Professional practice

Legal 500 Leading Junior

Stuart is “a rising star in chambers” who is recognised as a Leading Junior for Civil Fraud and Energy Disputes, and a Rising Star for Commercial Litigation. He is recommended for:

  • his intellect (“exceptionally bright”; “bright and on top of all the factual detail as well as intricate legal points”; “sharp”; “an ability to marshal large amounts of detail very quickly and effectively”);
  • his work ethic (“always goes the extra mile”; “hardworking”; “a great work ethic”);
  • his manner with clients and colleagues (“gets in the trenches with you”; “very user friendly”; “he’s a very good team player and a pleasure to work with”); and
  • his written and oral advocacy (“An excellent and highly persuasive advocate”; “the quality of his written documents is excellent”; “Thorough and faultless written work with a nice style. A confident and calm advocate who is very well prepared and who gets the judge on side”; “very thorough and is a confident advocate. Has the answers at his fingertips”).

Stuart is first and foremost a commercial litigator. He enjoys advocacy, regularly argues against leading counsel, and has significant experience of cross-examining experts.

The main focus of Stuart’s practice is fraud and asset recovery. He has acted in heavyweight disputes before the English Courts and offshore, and has substantial experience of urgent applications for pre-action relief, including freezing injunctions (on which he is “very knowledgeable”).

Stuart’s English litigation practice features a high proportion of appellate work. Since December 2020, he has appeared in the Court of Appeal three times, the Privy Council once, and will be appearing before the Supreme Court in 2023.

Stuart’s offshore litigation practice is focused on the Caribbean. He was admitted as a barrister of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Territory of the Virgin Islands) in March 2022 and spent 4 months on secondment with a leading BVI law firm from April to July 2022. He appears regularly in the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court on a range of matters, usually unled, and has significant recent experience before the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.

The other major part of Stuart’s practice is international arbitration, with an emphasis on energy and natural resources. He has acted in arbitrations seated in various jurisdictions and governed by a range of institutional rules, and also appeared in the leading case on challenges to arbitration awards for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

 

 

What Others Say

The Legal 500 2022

“An up and coming junior. Very knowledgeable on freezing injunctions. Very thorough and is a confident advocate. Has the answers at his fingertips.

The Legal 500 2021

“A ‘dedicated and valuable team player’, Stuart Cribb is a rising star in chambers”.”

The Legal 500 2021, Commercial Litigation

“A great work ethic, and an ability to marshal large amounts of detail very quickly and effectively – he’s a very good team player and a pleasure to work with.”

The Legal 500 2021, Energy

“He is sharp, hardworking and very user friendly.”

The Legal 500 2021, Fraud: Civil

“Bright and on top of all the factual detail as well as intricate legal points. Thorough and faultless written work with a nice style. A confident and calm advocate who is very well prepared and who gets the judge on side.”

Banking & financial services

Stuart’s interest in banking and finance litigation predates his arrival at Essex Court Chambers, having previously worked as a research assistant to the Secured Transactions Law Reform Project before commencing pupillage. His banking and finance-related work includes the following:

  • Emirates NBD Bank PJSC & Anr v Saadat-Yadzi & Ors: Acted (led by Paul McGrath KC) for the defendants to a claim brought in the London Commercial Court by two Dubai-based banks seeking to enforce judgments obtained in the Dubai Courts based on personal guarantees allegedly given in support of lending facilities granted to a Dubai companies.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) a Nigerian bank in connection with a number of disputed repo transactions with an American bank cumulatively worth approximately US$120m.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) a financial services provider in connection with a claim brought against it by one of its subcontracted brokers in relation to a restructuring of the client accounts which that broker was permitted to service.
  • Autoridad del Canal de Panama v Sacyr SA & Ors: Acted (led by Graham Dunning QC) for the claimant, ACP, in a claim arising out of the expansion of the Panama Canal by the construction of a third set of locks. The defendants were shareholders in the contractor that undertook the project, and had provided various guarantees to ACP to cover Advance Payments made by it to the contractor and which had not been repaid. ACP’s claim was for repayment of the sums due under those guarantees.
  • Mercuria Energy Trading v Citibank: Acted (led by Graham Dunning QC and David Davies) for Mercuria in expedited Commercial Court proceedings ([2015] EWHC 1481 (Comm); [2015] 1 C.L.C. 999) and in the Court of Appeal ([2016] EWCA Civ 584). The case concerned ‘obligated repo’ transactions involving the sale and repurchase of large quantities of metal supposed to be stored in warehouses in the Chinese ports of Qingdao and Penglai and defending a US$270 million counterclaim brought against Mercuria by Citibank following the discovery of an apparent large-scale fraud at the ports. The agreements in question were based on the ISDA Master Agreements, adapted to repo transactions in respect of physical commodities, and the case involved a number of issues relating to their proper construction and the entitlement of the bank to accelerate Mercuria’s repurchase obligations by serving ‘Bring Forward Event Notices’.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) a group of shipping companies whose bank accounts had been defrauded on their potential means of recovering their assets. Issues addressed included restitution of unjust enrichment for mistaken payments, knowing and ministerial receipt, constructive trusts and the conflicts of laws.

 

Civil fraud & asset recovery

Fraud and asset recovery is the main focus of Stuart’s practice, which features a mixture of led and unled work in disputes before Courts in England and in the BVI. His work as sole counsel in recent years has focused on urgent applications for Norwich Pharmacal relief and freezing injunctions, for which he is highly regarded. He is recommended by the Legal 500 as a Leading Junior (2022, 2023) for Civil Fraud, having previously been ranked as a ‘Rising Star’ (2021). Comments in the directories have said:

  • Exceptionally bright, proactive, gives clear advice and gets into the trenches with you. An excellent and highly persuasive advocate.
  • An up and coming junior. Very knowledgeable on freezing injunctions. Very thorough and is a confident advocate. Has the answers at his fingertips.
  • Bright and on top of all the factual detail as well as intricate legal points. Thorough and faultless written work with a nice style. A confident and calm advocate who is very well prepared and who gets the judge on side.
  • A ‘dedicated and valuable team player’ Stuart Cribb is a rising star in chambers.

