Robert Weekes KC

Substantial dispute concerning the proper interpretation of various provisions of a shareholders’ agreement relating to the shareholders’ respective call options in a Greek fintech company, Viva Wallet Holdings Software Development SA (“Viva”).

Various different issues were listed for an expedited trial. A principal issue in dispute was whether, in determining the fair market value of the call options, the valuation experts were required to disregard obligations, restrictions and/or limitations applicable to the company or its shareholders under Regulation K of the US Code of Federal Regulations (and some related regulations). Such regulations concern international banking operations. They were said to apply by reason of J.P. Morgan International Finance Ltd having a shareholding in Viva. The Commercial Court (Dame Clare Moulder DBE sitting as a High Court Judge) accepted the argument of Werealize.com Ltd ("WRL") that the valuation experts were so required to disregard them.

The Court also determined certain other issues in relation to the process of determining the value of the call options and their exercise and certain issues concerning Regulation K.

Rob Weekes KC and Tim Lau (along with Richard Lissack KC and Charles Redmond of Fountain Court) acted for WRL, instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

The judgment following the expedited trial can be found here.

A significant Part 8 claim for Norwich Pharmacal relief. Charles Hollander KC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) dismissed the claim, holding in summary (and amongst other things) that there was no permissible purpose for which the information was sought, given the decision in R. (Omar) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2014] QB 112 and the line of authority following it. Moreover, the Judge held that an order would not serve a useful (and legitimate) purpose in any event and the ‘Overall Justice Condition’ was not satisfied.

The Judge observed that the effect of Omar and the cases following it is that, where the purpose of the Norwich Pharmacal application is to obtain evidence for use in foreign civil proceedings, or in connection with criminal proceedings or a criminal investigation being carried on outside the United Kingdom, the court has no jurisdiction to make a Norwich Pharmacal order because the exclusive remedy is under the respective statutory scheme.

Rob acted for the successful Defendant.

In December 2019, Vale SA, one of the world’s largest mining companies and two associated companies, commenced a $1.8bn fraud claim against eight defendants, including Beny Steinmetz.

Vale alleged in summary that, back in April 2010, it was fraudulently induced by the defendants to enter into a joint venture for iron ore mining in Guinea with a company called BSG Resources Limited. An 11 week trial of the claim began in January 2022. After cross-examination of three of Vale’s witnesses, and in the fourth week of trial, Vale conceded that its claims were time barred and applied to discontinue the claim. Mr Justice Andrew Baker dismissed the claim, ordered Vale to pay indemnity costs to all the defendants and discharged the worldwide freezing order.

The proceedings also featured an important decision, made on the application of Rob's client,  concerning the correct approach to the ordinary course of business exception in freezing orders.

Rob was leading counsel for the second defendant throughout the proceedings, leading Carmine Conte at the interlocutory stage and Shane Sibbel at trial.

A leading case in the law of contempt. An application was made by members of the Ocado group to commit a solicitor for contempt of court. The application concerned an instruction given by the respondent to delete a messaging app, following the service of a search order. Ocado's application for permission was refused by the High Court and overturned on appeal. The committal application was then heard in a 6 day trial in June and July 2022. The case has involved important decisions in relation to the test for permission to bring an application for committal, the right to cross-examine witnesses in committal proceedings, the elements of contempt for interference with the administration of justice and the applicable sanctions for such contempt. The case has attracted considerable coverage in the national and legal press over the previous three years.

Rob was sole counsel for the respondent at the permission stage (at first instance and in the Court of Appeal) and then led Gayatri Sarathy at trial.

Substantial fraud claim arising out of an alleged trust of assets of a Ukrainian businessman. The Claimants allege the creation of a sham trust and the dissipation of assets. For several years, Rob has acted for the first defendant fiduciary and trust services provider, Estera, which was alleged to be liable for breach of trust. On Estera's application and following a two day hearing, both the principal claims against it have been struck out.

