Arbitrators

Anna was named commercial litigation junior of the year in 2020 by Chambers & Partners. In 2019 Anna was shortlisted for the equivalent award by the Legal 500.

Before taking silk last year, Anna was also recognised as a leading junior in the legal directories for both civil fraud (Band 1) and commercial litigation (Band 1)(C&P). Between 2018 – 2021 she was one of the few juniors recognised as an expert in asset recovery by Who’s Who Legal. For 2023, she is ranked as a leading Silk for commercial litigation and civil fraud. Comments include:

• “Anna has great judgment, and is excellent both on paper and on her feet. Opponents underestimate Anna at their peril.” (Legal 500 2023, commercial litigation)
• “Excellent lawyer who has effortlessly moved from Junior to Silk – strong in all departments – law, on paper, in conference and in court. A formidable opponent.” (Legal 500 2023, fraud)
• “Anna is a highly effective oral advocate. She is devastating and foresnsic in cross-examination, and equally strong on paper.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, fraud)
• “Anna is technically brilliant and commercially very sound. She gives great advice.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, commercial dispute resolution)
• “an absolutely excellent silk.” (Who’s Who Legal Asset Recovery 2023)
• “She is excellent in court and always one step ahead of the game. Her written work is of a tremendously high quality and she is a delight to instruct.” “Very, very user-friendly with an exceptional intellect and work ethic.”
• “My first choice of counsel when I need a senior junior or junior silk on a civil fraud case – she combines excellent knowledge with outstanding tactical nous.”
• “Exceptionally knowledgeable, analytical, superb on paper and in Court, delightful to work with and very hard working.”
• “One of the very best juniors I have had the pleasure of working with, deservedly very busy and highly sought after by clients.”
• “She has excellent judgment, good legal knowledge, bags of confidence, is quick thinking, and works incredibly hard.”
• “Incredibly hard-working, very diligent and excellent on her feet, she’s got a wide-ranging practice and is very well known in fraud law. She is commercially savvy and quick to get to the issues.”
• “She has a superb legal mind and is fantastic to work with. Incredibly hard-working, very diligent and excellent on her feet.”
• “She is amazing at getting to grips with a case.” “Clever, hardworking and highly recommended for commercial fraud work.”
• “She has extremely good judgment about what will interest and appeal to the judge.” “She is commercially savvy, quick to get to the issues and a real fighter in court.”
• “She handles pressure really well and is a really tough fighter who absolutely does not throw in the towel.”
• “Incredibly thorough and very brainy. User-friendly and prepared to roll her sleeves up.” “She has a superb legal mind and is fantastic to work with.” “Incredibly hardworking, very diligent and excellent on her feet.”
• “Absolutely first class. She combines razor-sharp insight with impressive attention to detail.”
• “A brilliant junior: smart and immensely energetic.”
• “Her work is stellar. She really is excellent, very knowledgeable, very matter-of-fact.” “A first- class junior; very bright, responsive, good to work with and good on her feet.”
• “Very good on her feet, and has a fearless and combative style.” “A tenacious and determined operator with a user-friendly style.”
• “Very intelligent and quick to get to the issues. She’s a real fighter and can be trusted with serious cases. Good on her feet and gave good advice in meetings.”
• “She is identified as an impressive fraud junior by both peers and solicitors.”
• “A real fighter and someone to be trusted with serious cases.”
• “Very intelligent and quick to get to the issues.” “Hardworking, clever and good on her feet.” “Commercially savvy and quick to get to the issues.”
• “She’s very thorough and has a really good commercial focus.”
• “Well regarded junior with substantial experience in a diverse array of areas. She is considered a leading junior for fraud proceedings…”
• “Her preparation is extremely thorough and she has that rare ability to thoroughly consider the material, and identify and focus quickly on the key issues.”
• “Her experience and approach belie her year of call.”
• “A dynamic and experienced junior whom sources regard as “going places”. Her practice is international in nature and has a particular focus on civil fraud cases.”
• “She belies her years of call with an impressively mature commercial and chancery practice. Dilnot is particularly noted for her handling of multi-jurisdictional disputes.”
• “She impresses interviewees with the strength of her written submissions and is one to look out for when it comes to fraud work.”
• “Tough and tenacious. Though only called to the Bar in 2008, Dilnot has extensive experience in fraud and asset-tracing work ….”
• “Her high-profile work includes acting for Prince Jefri in his ongoing dispute with Brunei.”