Stuart has acted in a wide range of disputes both in England and overseas, and has particular experience in conspiracy claims:

  • Emirates NBD Bank PJSC & Anr v Saadat-Yadzi & Ors: Acted (led by Paul McGrath KC) for the defendants in their response to a worldwide freezing injunction and in their defence to a claim brought in the London Commercial Court by two Dubai-based banks. The banks’ claim sought to enforce judgments obtained before Dubai Courts based on personal guarantees, which the defendants contended were impeachable for fraud by reason of their signatures on the personal guarantees having been forged.
  • X v Y: Acted (as sole counsel) for the applicant in its application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court for without notice freezing and proprietary injunctions in support of its claim to prevent the respondent’s attempts fraudulently to misappropriate assets worth approximately US$25m. The application was heard in private and remains confidential.
  • Mex Clearing Limited v Mex Securities SARL & Ors: Acted (led by Ben Valentin QC, Alex Hall-Taylor QC and Alexander Cook) for the first ancillary claimant, VDHI, in its claims before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court, In these proceedings, VDHI brings representative claims on behalf of various third-party noteholders, who it says have been defrauded out of approximately €36.4m, pursuant to an unlawful means conspiracy between the ancillary defendants and by means of various abuses of the process of the BVI Court, including the collusive commencement and settlement of proceedings by a fraudulently obtained Consent Order. The case has given rise to a large number of judgments and appeals. Stuart also acted as sole counsel for VDHI in respect of applications by the fourth ancillary defendant, Mr Taher, to challenge the jurisdiction of the BVI Court to hear the claims against him.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) the defendants on an application to challenge the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear claims in unlawful means conspiracy brought against them, the underlying subject matter of which related to crypto-mining projects.
  • Acted (as sole counsel, on secondment) in a claim in the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court brought by the joint liquidators of a BVI company, seeking to reverse the transfer of shares valued at approximately US$50m to a connected company and for which no consideration was received. The joint liquidators alleged that the transaction was both at an undervalue pursuant to section 246 of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003, and intended to defraud the company’s creditors within the meaning of section 81 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1961 and the Statute of Elizabeth.
  • X v Y: Acted (as sole counsel) for one of the largest companies in the world in the Commercial Court in an application for Norwich Phrarmacal relief against an internet service provider, to reveal the identities of certain persons unknown who were conducting fraudulent activities against it. The application was heard in private, and also sought certain ancillary non-disclosure obligations and the sealing of the Court file in support of the primary Norwich Pharmacal
  • Advised (as sole counsel) a company facing a claim for approximately US$20m, alleging that one of its directors had committed the torts of fraudulent misrepresentation, unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract and intentionally causing loss by unlawful means.
  • ABB (Private) Limited v Charlotte Sarudzai Ndenda: Acted (as sole counsel) for ABB in the Commercial Court in its urgent without notice application for a freezing order over the assets of its former employee, Ms Ndenda, in the United Kingdom and Jersey, and on the return date on that order at which it was continued. The freezing order was sought pursuant to section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of proceedings brought by ABB against Ms Ndenda and others in Zimbabwe. Ms Ndenda was alleged to have fraudulently misappropriated at least US$3.7m from ABB, and to have sought to conceal some of the proceeds of that fraud in the United Kingdom and Jersey. More recently, Stuart also acted for ABB on its subsequent petition to bankrupt Ms Ndenda. Ms Ndenda resisted the petition on basis of offers to pay or secure the petition debt out of disputed assets to which ABB asserted proprietary claims. Issues on the hearing of the petition included whether no reasonable creditor would refuse security over the disputed assets, and whether Ms Ndenda could satisfy the requirements for the variation of a proprietary freezing order.
  • Gattaz Property Limited & Fortimat Properties Limited v Versant Developments and Homes Limited & Ors: Acted (led by Iain Quirk QC) for the claimants in their claims in the Commercial Court against ten defendants arising out of their participation in two property development projects in the United Kingdom. The claimants alleged that their investment in those projects had been fraudulently misappropriated, and they sought to recover that investment or its proceeds or otherwise obtain compensation for their losses. They relied on a number of causes of action, including breach of contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, procuring or inducing breach of contract, unlawful means conspiracy, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt.
  • Texo Scaffolding & Construction Limited v Mitchell Cowling & M and M Sports Management Limited: Acted (as sole counsel) for the claimant in its claim against the defendants, which arose out of the claimant’s agreement to sponsor a title fight involving the heavyweight boxer, Anthony Joshua, in April 2016. The defendants agreed to negotiate the sponsorship deal with the representatives of Anthony Joshua on behalf of the claimant. However, they were alleged to have fraudulently extracted a secret profit from the claimant by misrepresenting the price Anthony Joshua required for the sponsorship. The defendants were then alleged to have concealed the secret profit by producing falsified contractual documentation. The claim involved issues of deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt, tracing and consequential proprietary relief.
  • Accident Exchange v McLean & Ors: Acted (led at various times by Paul McGrath QC, Robert Anderson QC, Daniel Toledano QC and Anna Dilnot) for Accident Exchange in its Commercial Court claims in respect of what has been described as the largest ever fraud on the civil justice system, where thousands of expert reports and witness statements containing false information were deployed in legal proceedings against Accident Exchange and other credit hire providers. The case involved claims of unlawful means conspiracy and deceit made against London solicitors, amongst others. In addition, the case involved heavy interim applications focused on the application of the iniquity exception to legal professional privilege in a three party situation. The judgment following those applications has been reported at [2018] 4 W.L.R. 26. The first-stage trial had been listed for 15 weeks, but the case settled shortly before the hearing was due to commence.
  • Art Incorporated Limited v Angela Gulbenkian & FAPS-NET Limited: Acted as sole counsel for the defendants in connection with a US$1.3m fraud claim against them. He represented them in the Chancery Division at the return date on a freezing junction, which also involved an application for a Bayer v Winter order, and at a cross-examination of the first defendant on the assets disclosed in her affidavit made pursuant to the freezing order.
  • Advised (led by Vernon Flynn QC) the victim of a large scale fraud in connection with the possibility of enforcing a freezing order and obtaining a search order in the DIFC.
  • Public Prosecutor v Li Weiming, Lim Ai Wah & Thomas Doehrman [2016] SGDC 249: Acted (alongside Lee & Lee, Singapore) for Thomas Doehrman in a 27 day criminal trial and subsequent appeal to the Singaporean High Court in which Mr Doehrman was charged with abetment by conspiracy of the falsification of documents with an intent to defraud. The case concerned a commission payment made by the Chinese corporation ZTE to Mr Doehrman’s wife, Lim Ai Wah, when it took over from her as the main contractor for a Community College Project in Papua New Guinea.
  • Prizeflex Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2016] UKUT 0436 (TCC): Acted (led by David Scorey QC) for Prizeflex in its appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision dismissing Prizeflex’s appeal against the refusal by the Commissioners to allow recovery of input value added tax on sixteen transactions, on the basis that Prizeflex knew or should have known that those transactions were connected to ‘Missing Trader Intra-Community Fraud’.
  • Marsh Bellofram Europe Limited V Steven Clissold & Ors: Acted (as sole counsel) for the claimant in respect of its claims against a number of its former directors and employees and their spouses, alleging that they had breached their fiduciary duties to it by secretly carrying on a competing business selling similar products to similar customers.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) a group of shipping companies whose bank accounts had been defrauded on their potential means of recovering their assets. Issues addressed included restitution of unjust enrichment for mistaken payments, knowing and ministerial receipt, constructive trusts and the conflicts of laws.
  • Platinum Services Company v DP World Ltd: Acted (led by Graham Dunning QC and Damien Walker) in Dubai for DP World in defence of claims by Platinum Services Company for unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract and defamation arising out of the termination of contracts concerning the provision of services at Sokhna Port, Egypt, in the aftermath of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.