Litigation concerning a joint venture in relation to power generation assets in Russia. Involving four separate claims and upwards of 30 different parties. Rob acts for Emmerson International Corporation and other parties which are the claimants by way of Counterclaim, Ancillary Claim and Third Ancillary Claim. Rob has appeared in the Court of Appeal on various different appeals and applications in this matter, as well as the Privy Council, in addition to a very considerable number of interlocutory hearings. The principal amount at stake is approximately US$1 billion.

Substantial claim in conspiracy to defraud. The claimants seek damages of c.47 million Euros, arising out of investments made in an alternative investment fund.

Rob acts for the Second and Third Defendants, being a Luxembourg investment fund and its general partner, leading Warren Fitt. Trial has been listed for October 2024, with a time estimate of 7 weeks.

Claim for alleged conspiracy to defraud against Bonhams auction house, a member of the Louwman Group and various individuals. The claim for approximately £70 million was made in connection with the auction of an extremely valuable collection of vintage Ferraris.

Rob acted for one of the individual defendants, a former non-executive director of Bonhams. The claim against Rob's client was dismissed in its entirety following a 4-day summary judgment and strike out application. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision following a 3-day appeal. It is one of the leading cases on the issue of whether a settlement agreement has the effect of precluding or releasing claims arising from alleged fraud, conspiracy or other intentional wrongdoing.

Rob appeared as sole counsel at first instance and led Luka Krsljanin on the appeal.

Appeal in claim concerning the purchase and flooding of a luxury Mercedes-Benz AMG GTC Roadster convertible. The appellant contended that the trial judge had erred in fact, in holding that this particular car was not of satisfactory quality, and had erred in law, when applying section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on both grounds.

Rob acted for the successful respondent on the appeal, leading Celia Rooney.

Important case concerning obligations between a peer-to-lender, borrower and guarantor. Rob acted for the claimant guarantor, claiming (amongst other relief) declarations as to non-liability in respect of various loans made for the purposes of a property development. The total amount of principal and interest was said to exceed £20 million. The claimant contended (amongst other things) that certain agreements were induced by fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation and that a contractual condition precedent had not been fulfilled. Settled immediately before trial.

Claim for deceit against Barclays Bank Plc, arising out of the Bank’s recapitalisation at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. Rob has acted for the claimant private equity firms since mid-2016. The hybrid trial in the Commercial Court took place in June, July and parts of August and October 2020. One of The Lawyer's Top 20 cases for 2020.

The Court held that the Bank made representations to PCP, those representations were false and they were made knowing them to be false and intending PCP to rely upon them. The Court also held that PCP had relied upon these misrepresentations and, if they had not been made, then PCP would have discovered the truth. The Court held that PCP would then have negotiated with Barclays for the same deal, pro rata as the Qatari interests and would have obtained additional value of £615 million for its investment.

However, the Court also held that PCP would not, in this counterfactual situation, have been able to raise sufficient non-recourse debt finance and it would have lost its interest in the transaction. Accordingly, the Court held that the Bank was not liable in damages to PCP. No order as to costs of the proceedings.

Application for cross-examination of judgment debtor pursuant to CPR Part 71. Rob acted for the judgment creditor in respect of judgment debt of c.. US$12 million. The proceedings involved important procedural decisions concerning the scope of disclosure obligations under Part 71 and the privacy of the examination hearing.

Claim in respect of loan agreement for principal sum of US$50 million, plus interest. Claimant’s application for summary judgment and strike out was refused and a conditional order made. Rob was sole counsel for the defendant.

Substantial application for the specific disclosure of documents withheld from inspection on ground of privilege, in the context of an unfair prejudice claim between shareholders in a football club. The disclosure application was refused by the Chancellor. The decision is one of the leading authorities in respect of PD 51U, the disclosure pilot for the Business and Property Courts.  Rob was sole counsel for the claimant and respondent to the application.

Substantial and complex claim arising out of an alleged fraud involving warehouse receipts for nickel held in South East Asian warehouses. Rob acted for the defendant commodities broker, Marex, in the 4 week Commercial Court trial. 