Anna is currently acting in a number of important international commercial cases, including for France in the EUR 1.5 billion London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Association Ltd v Spain, and in proceedings brought against the Central Bank of Venezuela to determine which board (that appointed by Juan Guaidó or Nicolas Maduro) is authorized to represent the BCV, and the huge Thai fraud case Suppipat v Siam Bank. She has also acted in several of the most heavy- weight commercial fraud claims of recent years such as Kazakhstan Kagazy, Accident Exchange, Madoff and National Bank Trust v Yurov. Several of her recent cases have also involved US and EU sanctions.

Recent cases include:

London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Association Ltd v Spain [2021] EWCA 1589: Anna acts for the French State in two actions brought by the London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Association against France and the Kingdom of Spain in relation to judgments in excess of EUR

1.5 billion obtained by those states against the Club as liability insurer of the M/T Prestige, the total loss of which caused huge environmental and economic damage to the states.

Anna recently represented France in two jurisdiction challenges involving complex and novel issues of arbitration law, jurisdiction and state immunity. Anna successfully represented France (and indeed Spain) in the 5-day appeal which saw the Court decline jurisdiction in respect of both claims commenced by the Club.

Anna also represents France in a substantial related ad-hoc arbitration before Dame Elizabeth Gloster. The arbitration involves novel issues arising out of an alleged breach of an arbitration agreement including application of the conditional benefit principle to true third parties, damages for breach of an arbitration agreement and anti-suit / anti-enforcement injunctions.

Deutsche Bank v the Central Bank of Venezuela: Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 for a receivership order and to determine whether the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela appointed by Juan Guaidó or that appointed by Nicolás Maduro is authorised to represent the Central Bank in an LCIA arbitration. The proceedings have been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England.

Anna made novel use of receivership orders to protect DB against both contractual  default and the imposition of US sanctions.

Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 661 (Ch); [2022] EWCA Civ 1264: Anna, with Alex Riddiford, represents the Issuers in a securitization structure in respect of committal proceedings brought against an individual for a series of breaches of an injunction. The case has produced several reported decisions on various aspects of committal applications and injunctions, including bench warrants, the right to silence, circumstantial evidence and retrospective dispensation of personal service. The maximim 24-month sentence was imposed following trial in February 2022.

Anna and Alex were recently successful on appeal, and the Court of Appeal has upheld the 24-month sentence against Mr Hussain and confirmed that retrospective dispensation of personal service is available under the new Part 81.

Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 981: Anna, with Wei Jian Chan, acted for Ness Global in a contractual dispute over software development services and recently succeeded, at first instance and on appeal, in resisting a jurisdiction challenge involving novel points under the Brussels Recast Regulation (lis pendens in a third state with a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the English Court).

Nopporn Suppipat & Ors v Narongdeg & Ors [2020] EWHC 3191 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 3259 (Comm), [2022] EWHC 1806 (Comm): Anna represented, leading Helen Morton and James Petkovic, defendants in a huge and complex fraud case involving allegations of deceit, conspiracy, forgery and asset stripping in relation to the shares in Thailand’s largest renewable energy  provider.

Bourlakova v Bourlakov: Anna acts, as team leader, for a defendant in Chancery Division proceedings arising out of multi-jurisdiction disputes over the ownership of assets worth US$ billions and involving allegations of conspiracy, deceit and forgery.

Boston Trust Co Ltd v Szerelmey Ltd [2022] 1 All ER (Comm) 1013; [2020] Bus.L.R. 1647: Anna represented the claimants pursuing a derivative claim on behalf of certain companies within the Szerelmey Group against a director and shareholder (among others) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance. Despite fierce resistance, she obtained permission for the claimants to continue the derivative action.