 

Commercial dispute resolution

Commercial litigation is at the core of Stuart’s practice, and he has advised and acted in relation to a wide range of commercial disputes in the London Commercial Court and abroad. He is recommended as ‘up and coming’ for Commercial Dispute Resolution by Chambers and Partners 2023, and was previously ranked by Legal 500 as a ‘Rising Star’ for Commercial Litigation in 2021. Comments in the directories have said:

  • A great work ethic, and an ability to marshal large amounts of detail very quickly and effectively – he’s a very good team player and a pleasure to work with.

Stuart has particular expertise in large-scale commercial disputes requiring heavy case management and expedited trials. His commercial litigation experience includes the following:

  • Emirates NBD Bank PJSC & Anr v Saadat-Yadzi & Ors: Acted (led by Paul McGrath KC) for the defendants in their response to a worldwide freezing injunction and in their defence to a claim brought in the London Commercial Court by two Dubai-based banks. The banks’ claim sought to enforce judgments obtained before Dubai Courts based on personal guarantees, which the defendants contended were impeachable for fraud by reason of their signatures on the personal guarantees having been forged.
  • Mex Clearing Limited v Mex Securities SARL & Ors: Acted (led by Ben Valentin QC, Alex Hall-Taylor QC and Alexander Cook) for the first ancillary claimant, VDHI, in its claims before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court, In these proceedings, VDHI brings representative claims on behalf of various third-party noteholders, who it says have been defrauded out of approximately €36.4m, pursuant to an unlawful means conspiracy between the ancillary defendants and by means of various abuses of the process of the BVI Court, including the collusive commencement and settlement of proceedings by a fraudulently obtained Consent Order. The case has given rise to a large number of judgments and appeals. Stuart also acted as sole counsel for VDHI in respect of applications by the fourth ancillary defendant, Mr Taher, to challenge the jurisdiction of the BVI Court to hear the claims against him.
  • X v Y: Acted (as sole counsel) for the applicant in its application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court for without notice freezing and proprietary injunctions in support of its claim to prevent the respondent’s attempts fraudulently to misappropriate assets worth approximately US$25m. The application was heard in private and remains confidential.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) the defendants on an application to challenge the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear claims in unlawful means conspiracy brought against them, the underlying subject matter of which related to crypto-mining projects.
  • Advised (led by Graham Dunning QC and Angeline Welsh) the claimant on an application for an anti-arbitration injunction in respect of a dispute relating to crypto-assets.
  • The ‘Bonga Litigation’ (including Harrison Jalla & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Ors): Acted (led by Oba Nsugbe QC, and previously Graham Dunning QC) in various proceedings concerning claims brought by approximately 45,000 Nigerian claimants against companies in the Royal Dutch Shell Group. The claims all arose out of the December 2011 Bonga oil spill, in which over 40,000 barrels of oil were spilled into the ocean in the Niger delta, making it one of the largest offshore spills in the history of oil exploration and production in Nigeria. The spill occurred during loading operations from a floating production storage and offloading unit in the Bonga oil field, operated by Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company, to the oil tanker the MV Northia, the technical manager of which was Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited. In each set of proceedings, the claimants alleged that the spill was caused by the recklessness or negligence of the Shell defendants, and that it caused devastation to their communities, waterways and estuaries in the Niger delta that persists to this day. The case is one of the largest pieces of group litigation presently before the English Courts, and also one of the most complicated. It has already resulted in 8 judgments, and 3 hearings before the Court of Appeal (permission having been granted on each occasion). A 4-week trial of preliminary issues was heard in February and March 2022, at which Stuart undertook a substantial portion of the advocacy. An appeal is due to be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2023.
  • Fortimat Properties SA v Pinsent Masons LLP : Acted (led by Iain Quirk QC) on behalf of a Russian-owned corporate claimant in a professional negligence action brought against its former solicitors in respect of its investment in a property development project in the UK.
  • Rudan Business Holdings v Tridan Trusted Advisors AG & Ors: Acted (as sole counsel) for the First and Second Respondents in an application in the Chancery Division by the Petitioner, Rudan, for an urgent and without notice injunction to restrain them from causing the Third Respondent (a holding company in which the Petitioner and the First Respondent are 50:50 shareholders) to sell an operating subsidiary company. The application forms part of a wider dispute the subject of an unfair prejudice petition brought by the Rudan. In the Petition, the First and Second Respondents were represented by Anna Dilnot Q.C.
  • X v Y: Acted (as sole counsel) for one of the largest companies in the world in the Commercial Court in an application for Norwich Phrarmacal relief against an internet service provider, to reveal the identities of certain persons unknown who were conducting fraudulent activities against it. The application was heard in private, and also sought certain ancillary non-disclosure obligations and the sealing of the Court file in support of the primary Norwich Pharmacal
  • Huddinge Kommun v Aura Communities Ltd: Acted (as sole counsel) for Huddinge Kommun in the Queen’s Bench Division in opposition to Aura’s application to prevent Huddinge Kommun from enforcing a judgment obtained in Sweden against it, pending the determination of Aura’s appeal in Sweden. Aura’s application sought various relief including a stay, suspension of or relief from enforcement proceedings pursuant to Articles 38, 44 and 51 of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (Regulation No. 1215/2012) (EU) No 1215/2012.