Sole counsel for the Trustee of the estate of Bernard Madoff and his investment company, BLMIS. Rob defended an application to set aside English Court orders giving effect to letters of request issued in support of the Trustee’s proceedings in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The respondents alleged that those orders were oppressive and had been obtained in breach of duties of full and frank disclosure. Both applications were dismissed. 

Claim by the liquidator of a BVI company against four of the company’s former directors. Claim for misfeasance, breach of fiduciary duties, fraudulent trading, wrongful trading and insolvent trading. The claim concerned litigation previously pursued by the company. The liquidator succeeded on all his claims at trial in November 2018. Rob was leading counsel for the liquidator.

Part 8 trial concerning claim for relief in respect of a subject access request made under s7 of the DPA 1998. The claim was made against a firm providing private investigation services. It said that it was conducting an investigation into the applicants and contended (amongst other things) that its investigation was privileged and in any event exempt from disclosure under the statutory exemption relating to the investigation of crime. Each claim to an exemption was dismissed. A leading authority in the field of data protection. Rob was sole counsel for the successful applicants.

Claim arising out of joint venture for development of residential property in South East London, involving claims in breach of trust, dishonest assistance and inducing breach of contract. Rob acts for the claimant investors. Leading Gayatri Sarathy, Rob recently obtained a substantial proprietary freezing injunction against all the Defendants, following a contested one-day application.

Claim by the mobile network operator commercially known as ‘Three’ against another network operator, EE. The claim concerns the provision of facilities for carrying 3G traffic, known as ‘free carriers’. The claim arises out of the merger between ‘Orange’ and ‘T-Mobile’ which originally led to the creation of the ‘EE’ business. Rob was junior counsel for the Claimant. 

Substantial Commercial Court dispute concerning the sale by Nokia Corporation of the ‘Vertu’ luxury mobile phones business. The Claimant claimed that warranties were breached in the share purchase agreement. The principal sum claimed exceeds £100m. The Defendants counterclaimed, alleging amongst other things a conspiracy to defraud. The original trial was adjourned upon the Defendants’ application to plead fraud, with the Defendants being ordered to pay the costs thrown away. Trial was re-listed with an estimate of 7 weeks. The Defendants’ appeal against that costs order was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in February 2017 and the proceedings subsequently settled.  Rob was senior junior for the Claimant.

Claim arising out of the refinancing and IPO of the metals and mining business, ENRC Plc. Following a 3 week Commercial Court trial, judgment was given against 3 founders of the business in the sum of $18.4m. Interest was then awarded in an amount exceeding US$10m.  The defendants then brought fresh Commercial Court proceedings, alleging that the judgment was procured by fraud and seeking to set it aside in its entirety. These proceedings were dismissed in their entirety following a four day summary judgment application in April 2015.  Rob was junior counsel for the successful claimant.

Substantial claim concerning allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty on the part of the former directors of an insolvent lottery company, as well as alleged transactions at an undervalue and alleged preferences. Rob was sole counsel for one of the non-executive directors.

Claim for trademark infringement and ancillary injunctive relief arising out of parallel trading of computer products. 

Litigation concerning loans made by Standard Bank to Mongolian corporation and alleged fraudulent dissipation of loan monies. Successful jurisdiction challenge in July 2014. Junior counsel for one of the defendant companies.

Claim against a bank and an IFA relating to a complicated investment scheme, involving alleged professional negligence, misrepresentations and breaches of various rules contained in the FSA Handbook. Junior counsel for the claimant investors. Claim settled on Day 10 of a 4 week trial.

A significant Part 8 claim for Norwich Pharmacal relief. Charles Hollander KC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) dismissed the claim, holding in summary (and amongst other things) that there was no permissible purpose for which the information was sought, given the decision in R. (Omar) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2014] QB 112 and the line of authority following it. Moreover, the Judge held that an order would not serve a useful (and legitimate) purpose in any event and the ‘Overall Justice Condition’ was not satisfied.

The Judge observed that the effect of Omar and the cases following it is that, where the purpose of the Norwich Pharmacal application is to obtain evidence for use in foreign civil proceedings, or in connection with criminal proceedings or a criminal investigation being carried on outside the United Kingdom, the court has no jurisdiction to make a Norwich Pharmacal order because the exclusive remedy is under the respective statutory scheme.