Anna was also successful in the Court of Appeal, and the case has made new law on the issue of standing to pursue a derivative action and the Court’s jurisdiction to grant conditional permission to continue a derivative claim.

Magdeev v Tsvekov [2020] EWHC 887 (Comm): Dispute between three wealthy Russian businessmen who opened up a Graff diamond boutique in Limassol.

Anna acted for the Defendant, with Steven Berry KC, entirely successfully in this 3-week Commercial Court trial involving extensive witness examination and the law of illegality. She also acts, with Sophia Hurst, for the Defendant in related arbitral and s.66 AA 1996 proceedings, which are ongoing.

RP Explorer Ltd (formerly Master Fund) v Malhotra [2020] EWHC 1225 (Comm): Anna represents RP Explorer in a long-running fraud and conspiracy case. The judgment addresses the correct approach (not considered in any prior case) under ECHR Article 6 where a defendant is in prison abroad and unable to attend trial.

Akhmedova v Akhmedov [2019] EWHC 2561 (Fam): Represented the Claimant (wife) as part of long running litigation by which Akhmedova is seeking to enforce a £453.5 million judgment against her former husband, Farkhad Teimur Akhmedov.

Anna obtained a £350 million freezing order against various Lichenstein Anstalts and trust companies in which Mr Akhmedov is believed to have concealed assets.

KMG International NV v (1) Chen and (2) Chipper [2019] EWHC 2389 (Comm); [2019] EWHC 3634 Comm) and [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm): KMG International NV initiated several sets of proceedings worldwide in order to enforce a US$200 million arbitration award against a Swiss/Romanian corporate group, the DPH Group.

Freezing orders were obtained against the Defendants, alleged to have implemented an unlawful scheme of dissipation, together with orders for ancillary and third-party disclosure.

Successfully resisted a determined 2-day jurisdiction challenge by the Defendants. Also successfully resisted a separate strike out application and in so doing made new law, with Christopher Hancock KC deciding that the rule against reflective loss was a substantive rule of law and not procedural. Recently settled.

Accident Exchange v Autofocus & Ors [2018] 4 WLR 26: Anna represented Accident Exchange in 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 was one of the largest and most complex matters before the Commercial Court in recent times, involving claims in conspiracy and deceit against the providers of the evidence as well as certain of the solicitors and firms who deployed it.

Anna was the lead junior barrister for the duration of the case, which settled immediately prior to the start of the 12-week trial in October 2018.

Such was the size of the matter, it required four CMCs and numerous contested applications throughout its existence. The case has also generated new law on the issue of when the fraud exception applies so as to override legal professional privilege: [2018] 4 WLR 26.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip: [2017] EWHC 1115 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1116 (Comm); [2017] CP Rep 6; [2017] 1 WLR 467; [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm);[2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm): Anna represented defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors. The case resulted in a series of decisions by the Commercial Court

and Court of Appeal and involved issues relating to freezing orders, fiduciary duties and powers, limitation, discretionary trusts, s.423 IA 1986 and electronic disclosure.

In October 2016 Anna, along with Andrew Twigger KC, obtained from the Court of Appeal the first ever freezing order in favour of one defendant (against whom a freezing order had been granted) against another in respect of contribution proceedings: [2017] 1 WLR 1360

Anna also represented the Defendants at the three-month trial during 2017, which produced two substantial judgments: [2017] EWHC 3374 (Comm) and [2018] EWHC 369 (Comm) (with David Foxton KC and as sole advocate).

Alliance Bank JSC v (1) Zhuns (2) Arip [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm): Anna represented the defendants in a $300 million fraud and conspiracy claim brought by Alliance Bank in respect of a series of outstanding loans. The defendants obtained the discharge of the freezing and proprietary injunctions granted to Alliance and the English Court declined jurisdiction for want of a seriously arguable case.