  • Therapy Beach Club Incorporated v RAV Bahamas Limited & Bimini Resort Management Limited: Acted for RAV Bahamas and Bimini Resort Management (led by Vernon Flynn QC) in their appeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas. The appeal was concerned with their challenge to an arbitral award on the basis of serious irregularity, made under section 90 of the Bahamas Arbitration Act 2009 (which is materially identical to section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996). That challenge was successful at first instance but overturned by the Bahamas Court of Appeal. The appeal to the Privy Council raised important issues as to the operation of section 90 of the Arbitration Act 2009 and its English equivalent, which had not previously been the subject of judicial consideration. The appeal was heard in February 2021. It was the first time the requirement of ‘irregularity causing substantial injustice’ had been considered by the highest court since the decision of the House of Lords in Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2006] 1 A.C. 221. The case has been reported in numerous places: [2021] A.C. 907; [2021] UKPC 8; [2021] 2 W.L.R. 1369; [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188; [2021] 4 WLUK 136; 196 Con. L.R. 1; Times, April 29, 2021.
  • ABB (Private) Limited v Charlotte Sarudzai Ndenda: Acted (as sole counsel) for ABB in the Commercial Court in its urgent without notice application for a freezing order over the assets of its former employee, Ms Ndenda, in the United Kingdom and Jersey, and on the return date on that order at which it was continued. The freezing order was sought pursuant to section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of proceedings brought by ABB against Ms Ndenda and others in Zimbabwe. Ms Ndenda was alleged to have fraudulently misappropriated at least US$3.7m from ABB, and to have sought to conceal some of the proceeds of that fraud in the United Kingdom and Jersey. More recently, Stuart also acted for ABB on its subsequent petition to bankrupt Ms Ndenda. Ms Ndenda resisted the petition on basis of offers to pay or secure the petition debt out of disputed assets to which ABB asserted proprietary claims. Issues on the hearing of the petition included whether no reasonable creditor would refuse security over the disputed assets, and whether Ms Ndenda could satisfy the requirements for the variation of a proprietary freezing order.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) an airline in connection with potential claims for US$7m arising out of an aircraft leasing agreement.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) a Nigerian bank in connection with a number of disputed repo transactions with an American bank cumulatively worth approximately US$120m.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) in connection with an application to set aside a statutory demand based on an alleged breach of a guarantee agreement. Issues addressed included the merits of the application, the impact of certain issues of foreign law in the bankruptcy context, and whether the statutory demand was an abuse of process in light of alleged parallel proceedings in various foreign jurisdictions.
  • Gattaz Property Limited & Fortimat Properties Limited v Versant Developments and Homes Limited & Ors: Acted (led by Iain Quirk QC) for the claimants in their claims in the Commercial Court against ten defendants arising out of their participation in two property development projects in the United Kingdom. The claimants alleged that their investment in those projects had been fraudulently misappropriated, and they sought to recover that investment or its proceeds or otherwise obtain compensation for their losses. They relied on a number of causes of action, including breach of contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, procuring or inducing breach of contract, unlawful means conspiracy, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) a financial services provider in connection with a claim brought against it by one of its subcontracted brokers in relation to a restructuring of the client accounts which that broker was permitted to service.
  • Autoridad del Canal de Panama v Sacyr SA & Ors: Acted (led by Graham Dunning QC) for the claimant, ACP, in a claim arising out of the expansion of the Panama Canal by the construction of a third set of locks. The defendants were shareholders in the contractor that undertook the project, and had provided various guarantees to ACP to cover Advance Payments made by it to the contractor and which had not been repaid. ACP’s claim was for repayment of the sums due under those guarantees.
  • Accident Exchange v McLean & Ors: Acted (led at various times by Paul McGrath QC, Robert Anderson QC, Daniel Toledano QC and Anna Dilnot) for Accident Exchange in its Commercial Court claims in respect of what has been described as the largest ever fraud on the civil justice system, where thousands of expert reports and witness statements containing false information were deployed in legal proceedings against Accident Exchange and other credit hire providers. The case involved claims of unlawful means conspiracy and deceit made against London solicitors, amongst others. It raised a number of unique case management issues which had to be addressed so as to reduce the dispute to a triable size, including bespoke disclosure directions and a process of sampling intended to limit the evidence admissible at the first-stage trial. The first-stage trial had been listed for 15 weeks, but the case settled shortly before the hearing was due to commence.
  • Mercuria Energy Trading v Citibank: Acted (led by Graham Dunning QC and David Davies) for Mercuria in expedited Commercial Court proceedings ([2015] EWHC 1481 (Comm); [2015] 1 C.L.C. 999) and in the Court of Appeal ([2016] EWCA Civ 584). The case concerned ‘obligated repo’ transactions involving the sale and repurchase of large quantities of metal supposed to be stored in warehouses in the Chinese ports of Qingdao and Penglai and defending a US$270 million counterclaim brought against Mercuria by Citibank following the discovery of an apparent large-scale fraud at the ports. The dispute moved from issue of proceedings to the trial at first instance in less than six months, and involved issues of contractual construction, sale of goods law, repudiation and the circuity of actions.
  • Rawlinson Butler LLP v Bernd Haehndel & Ors: Acted (as sole counsel) for Rawlinson Butler in its claims against a number of former clients. Issues included the enforceability of a contract of guarantee entered into by email, and service out of the jurisdiction.
  • Chromalloy UK Holdings Ltd v Leigh Robinson & Ors: Acted (led by Jern-Fei Ng) for the claimant in its claim for various breaches of warranties in a Share Purchase Agreement in the Commercial Court.
  • Platinum Services Company v DP World Ltd: Acted (led by Graham Dunning QC and Damien Walker) in Dubai for DP World in defence of claims by Platinum Services Company for unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract and defamation arising out of the termination of contracts concerning the provision of services at Sokhna Port, Egypt, in the aftermath of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.
Conflict of laws & private international law