Rob acted for the successful Defendant.

In December 2019, Vale SA, one of the world’s largest mining companies and two associated companies, commenced a $1.8bn fraud claim against eight defendants, including Beny Steinmetz.

Vale alleged in summary that, back in April 2010, it was fraudulently induced by the defendants to enter into a joint venture for iron ore mining in Guinea with a company called BSG Resources Limited. An 11 week trial of the claim began in January 2022. After cross-examination of three of Vale’s witnesses, and in the fourth week of trial, Vale conceded that its claims were time barred and applied to discontinue the claim. Mr Justice Andrew Baker dismissed the claim, ordered Vale to pay indemnity costs to all the defendants and discharged the worldwide freezing order.

The proceedings also featured an important decision, made on the application of Rob's client,  concerning the correct approach to the ordinary course of business exception in freezing orders.

Rob was leading counsel for the second defendant throughout the proceedings, leading Carmine Conte at the interlocutory stage and Shane Sibbel at trial.

Claim for deceit against Barclays Bank Plc, arising out of the Bank’s recapitalisation at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. Rob acted for the claimant private equity firms since mid-2016. The hybrid trial in the Commercial Court took place in June, July and parts of August and October 2020. One of The Lawyer's Top 20 cases for 2020.

The Court held that the Bank made representations to PCP, those representations were false and they were made knowing them to be false and intending PCP to rely upon them. The Court also held that PCP had relied upon these misrepresentations and, if they had not been made, then PCP would have discovered the truth. The Court held that PCP would then have negotiated with Barclays for the same deal, pro rata as the Qatari interests and would have obtained additional value of £615 million for its investment.

However, the Court also held that PCP would not, in this counterfactual situation, have been able to raise sufficient non-recourse debt finance and it would have lost its interest in the transaction. Accordingly, the Court held that the Bank was not liable in damages to PCP. No order was made as to costs of the proceedings.

Litigation concerning a joint venture in relation to power generation assets in Russia. Involving four separate claims and upwards of 30 different parties. Rob acts for Emmerson International Corporation and other parties which are the claimants by way of Counterclaim, Ancillary Claim and Third Ancillary Claim. Rob has appeared in the Court of Appeal on various different appeals and applications in this matter, as well as the Privy Council, in addition to a very considerable number of interlocutory hearings. The principal amount at stake is approximately US$1 billion.

One of the largest claims ever brought in the English Commercial Court. The claimant is a public institution authorised to operate the State of Kuwait's social-security system and pension scheme. It brings a claim in in respect of payments by various financial institutions and intermediaries that are alleged to be unauthorised secret commissions. The payments are said to have been paid  over  a  period  of approximately  20  years,  in a total amount exceeding  US$840  million. Rob acted for one of the individual defendants, leading Gayatri Sarathy.

Claim for alleged conspiracy to defraud against Bonhams auction house, a member of the Louwman Group and various individuals. The claim for approximately £70 million was made in connection with the auction of an extremely valuable collection of vintage Ferraris.

Rob acted for one of the individual defendants, a former non-executive director of Bonhams. The claim against Rob's client was dismissed in its entirety following a 4-day summary judgment and strike out application. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision following a 3-day appeal. It is one of the leading cases on the issue of whether a settlement agreement has the effect of precluding or releasing claims arising from alleged fraud, conspiracy or other intentional wrongdoing.

Rob appeared as sole counsel at first instance and led Luka Krsljanin on the appeal.

Important case concerning obligations between a peer-to-lender, borrower and guarantor. Rob acted for the claimant guarantor, claiming (amongst other relief) declarations as to non-liability in respect of various loans made for the purposes of a property development. The total amount of principal and interest was said to exceed £20 million. The claimant contended (amongst other things) that certain agreements were induced by fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation and that a contractual condition precedent had not been fulfilled. Settled immediately before trial.

