orders, and whether made in support of proceedings in this jurisdiction or elsewhere. She also regularly advises on the mechanics and operation of such orders, and the availability of committal proceedings.

Most cases in which Ruth is engaged involve an injuctive element. However, examples of the injunctive cases in which Ruth has been instructed include:

Nanox Imaging PLC v David Schick [2024] GSC/043. Ruth appeared on behalf of the Respondent to anti-suit relief in proceedings also concerning the continued effect of Brussels Recast in Gibraltar.

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Dr Bavaguthu Shetty [2022] EWHC 529 (Comm). Ruth appeared on behalf of Dr Shetty in this multi-party jurisdictional challenge arising in respect of the determination of Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank’s claims, following the collapse of the NMC Healthcare Group. The matter was remitted to the UAE on forum grounds, and an accompanying worldwide freezing order was discharged. Ruth also appeared for Dr Shetty on ADCB’s application to obtain further asset and historic tracing disclosure.

ArcelorMittal USA LLC v Ruia [2020] EWHC 740 (Comm, Henshaw J). Acted for individual respondents successfully resisting the grant of freezing order relief on the basis of no good arguable case and no risk of dissipation. The applicant was subsequently required substantially to reframe its claim in unlawful means conspiracy. Also acted in ArcelorMittal USA LLC v Essar Steel Ltd [2019] EWHC 724 (Comm, Jacobs J) for individual respondents to search and Norwich Pharmacal orders obtained in support of a worldwide freezing order, itself intended to support enforcement of an arbitral award.

Tatneft PJSC v (1) Bogolyubov, (2) Kolomoisky & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1581, [2018] 4 WLR 14 and 22 June 2018 (Cockerill J, Comm Ct), [2019] EWHC 1400 (Butcher J., Comm Ct). Acted for one of the defendants on a substantial discharge application in respect of worldwide freezing relief. More recently appeared in applications relating to the question of whether asset disclosure might be limited in value and the terms of a confidentiality club, and for the provision of security for costs, and successfully at trial: [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm).

Oberthur v Decatur Europe Ltd & Ors (June 2018, Knowles J). Represented the applicant for anti-suit injunctive relief in respect of proceedings commenced in Bangladesh claimed to be governed by an exclusive Swiss jurisdiction clause.

Barclays Pharmaceutical v Antoine Mekni & Ors (Comm Court, 23 October 2017, Carr J). Appeared on behalf of Barclays Pharmaceutical seeking worldwide freezing and ancillary orders in support of the enforcement of a judgment including as against third parties on the Chabra basis; decision also concerns the disclosure of legal funding information.

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Bestfort Development LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1099. Successfully obtained security for costs in ancillary freezing order proceedings brought by entities associated with the government of Ras Al Khaimah. In addition, in Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Bestfort v Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1014; [2018] 1 W.L.R. 1099: substantially resisted the grant of ancillary freezing and other relief.

Lexi Holdings Plc [2009] 2 BCLC 1, [2008] 2 BCLC 725. Acted in this substantial case arising from the collapse of a bridging loan company where the claims were supported by worldwide freezing order, passport orders and search orders, and two committal applications were successfully made against the principal defendant, Shaid Luqman.

Insolvency and Restructuring

NMC Healthcare v Dr Shetty & Ors: Ruth has appeared in the ADGM Courts for the principal defendant, Dr Shetty, on repeated occasions throughout 2023/2024 in proceedings arising from the collapse of the NMC Healthcare Group, with $6bn same to be owing. The issues arising include the arguability of the administrators’ claims made under the ADGM Insolvency Regulations in respect of the period before the NMC entities were continued into the ADGM and before the Insolvency Regulations were enacted.

The Joint Administrators of LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Limited & Ors (Lehman Brothers – Waterfall I) [2017] UKSC 38. Successfully appeared for the administrators of Lehman Brothers Limited (“LBL”) in the Supreme Court in respect of directions relating to the obligation to pay statutory interest accrued during administration and the circumstances in which a claim for contribution might arise under s.74 of the Insolvency Act. Also acted for LBL in the Waterfall III proceedings, concerning whether a claim for contribution might in any event as a matter of fact lie against LBL [2017] EWHC 2032 (Ch).

BHS Group Ltd (In Administration) v Retail Acquisitions Limited [2017] EWHC 1057 (Ch); [2017] 2 B.C.L.C. 472. Secured the winding up of Retail Acquisitions Limited, the company which purchased BHS for £1, on a disputed debt petition resisted by Dominic Chappell.

Cinque Ports & Ors v Federal Bank of the Middle East (FBME). Represented FBME in its application to set aside a default judgment obtained in the sum of £200m. and which could, if enforced, have had significant repercussions for the Cypriot banking system. The case raised multiple new points of cross-border insolvency.

Optima Worldwide Group Plc v Fox-Davies Capital (Jersey) Limited & Anor. Appeared on a disputed winding up petition in relation to the withholding of monies payable on a share purchase agreement. The petition raised important points as to the strength of cross-claims required to resist the application of the jurisdiction.

Professional negligence

Ruth has a very strong professional negligence practice. In addition to the cases below she advises in relation to notified claims at the pre-action stage.

Notable/recent cases include:

Hill (In Liquidation) v KPMG Limited. Acted for the liquidator of Hill Insurance Company in a claim in respect of alleged negligent auditing of an insurance company which had not been capitalised.

GML (UK) (Saxby) v Pitmans LLP. Instructed in proceedings concerning the defendant firm’s allegedly negligent drafting of a pre-pack administration agreement for certain Burger King franchises.

Ghosh & Anor v Lewis Silken. Instructed in proceedings concerning a top city law firm’s alleged negligent performance of a retainer to sell an internet search company.

Ellis & Ors v Bristows (A Firm); Hetherington & Ors v Bristows (A Firm). Advised in relation to the allegedly negligent restructuring of offshore trust vehicles.

Rudyard Kipling Thorpe (acting as litigation friend) v Fellowes (A Firm) [2011] PNLR 13. Leading authority on the requirement of solicitors to obtain instructions from an elderly vendor prior to sale of a property.

Axa Insurance Limited v Composite Legal Services Limited [2010] 1 WLR 1662. Represented a number of solicitors insured by WR Berkley in the “TAG 2” Litigation, a 75 party action managed by the Commercial Court, including successfully before the Court of Appeal in a key decision on limitation in solicitors’ negligence cases.

Lexi Holdings v Pannone & Partners. Acted for the administrators on behalf of this substantial claim arising out of the collapse of a property bridging company.

Memberships

Commercial Bar Association; Chancery Bar Association

Education

1996-1999 BA Jesus College, Oxford (History, First Class);

2000 Dip Law, City University

2020 Oxford Women’s Leadership Development Programme (Said Business School)

Awards

Queen Mother’s Scholar, Fox Scholar (McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, 2002-2003) and Harmsworth Exhibitioner (Middle Temple)

Sankey Scholar (Jesus College, Oxford)