Much of Stuart’s practice has an international dimension and issues of foreign law arise in many of his case. His recent cases with a specific focus on private international law issues include the following:

  • Advised (as sole counsel) the defendants on an application to challenge the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear claims in unlawful means conspiracy brought against them, the underlying subject matter of which related to crypto-mining projects.
  • Advised (led by Graham Dunning QC and Angeline Welsh) the claimant on an application for an anti-arbitration injunction in respect of a dispute relating to crypto-assets.
  • Mex Clearing Limited v Mex Securities SARL & Ors: Acted (as sole counsel) for the ancillary claimant, VDHI, in respect of applications by the fourth ancillary defendant, Mr Taher, to challenge the jurisdiction of the BVI Court to hear the claims against him.
  • Huddinge Kommun v Aura Communities Ltd: Acted (as sole counsel) for Huddinge Kommun in the Queen’s Bench Division in opposition to Aura’s application to prevent Huddinge Kommun from enforcing a judgment obtained in Sweden against it, pending the determination of Aura’s appeal in Sweden. Aura’s application sought various relief including a stay, suspension of or relief from enforcement proceedings pursuant to Articles 38, 44 and 51 of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (Regulation No. 1215/2012) (EU) No 1215/2012.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) in connection with an application to set aside a statutory demand based on an alleged breach of a guarantee agreement. Issues addressed included the merits of the application, the impact of certain issues of foreign law in the bankruptcy context, and whether the statutory demand was an abuse of process in light of allegedly parallel proceedings in various foreign jurisdictions.
  • The ‘Bonga Litigation’ (including Harrison Jalla & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Ors): Acted (led by Oba Nsugbe QC, and previously Graham Dunning QC) in various proceedings concerning claims brought by approximately 45,000 Nigerian claimants against companies in the Royal Dutch Shell Group. In the first set of proceedings (brought by two lead claimants on behalf of approximately 27,828 other individuals and 457 Nigerian communities), the defendants’ challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the claims were heard for one day in September 2019 and six days in October 2019. The hearing involved a number of issues relating to the ‘necessary or proper party’ jurisdictional gateway, forum conveniens and abuse of EU law, an application for a lis pendens stay under Article 34 of the Brussels Recast Regulation, and a number of questions of Nigerian law. These were determined in the Court’s judgments of 2 and 27 March 2020, which dismissed the defendants’ jurisdictional challenges, subject to the issue of limitation which was heard at a 4-week trial of preliminary issues that took place in February and March 2022: [2020] EWHC 459 (TCC); [2020] B.L.R. 267; 189 Con. L.R. 167; [2020] EWHC 738 (TCC).
Crypto & Digital Property

Stuart work in this area includes two recent cases relating to crypto-assets:

  • Advised (as sole counsel) the defendants on an application to challenge the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear claims in unlawful means conspiracy brought against them, the underlying subject matter of which related to crypto-mining projects.
  • Advised (led by Graham Dunning QC and Angeline Welsh) the claimant on an application for an anti-arbitration injunction in respect of a dispute relating to crypto-assets.
Energy & natural resources

Energy and natural resources is a major part of Stuart’s practice, and he has acted in a number of oil, gas and minerals related disputes. He is recommended by the Legal 500 as ‘Leading Junior’ for Energy (2021, 2022 and 2023), and comments in the directories have said:

  • Stuart always goes the extra mile, he is very hard working and the quality of his written documents is excellent.
  • An up-and-coming junior and a very thorough and confident advocate.
  • He is sharp, hardworking and very user friendly”.

His work on energy-related disputes includes the following:

  • Acted (led by Graham Dunning QC) in a London-seated arbitration under the UNCITRAL rules between two shareholders in company which operates a substantial Zambian copper mine. The dispute relates to the management of that mine and the investment of c.US$500m of the company’s assets.
  • The ‘Bonga Litigation’ (including Harrison Jalla & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Ors): Acted (led by Oba Nsugbe QC, and previously Graham Dunning QC) in various proceedings concerning claims brought by approximately 45,000 Nigerian claimants against companies in the Royal Dutch Shell Group. The claims all arose out of the December 2011 Bonga oil spill, in which over 40,000 barrels of oil were spilled into the ocean in the Niger delta, making it one of the largest offshore spills in the history of oil exploration and production in Nigeria. The spill occurred during loading operations from a floating production storage and offloading unit in the Bonga oil field, operated by Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company, to the oil tanker the MV Northia, the technical manager of which was Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited. In each set of proceedings, the claimants alleged that the spill was caused by the recklessness or negligence of the Shell defendants, and that it caused devastation to their communities, waterways and estuaries in the Niger delta that persists to this day. The case is one of the largest pieces of group litigation presently before the English Courts, and also one of the most complicated. It has already resulted in 8 judgments, and 3 hearings before the Court of Appeal (permission having been granted on each occasion. A 4-week trial of preliminary issues was heard in February and March 2022, at which Stuart undertook a substantial proportion of the advocacy. An appeal is due to be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2023.
  • Acted (led by Claire Blanchard QC and David Davies) in a series of related gas disputes between a state-owned midstream aggregator of gas and a number of its downstream petrochemicals customers. The individual arbitrations were seated in different jurisdictions and were governed by a number of different arbitral rules. However, each case involved a damages claim for alleged failures to supply the contractually required quantity of gas for a sum in excess of US$100m, as well as a dispute relating to the exercise of a contractual option to extend a long-term gas supply contract, in each case worth hundreds of millions of US dollars. The matters arose in the wake of the Macondo incident, and involved a number of factual issues relating to the discovery, extraction and sale of gas and LNG. In view of the size of these disputes, they each involved a number of phases, and one involved a sampling process so as to reduce the scope of the evidence to a triable size. In addition, another of them was heard on a heavily expedited time frame.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) the ambassador from one middle-eastern state to another in connection with an LCIA arbitration relating to the exploration and development of two gas fields.
  • Acted (led by Paul Key QC) on behalf of the claimant in an LCIA arbitration seated in Paris. The claim was for loss of profits of over US$400m following the termination of an ‘Off-Take Agreement’ relating to a hydrocarbons plant, and involved a number of issues of Iranian law.
  • Advised (led by Vernon Flynn QC) a CIS state in connection with an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in Sweden. The dispute centred on a Production Sharing Agreement between the state and an international oil major. The claim was that the oil major had overpaid profits tax under the PSA on historic production over a number of years, such that it was entitled to be reimbursed the difference. This raised a number of issues of contractual construction relating to the correctly applicable rate of profits tax under the PSA.
  • Acted (led by Jern-Fei Ng) for the Respondents in an LMAA arbitration governed by English law defending a claim brought by a global logistics company worth US$5m in relation to a contract to transport pipes for use in an oil field. The dispute involved a number of issues of contractual construction and a question of whether a tiered liquidated damages clause was in truth an unenforceable penalty clause.
Injunctions

Stuart has significant experience of applications for injunctive relief, with a particular emphasis on applications made urgently and without notice:

  • Emirates NBD Bank PJSC & Anr v Saadat-Yadzi & Ors: Acted (led by Paul McGrath KC) for the defendants in their response to a worldwide freezing injunction made in support of a claim brought in the London Commercial Court by two Dubai-based banks.
  • X v Y: Acted (as sole counsel) for the applicant in its application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court for without notice freezing and proprietary injunctions in support of its claim to prevent the respondent’s attempts fraudulently to misappropriate assets worth approximately US$25m. The application was heard in private and remains confidential.
  • Advised (led by Graham Dunning QC and Angeline Welsh) the claimant on an application for an anti-arbitration injunction in respect of a dispute relating to crypto-assets.
  • Rudan Business Holdings v Tridan Trusted Advisors AG & Ors: Acted (as sole counsel) for the First and Second Respondents in an application in the Chancery Division by the Petitioner, Rudan, for an urgent and without notice injunction to restrain them from causing the Third Respondent (a holding company in which the Petitioner and the First Respondent are 50:50 shareholders) to sell an operating subsidiary company. The application forms part of a wider dispute the subject of an unfair prejudice petition brought by the Petitioner. In the Petition, the First and Second Respondents were represented by Anna Dilnot Q.C.
  • X v Y: Acted (as sole counsel) for one of the largest companies in the world in the Commercial Court in an application for Norwich Phrarmacal relief against an internet service provider, to reveal the identities of certain persons unknown who were conducting fraudulent activities against it. The application was heard in private, and also sought certain ancillary non-disclosure obligations and the sealing of the Court file in support of the primary Norwich Pharmacal
  • ABB (Private) Limited v Charlotte Sarudzai Ndenda: Acted (as sole counsel) for ABB in the Commercial Court in its urgent without notice application for a freezing order over the assets of its former employee, Ms Ndenda, in the United Kingdom and Jersey, and on the return date on that order at which it was continued. The freezing order was sought pursuant to section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of proceedings brought by ABB against Ms Ndenda and others in Zimbabwe. Ms Ndenda was alleged to have fraudulently misappropriated at least US$3.7m from ABB, and to have sought to conceal some of the proceeds of that fraud in the United Kingdom and Jersey.
  • Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v Carmichael [2019] EWHC 824 (Comm): Acted (led by Charles Ciumei QC) for Mr Carmichael, a former member of PWC, in an application by PWC for interim injunctions restraining him from breaching certain post-termination restrictive covenants contained in PWC’s Members’ Agreement.
  • Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Aoun: Acted (as sole counsel) for HRH Prince Al-Waleed of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in a claim for injunctive relief to enforce compliance with a settlement agreement.
  • Advised (led by Vernon Flynn QC) the victim of a large-scale fraud in connection with the possibility of enforcing a freezing order and obtaining a search order in the DIFC.
  • Art Incorporated Limited v Angela Gulbenkian & FAPS-NET Limited: Acted (as sole counsel) for the defendants in connection with a US$1.3m fraud claim against them. He represented them in the Chancery Division at the return date on a freezing junction, which also involved an application for a Bayer v Winter order, and at a cross-examination of the first defendant on the assets disclosed in her affidavit made pursuant to the freezing order.
Insolvency

Stuart has a strong academic background in corporate insolvency, having finished top of his year in that subject on the BCL at Oxford in 2012. His insolvency practice is focused on contentious insolvency, and the interface between insolvency litigation and asset recovery in particular. His insolvency work spans both the English and BVI Courts, and he has appeared unled against leading and junior counsel from specialist insolvency sets:

  • Acted (led by Philip Marshall QC) on a confidential application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a BVI-law decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
  • Acted (as sole counsel, on secondment) in a claim in the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court brought by the joint liquidators of a BVI company, seeking to reverse the transfer of shares valued at approximately US$50m to a connected company and for which no consideration was received. The joint liquidators alleged that the transaction was both at an undervalue pursuant to section 246 of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003, and intended to defraud the company’s creditors within the meaning of section 81 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1961 and the Statute of Elizabeth.
  • Acted (led by David Allison QC, on secondment) before the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal in a confidential appeal brought by the joint liquidators of a company against an order granting an application to reverse a decision of theirs brought pursuant to section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003. Stuart also appeared unled in applications at first instance for leave to appeal and for a stay of execution pending the appeal.
  • Acted (as sole counsel, on secondment) in application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court by provisional joint liquidators for approval of their fees and disbursements incurred in relation to their investigations into alleged wrongdoing in connection with the asserts of a BVI company.
  • Acted (as sole counsel, on secondment) for the (neutral) liquidators of a BVI company in connection with an appeal by the company to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal against the winding-up order which put it into liquidation.
  • Acted (as sole counsel, on secondment) for a supporting creditor in connection with the first hearing of a winding-up petition presented before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court.
  • Acted (as sole counsel, on secondment) for an opposing creditor in connection with the first hearing of a winding-up petition presented before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court.
  • Advised (as sole counsel, on secondment) the former directors of a BVI company in relation to various issues of limitation and contribution arising in connection with claims for misfeasance brought against them by the liquidator of the company.
  • Acted (as sole counsel, on secondment) for the former liquidator of a BVI company in connection with an application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court for declaratory relief confirming that the company was validly dissolved and for other associated relief restricting certain other parties’ ability to challenge that dissolution.
  • ABB (Private) Limited v Charlotte Sarudzai Ndenda: Acted (as sole counsel) for ABB on its petition to bankrupt Ms Ndenda for her failure to pay costs orders made against her in proceedings in England for a freezing injunction (in which Stuart also acted), brought in support of civil fraud claims made against Ms Ndenda in Zimbabwe. Ms Ndenda resisted the petition on basis of offers to pay or secure the petition debt out of disputed assets to which ABB asserted proprietary claims. Issues on the hearing of the petition included whether no reasonable creditor would refuse security over the disputed assets, and whether Ms Ndenda could satisfy the requirements for the variation of a proprietary freezing order.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) in connection with an application to set aside a statutory demand based on an alleged breach of a guarantee agreement. Issues addressed included the merits of the application, the impact of certain issues of foreign law in the bankruptcy context, and whether the statutory demand was an abuse of process in light of alleged parallel proceedings in various foreign jurisdictions.
International commercial arbitration

International commercial arbitration is a major part of Stuart’s practice. He has advised and acted in relation to a wide range of disputes seated in various jurisdictions, and has experience of arbitrations under the ICC, UNCITRAL, LCIA, LMAA, CIARB, SIAC and CIETAC rules. He has a particular interest in arbitrations with a connection to Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean, or where the subject matter relates to energy and natural resources. His experience includes:

  • Therapy Beach Club Incorporated v RAV Bahamas Limited & Bimini Resort Management Limited: Acted for RAV Bahamas and Bimini Resort Management (led by Vernon Flynn QC) in their appeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas. The appeal was concerned with their challenge to an arbitral award on the basis of serious irregularity, made under section 90 of the Bahamas Arbitration Act 2009 (which is materially identical to section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996). That challenge was successful at first instance but overturned by the Bahamas Court of Appeal. The appeal to the Privy Council raised important issues as to the operation of section 90 of the Arbitration Act 2009 and its English equivalent, which had not previously been the subject of judicial consideration. The appeal was heard in February 2021. It was the first time the requirement of ‘irregularity causing substantial injustice’ had been considered by the highest court since the decision of the House of Lords in Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2006] 1 A.C. 221. The case has been reported in numerous places: [2021] A.C. 907; [2021] UKPC 8; [2021] 2 W.L.R. 1369; [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188; [2021] 4 WLUK 136; 196 Con. L.R. 1; Times, April 29, 2021.
  • Acted (led by Graham Dunning QC) in a London-seated arbitration under the UNCITRAL rules between two shareholders in company which operates a substantial Zambian copper mine. The dispute relates to the management of that mine and the investment of c.US$500m of the company’s assets.
  • Acted (led by Siddharth Dhar) in London-seated arbitration under the CIARB rules in respect of the supply of a defective component to a manufacturer of aircraft engines.
  • Acted (led by Charles Ciumei QC) in an arbitration in relation to the enforceability of certain post-termination restrictive covenants in the Members’ Agreement of a leading professional services provider. The arbitration was heavily expedited, progressing from the first statement of case to the evidential hearing in two months.
  • Acted (led by Paul Key QC) on behalf of the claimants, which were owned and controlled by the investment authority of a Middle Eastern state, in a SIAC arbitration. The claim related to the claimants’ acquisition from the respondents of shares in an Indian company. The claimants alleged they had been led to believe that the Indian company in question was a thriving and valuable one, when it was in fact worthless, and claimed damages for fraud and misrepresentation.
  • Acted (led by Claire Blanchard QC and David Davies) in a series of related gas disputes between a state-owned midstream aggregator of gas and a number of its downstream petrochemicals customers. The individual arbitrations were seated in different jurisdictions and were governed by a number of different arbitral rules. However, each case involved a damages claim for alleged failures to supply the contractually required quantity of gas for a sum in excess of US$100m, as well as a dispute relating to the exercise of a contractual option to extend a long-term gas supply contract, in each case worth hundreds of millions of US dollars. The matters arose in the wake of the Macondo incident, and involved a number of factual issues relating to the discovery, extraction and sale of gas and LNG. In view of the size of these disputes, they each involved a number of phases, and one involved a sampling process so as to reduce the scope of the evidence to a triable size. In addition, another of them was heard on a heavily expedited time frame.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) the ambassador from one middle-eastern state to another in connection with an LCIA arbitration relating to the exploration and development of two gas fields.
  • Acted (led by Paul Key QC) on behalf of the claimant in an LCIA arbitration seated in Paris. The claim was for loss of profits of over US$400m following the termination of an ‘Off-Take Agreement’ relating to a hydrocarbons plant, and involved a number of issues of Iranian law, including in relation to loss of profits.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) for the applicants in application under section 43 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for a witness summons in connection with an LCIA arbitration.
  • Advised (led by Vernon Flynn QC) a CIS state in connection with an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in Sweden. The dispute centred on a Production Sharing Agreement between the state and an international oil major, and involved a number of issues of contractual construction relating to the proper parties to the arbitration agreement, whether the purported claimant had standing to sue, and whether it had commenced arbitration against the correct respondent.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) for the buyer in its claims for breach of contract against the seller in a series of related arbitrations governed by the SIAC and CIETAC rules, which arose out of a series of contracts for the international sale of goods. Significant issues included the possible consolidation of related arbitrations, contractual construction and variation and sale of goods law.
Offshore litigation