A leading case in the law of contempt. An application was made by members of the Ocado group to commit a solicitor for contempt of court. The application concerned an instruction given by the respondent to delete a messaging app, following the service of a search order. Ocado's application for permission was refused by the High Court and overturned on appeal. The committal application was then heard in a 6 day trial in June and July 2022. The case has involved important decisions in relation to the test for permission to bring an application for committal, the right to cross-examine witnesses in committal proceedings, the elements of contempt for interference with the administration of justice and the applicable sanctions for such contempt. The case has attracted considerable coverage in the national and legal press over the previous three years.

Rob was sole counsel for the respondent at the permission stage (at first instance and in the Court of Appeal) and then led Gayatri Sarathy at trial.

Substantial claim in conspiracy to defraud. The claimants seek damages of c.47 million Euros, arising out of investments made in an alternative investment fund.

Rob acts for the Second and Third Defendants, being a Luxembourg investment fund and its general partner, leading Warren Fitt. Trial has been listed for October 2024, with a time estimate of 7 weeks.

Substantial and complex claim arising out of an alleged fraud involving warehouse receipts for nickel held in South East Asian warehouses. Rob acted for the defendant commodities broker, Marex, in the 4 week Commercial Court trial. 

Sole counsel for the Trustee of the estate of Bernard Madoff and his investment company, BLMIS. Rob defended an application to set aside English Court orders giving effect to letters of request issued in support of the Trustee’s proceedings in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The respondents alleged that those orders were oppressive and had been obtained in breach of duties of full and frank disclosure. Both applications were dismissed. 

Claim by the liquidator of a BVI company against four of the company’s former directors. Claim for misfeasance, breach of fiduciary duties, fraudulent trading, wrongful trading and insolvent trading. The claim concerned litigation previously pursued by the company. The liquidator succeeded on all his claims at trial in November 2018. Rob was leading counsel for the liquidator.

Substantial Commercial Court dispute concerning the sale by Nokia Corporation of the ‘Vertu’ luxury mobile phones business. The Claimant claimed that warranties were breached in the share purchase agreement. The principal sum claimed exceeds £100m. The Defendants counterclaimed, alleging amongst other things a conspiracy to defraud. The original trial was adjourned upon the Defendants’ application to plead fraud, with the Defendants being ordered to pay the costs thrown away. Trial was re-listed with an estimate of 7 weeks. The Defendants’ appeal against that costs order was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in February 2017 and the proceedings subsequently settled.  Rob was senior junior for the Claimant.

Claim arising out of joint venture for development of residential property in South East London, involving claims in breach of trust, dishonest assistance and inducing breach of contract. Rob acts for the claimant investors. Leading Gayatri Sarathy, Rob recently obtained a substantial proprietary freezing injunction against all the Defendants, following a contested one-day application.

Claim for conspiracy to defraud arising out of contracts for the supply of computer servers. The sum claimed was approximately US$17.5m. The Claimants obtained a freezing injunction and search order at the outset of proceedings. Following a three day committal application, the First Defendant, Mr. Sage, was held to have made multiple breaches of those orders and was committed to prison for 18 months for contempt of court. The sentence was reduced on appeal to 12 months. Rob was junior counsel for the Claimants. 

Claim concerning alleged misuse of confidential information and alleged conspiracy in insurance brokerage industry. Substantial interlocutory dispute concerning an interim imaging and deletion order. Rob was sole counsel for the 7 defendants.

Commercial Court fraud action. The Claimants alleged that a judgment had been procured by fraud and seeking to set it aside. These proceedings were dismissed in their entirety following a four day summary judgment application in April 2015. Rob was junior counsel for the successful claimant.

Defending solicitors’ firm against allegations of conspiracy to defraud, breaches of purported Quistclose trust and allegations of breaches of Solicitors Accounts Rules. The claimant’s summary judgment was dismissed with indemnity costs. The entire claim was then dismissed following a 9 day trial. Junior counsel for the defendant firm.

Litigation arising out of the notorious Ponzi scheme operated by Bernard Madoff. The claim concerned the alleged liability of the directors of the English company owned by Bernard Madoff and recipients of payments from that company. Senior junior for the claimant company.

