Anton is widely recognised as a leading practitioner in international arbitration. His expertise extends to commercial and investment treaty arbitration, all major arbitral rules (eg LCIA, ICC and UNCITRAL), and a wide range of seats (eg London, Paris and Dubai). Anton is recommended in the legal directories for civil fraud, energy & natural resources, banking & finance, international arbitration and commercial dispute resolution. He has been described as “technically excellent, fiercely bright and commercially shrewd, he is a real star who zeroes in on the killer points”; a “triple threat: he has an unwavering work ethic, will be the brightest person in any room, and is likeable and easy to understand”; and “incredibly easy to work with, and has great rapport with both solicitors and clients”.
Many of Anton’s cases are complex and high-value, often involving jurisdictional disputes, issues of state immunity, and matters of private international law. He frequently acts for and against sovereign states, and has extensive experience of enforcement proceedings and challenges to arbitral awards. His instructions include acting for a foreign government in a dispute with a UAE consortium, described in Global Arbitration Review as “one of the highest-value gas disputes in the Middle East, with claims valued at over US$39 billion”; for judgment creditors in a US$16 billion enforcement action against Argentina; for an oil and gas plc in a claim to enforce a US$1.7 billion BIT award against India; and for a minister of a foreign government in relation to a US$1.6 billion claim in conspiracy (one of The Lawyer’s ‘Top 20’ cases).
Fluent in Russian, Anton is frequently instructed in disputes originating from ex-Soviet states. His expertise encompasses civil fraud, banking and financial services, energy and minerals, company and shareholder disputes, claims against directors / fiduciaries, and insolvency matters. Anton is also regularly instructed on urgent applications for injunctive relief, including worldwide freezing orders and anti-suit injunctions.
Arbitration (including arbitration-related court applications)
Anton is ranked in this field by Chambers & Partners, Legal 500 and Lexology. His notable instructions include:
appearing in a Paris-seated arbitration relating to a major telecoms project in the Middle East (ICC);
acting in an ICC arbitration concerned with a high-value dispute between pharmaceutical companies;
acting for a bank in a claim arising out of an alleged bond fraud: 5-week liability trial before a Tribunal comprising Sir Christopher Clarke, Sir Rupert Jackson and Sir Stephen Tomlinson (LCIA);
acting for the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq in a dispute with a UAE consortium, described in Global Arbitration Review as “one of the highest-value gas disputes in the Middle East, with claims valued at over US$39 billion” (LCIA);
acting for a shareholder in a BVI company seeking relief for unfair prejudice under 184I of the BVI Business Companies Act 2004 (LCIA);
advising the seller of a leading brokerage business in connection with a dispute about earn-out provisions in a share purchase agreement (expert determination before one of the ‘Big Four’ accounting firms);
appearing in an arbitration concerned with brand licensing arrangements, which settled in a deal estimated to be worth US$225 million (ICC);
acting for an investor in a claim relating to a property development project in Moscow (LCIA);
acting in a dispute between publicly listed international oil companies relating to a major offshore development project (ICC);
appearing in an arbitration in Dubai, involving a family feud and the division of a worldwide portfolio of assets (ICC); and
acting in a commodities arbitration relating to the supply of alumina (LCIA).
Anton frequently appears in arbitration-related proceedings in the Commercial Court. This includes challenges under sections 67-69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, applications under section 44, anti-suit relief, and the enforcement of awards and peremptory orders. For example:
Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertainment, Inc [2026] EWHC 1392 (Comm). Acting for Chubb Bermuda in obtaining final anti-suit relief, restraining the pursuit of proceedings in Louisiana (and a mandatory injunction, requiring their discontinuance); damages for breach of a London arbitration agreement; an indemnity for future losses; and declarations regarding the Defendants’ breaches of an interim ASI and the arbitration agreement.
JSC DTEK Krymenergo v Russia [2025] 1 WLR 4828. Acting for the award creditor in proceedings relating to the enforcement of a US$200+ million award made under the Russia-Ukraine BIT.
The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd v Sunlink Energies and Resources Ltd [2023] EWHC 3135 (Comm). Appearing on an urgent application for an anti-suit injunction to enforce an ICC arbitration agreement. The defendant was restrained from continuing with its c. US$1 billion claim in the Nigerian courts. The injunction was subsequently made final, in mandatory form, and the Court granted declaratory relief, at a hearing in December 2023.
Hays v Bloomfield Investments LLC [2023] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 519. Acting for a Californian entrepreneur in challenges to LCIA arbitration awards brought under sections 67, 68 and 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (and an associated application for an extension of time under section 80(5)).
Cairn Energy plc v The Republic of India. Acting for a UK-based energy company in an action to enforce a US$1.7 billion arbitral award against India (UNCITRAL award; UK-India bilateral investment treaty).
Enforcement of ICSID Advising a state in connection with enforcement action in the Commercial Court in respect of a US$100+ million ICSID award.
X v Y. Acting for a shareholder in a strategic mining project in East Africa in an application for an anti-suit injunction relating to an ICC arbitration.
A v B. Acting on an urgent application for anti-suit relief relating to an LCIA arbitration.
PAO Tatneft v Ukraine [2018] 1 WLR 5947; [2018] EWHC 1797 (Comm). Acting for Ukraine in a jurisdiction challenge on state immunity grounds. The proceedings related to the enforcement of a US$112 million arbitral award for breach of the Russia-Ukraine bilateral investment treaty.
PCL v X [2015] 1 WLR Acting for a foreign government in a successful jurisdiction challenge in the Commercial Court, made on the basis of s. 12 of the State Immunity Act 1978.
Pearl Petroleum Co Ltd v Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq [2016] 4 WLR Acting in Commercial Court proceedings relating to enforcement, under s. 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996, of a peremptory order made against a foreign government.
Telenor East Holdings II AS v Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd [2011] Arb LR 9. Acting in an application under 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 brought to restrain a corporate acquisition worth in excess of US$6 billion.
A v B State. Advising, in the context of an arbitration against a sovereign state, on (i) enforcement of a peremptory order; (ii) enforcement of a partial final award; and (iii) obtaining a freezing order and other relief in aid of enforcement.
C v D State. Advising on the enforcement of an UNCITRAL arbitration award against a sovereign state made in proceedings brought under a bilateral investment treaty. The case raised complex issues, including whether an ostensibly separate legal entity is an organ of the state; the scope and application of the ‘commercial purposes’ exception in 13(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978; and the effect of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964.
X v Y. Advising on an application for an injunction under s. 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in the context of a dispute relating to a letter of credit.