Stuart was admitted as a barrister of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Territory of the Virgin Islands) in March 2022 and was seconded to a leading BVI law firm from April to July 2022. In that period, he regularly appeared unled in the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court, often against leading counsel. He acted on a number of matters across the firm’s commercial practice, including the following:

  • Acted (led by David Allison QC) before the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal in a confidential appeal brought by the joint liquidators of a company against an order granting an application to reverse a decision of theirs brought pursuant to section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003. Stuart also appeared unled in applications at first instance for leave to appeal and for a stay of execution pending the appeal.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) in a claim in the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court brought by the joint liquidators of a BVI company, seeking to reverse the transfer of shares valued at approximately US$50m to a connected company and for which no consideration was received. The joint liquidators alleged that the transaction was both at an undervalue pursuant to section 246 of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003, and intended to defraud the company’s creditors within the meaning of section 81 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1961 and the Statute of Elizabeth.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) in application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court by provisional joint liquidators for approval of their fees and disbursements incurred in relation to their investigations into alleged wrongdoing in connection with the asserts of a BVI company.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) for the (neutral) liquidators of a BVI company in connection with an appeal by the company to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal against the winding-up order which put it into liquidation.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) for a supporting creditor in connection with the first hearing of a winding-up petition presented before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) for an opposing creditor in connection with the first hearing of a winding-up petition presented before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) the former directors of a BVI company in relation to various issues of limitation and contribution arising in connection with claims for misfeasance brought against them by the liquidator of the company.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) in application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court seeking summary judgment on the claimant’s claims for declaratory relief that he is the sole beneficial owner of all the issued shares in two BVI companies, and an order rectifying the register of members for those two companies to record him as the sole registered holder of those shares.
  • Acted (as sole counsel) for the former liquidator of a BVI company in connection with an application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court for declaratory relief confirming that the company was validly dissolved and for other associated relief restricting certain other parties’ ability to challenge that dissolution.

Since completing his secondment, Stuart has acted on a number of BVI matters, including the following:

  • Mex Clearing Limited v Mex Securities SARL & Ors: Acted (led by Ben Valentin QC, Alex Hall-Taylor QC and Alexander Cook) for the first ancillary claimant, VDHI, in its claims before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court, In these proceedings, VDHI brings representative claims on behalf of various third-party noteholders, who it says have been defrauded out of approximately €36.4m, pursuant to an unlawful means conspiracy between the ancillary defendants and by means of various abuses of the process of the BVI Court, including the collusive commencement and settlement of proceedings by a fraudulently obtained Consent Order. The case has given rise to a large number of judgments and appeals. Stuart also acted as sole counsel for VDHI in respect of applications by the fourth ancillary defendant, Mr Taher, to challenge the jurisdiction of the BVI Court to hear the claims against him.
  • X v Y: Acted (as sole counsel) for the applicant in its application before the Commercial Division of the BVI High Court for without notice freezing and proprietary injunctions in support of its claim in respect of attempts by the respondent fraudulently to misappropriate assets worth approximately US$25m. The application was heard in private and remains confidential.
  • Acted (led by Philip Marshall QC) on a confidential application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a BVI-law decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
  • Advised (as sole counsel) a well-known BVI law firm on its claim in another Caribbean jurisdiction against a former client for unpaid fees.
Career

2022 Called to the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Territory of the Virgin Islands)

2014 Tenant at Essex Court Chambers

2013-2014 Pupillage at Essex Court Chambers (with David Scorey KC)

2013 Called to the Bar of England and Wales, Lincoln’s Inn

2012-2013 Supervisor in Civil Law, Selwyn College, University of Cambridge

Research assistant to Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Research assistant to the Secured Transactions Law Reform Project

 

Education

2012-13 BPTC, Kaplan Law School (Outstanding)

2011-12 BCL, St Catharine’s College, University of Oxford (Distinction)

2008-2011 BA (Hons) Law, Selwyn College, University of Cambridge (First Class, ranked second in final year, ranked fourth in first year)

 

 

Awards

2013 Buchanan Prize (Lincoln’s Inn)

2012 ESU John Smith Memorial Mace for England Champion
Lord Denning Scholarship (Lincoln’s Inn)
Allen & Overy Prize for Corporate Insolvency (University of Oxford)

2011 Hardwicke Entrance Award (Lincoln’s Inn)
3 Verulam Buildings Scholarship (University of Oxford)
Clifford Chance Prize for European Union Law (University of Cambridge)
Clifford Chance CJ Hamson Prize for Aspects of Obligations (University of Cambridge)
Fairest Prize in Law (Selwyn College, University of Cambridge)

2009 Fairest Prize in Law (Selwyn College, University of Cambridge)