Rob made the successful application for the freezing injunction. Some of his submissions in that regard were subsequently expressly approved by the Court of Appeal in VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 808; [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 313 at [177] per Lloyd LJ (judgment of the Court of Appeal).

For many years, Rob has acted for and advised the US Trustee of the liquidation of Bernard Madoff’s New York corporation (BLMIS) and his personal estate. He has been involved in various proceedings in England as well as in Gibraltar and the BVI.

Claim for alleged conspiracy to defraud, breach of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance in the banking industrty. The sum claimed was c.$180m. Rob was senior junior for the principal defendants until shortly before trial. Rob appeared as sole counsel in respect of the various interlocutory freezing relief applications.

Rob was a member of the counsel team acting for the defendant, Maan Al-Sanea, a major Saudi businessman, resisting a $9bn claim alleging fraudulent misappropriation of assets from a Saudi partnership, as well as defending a substantial contempt application. A case of major interest in the Middle East.

Very substantial international banking arbitration.

Substantial commercial arbitration in the pharmaceuticals sector, which went to an evidentiary hearing in July 2022. Rob was sole counsel for the defendant.

Substantial arbitration claim against an international bank, concerning scope of a performance guarantee. Rob was sole counsel for the claimant.

Substantial LCIA arbitration in the banking sector concerning English and foreign law. Rob was junior counsel for the Claimant.

Sole counsel for the respondent companies defending claim for alleged breaches of warranty in a share purchase agreement. Value of claim was c.$25m. 

Claims alleged guarantees for loan facilities. Principal sum claimed was approximately $70m and substantial evidentiary hearings took place over a period of 6 months in 2015 and 2016 and further hearings in 2017. Senior junior counsel for the Defendant.

Rob appeared as junior counsel for the major US defence contractor, Raytheon, in a substantial LCIA arbitration in which the Government was ordered to pay £224m to Raytheon, a fact which was reported on the front pages of many national newspapers. 

Raytheon's contract with the UK Government was terminated shortly after the Coalition Government came to power (being the first such contract terminated by the Government as part of its Spending Review). The contract was for the design, development and implementation of the £1bn e-Borders IT system, being a highly complex system to be operated by the UK Border Agency. Various contractual milestones were missed as a result of which the contract was terminated, and the central issue in the arbitration was which contracting party was responsible for the missing of the milestones. Raytheon sought damages in excess of £500m, and Home Office advanced a cross-claim for a slightly lower sum. The case involved the detailed examination of a government IT programme of national strategic importance. 

The Tribunal ruled that the Home Secretary had unlawfully terminated the contract and awarded Raytheon £224 million, dismissing all of the Home Office’s claims against Raytheon. 

The Home Secretary successfully challenged the award in proceedings in the Technology & Construction Court. The Court granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The case settled in March 2015 with the Government paying £150m to Raytheon, a fact also reported in the national press.

Claim on behalf of Mongolian corporation for declaratory relief under s72 of the Arbitration Act 1996, arising out of LCIA arbitration. Junior counsel for the claimant.

Claim for over US$500m under a material damage and business interruption insurance policy. It arose out of cyclone damage to an oil refinery construction project. 

The seat was Mumbai and the substantive hearing lasted over 70 days. It involved a considerable volume of technical evidence, both factual and expert, in the fields of engineering, programme management and accounting. 

It was said, at the time, to be the largest domestic arbitration ever to have taken place in India. Junior counsel for the claimant.

Dispute concerning the project management of a massive infrastructure project in the energy sector. Counsel for the Respondent.

Substantial fraud claim arising out of an alleged trust of assets of a Ukrainian businessman. The Claimants allege the creation of a sham trust and the dissipation of assets. For several years, Rob has acted for the first defendant fiduciary and trust services provider, Estera, which was alleged to be liable for breach of trust. On Estera's application and following a two day hearing, both the principal claims against it have been struck out.

Litigation concerning a joint venture in relation to power generation assets in Russia. Involving four separate claims and upwards of 30 different parties. Rob acts for Emmerson International Corporation and other parties which are the claimants by way of Counterclaim, Ancillary Claim and Third Ancillary Claim. Rob has appeared in the Court of Appeal on various different appeals and applications in this matter, as well as the Privy Council, in addition to a very considerable number of interlocutory hearings. The principal amount at stake is approximately US$1 billion.

Defending substantial fraud claim in relation to Hong Kong and BVI companies on behalf of first and second defendants.

Claim by the liquidator of a BVI company against four of the company’s former directors. Claim for misfeasance, breach of fiduciary duties, fraudulent trading, wrongful trading and insolvent trading. The claim concerned litigation previously pursued by the company. The liquidator succeeded on all his claims at trial in November 2018. Rob was leading counsel for the liquidator.

Substantial international commercial dispute, acting for a defendant and ancillary defendant.

For many years, Rob has acted for and advised the US Trustee of the liquidation of Bernard Madoff’s New York corporation (BLMIS) and his personal estate. He has been involved in various proceedings in England as well as in Gibraltar and the BVI.

An independent Disciplinary Commission declared that a three-point deduction imposed on Morecambe Football Club for the 2023/24 season has been automatically activated. A previous Agreed Decision dated 17 August 2023 concerned a failure to pay players’ wages on time. The Club’s ultimate beneficial owner, Jason Whittingham, was required by that decision (i) to deposit a certain amount into a designated Club account only to be used (if required) to pay players’ wages in future; and (ii) to maintain the balance in that account. A three-point deduction was suspended. Following a failure to comply with that decision by not replenishing the relevant account after funds in it were used to pay wages, the Commission held that the suspended three-point deduction has been activated.

Mr Whittingham was also fined £10,000, payable immediately. A suspended fine of £20,000 was also imposed on him, to be activated on 31 May 2024, unless by then he complies with the obligation to replenish the account. Rob acted for the EFL. The Decision and statement by the EFL are available here.

An independent Disciplinary Commission determined that Reading Football Club should be deducted two points from the 2023/24 League One table with a further two points suspended, after the Club made certain late payments to HMRC, contrary to the EFL’s Regulations.

In respect of a separate charge of misconduct, the Commission decided that the Club’s owner, Mr Yongge Dai, should be fined £100,000 for his failure to deposit an amount equal to 125% of the Club’s forecast monthly wage bill in a designated account. The Commission also imposed (i) a further suspended fine on Mr Dai of £100,000, to be activated if the deposit requirement is not satisfied within 28 days of the Decision; and (ii) an additional suspended fine of £100,000, to be activated if that requirement is not satisfied within 35 days of the Decision.

Rob acted for the EFL. The Decision and statement by the EFL are available here.

Independent Disciplinary Commission proceedings in respect of a charge of misconduct against Mr Yongge Dai, the ultimate beneficial owner of Reading Football Club.

By a previous decision of such a Commission, Mr Dai was required to deposit money in an account in the Club’s name. This order was made in respect of charges concerning the non-payment of players’ wages in the 2022/2023 season. It was intended to provide a form of security against non-payment of the Club’s players in the future.

However, Mr Dai failed to comply with that order. An independent Disciplinary Commission was required to determine the appropriate sanction for that breach. The Commission ordered (in summary) that Mr Dai be fined £20,000; a further suspended fine of £50,000 be imposed, which will be activated on 12 January 2024, unless the deposit is made in full; and he shall maintain the deposit account for an additional period of time – correlated to his delay in putting the account in funds.

Rob acted for the EFL.

The independent Disciplinary Commission’s Written Reasons can be viewed here and the written statement of the EFL here.

Rob acted for the EFL (leading Ava Mayer) in an arbitral appeal brought by Blackburn Rovers Football Club. The Club appealed against the EFL’s refusal to register the proposed loan transfer of a Nottingham Forest Football Club player, Lewis O’Brien. Finding for the EFL, the arbitral panel concluded that the EFL had been entitled to refuse that transfer on the basis that the application was late.

The official statement made by the EFL and the arbitral panel's decision is available here.

Rob has acted in substantial arbitrations before the British Boxing Board of Control and appeals to the Stewards of Appeal. The details of those proceedings remain subject to confidentiality.