Bank of Moscow v Andrew Chernyakov & Ors [2016]: EWHC 1353 (Comm): Anna acted for Bank of Moscow in its claims to enforce Russian judgments of over $200 million against the former owner of the largest construction group in Moscow. The case involved the Bank obtaining a series of freezing, disclosure and passport orders against the main defendant and others, including under the Chabra jurisdiction. The case concerned the defences to enforcement of a foreign judgment at common law, as well as claims to set aside transactions under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association v (1) Spain and (2) France (the Prestige) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 309; [2013] EWHC 2840 (Comm) and [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 33: Anna represented France and Spain in resisting s.66 applications to enforce Awards made against them so as to block their attempts to seek compensation for losses in excess of €4 billion caused by the ecological disaster arising out of the sinking of the M/T Prestige in 2002.

The case involved questions of the classification of causes of action/issues from the perspective of English private international law as well as the enforcement regime under the Judgments Regulation. (With Joe Smouha KC).

St Christopher School (Letchworth) Ltd v Schymanski [2014] EWHC 2573 (QB): During a two-week High Court trial Anna, acting as sole advocate, successfully defended the school against allegations of racial discrimination, bullying and breaches of the school’s duty of care. The school and each member of staff were fully exonerated.

Anna has over the past 20 years obtained substantial experience of domestic and international commercial fraud, bribery and committal proceedings. While a junior, she was ranked in Band 1 by both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500, and she is ranked for 2023 as a leading Silk (including in Who’s Who Legal Asset Recovery 2023):

“Excellent lawyer who has effortlessly moved from Junior to Silk – strong in all departments – law, on paper, in conference and in court. A formidable opponent.” (Legal 500 2023, fraud)

“Anna is a highly effective oral advocate. She is devastating and foresnsic in cross-examination, and equally strong on paper.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, fraud)

“an absolutely excellent silk.” (Who’s Who Legal Asset Recovery 2023)

“She’s incredibly hard-working, very intelligent and has a fantastic manner when working with clients. She really rolls her sleeves up and gets to grips with the technical stuff.”

Anna has particular experience of seeking and resisting applications for freezing and proprietary injunctions, including in support of arbitrations, committal applications and seeking passport, cross-examination and third-party disclosure/Norwich Pharmacal orders.

Examples of cases include:

Suppipat & Ors v Nop Narongdeg & Ors [2020] EWHC 3191 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 3259 (Comm), [2022] EWHC 1806 (Comm): Anna acted (with Helen Morton and James Petkovic) for three defendants in substantial and hugely complex fraud proceedings commenced by the former owner of Thailand’s largest renewable energy company.

The Claimant was forced to flee Thailand shortly before charges of extortion and kidnapping were brought. By reason of those charges, he sold his interest in the energy business to another wealthy Thai family, and he now seeks to reclaim it alleging that the defendants had agreed to sell it back to him but have now put the shares beyond his reach.

17 defendants have been joined to the proceedings, by which the claimants seek between £1-2 billion.

Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 661 (Ch); [2022] EWCA Civ 1264: Anna, with Alex Riddiford, represents the Issuers in a securitization structure in respect of committal proceedings brought against an individual for a series of breaches of an injunction. The case has produced several reported decisions on various aspects of committal applications and injunctions, including bench warrants, the right to silence, circumstantial evidence and retrospective dispensation of personal service. The maximim 24-month sentence was imposed following trial in February 2022.

Anna and Alex were recently successful on appeal, and the Court of Appeal has upheld the 24-month sentence against Mr Hussain and confirmed that retrospective dispensation of personal service is available under the new Part 81.

Bourlakova v Bourlakov: Anna acts, as team leader, for a defendant in Chancery Division proceedings arising out of multi-jurisdiction disputes over the ownership of assets worth US$ billions and involving allegations of conspiracy, deceit and forgery.

Manek v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd, Ramasamy & Ors: Anna represents, with Josh Crow, the former minority shareholders of Hermes i-Tickets Private Ltd against the former majority shareholders in relation to an alleged fraud involving the sale of Hermes to Wirecard AG, which subsequently collapsed into insolvency, for EUR 326 million.

Boston Trust Co Ltd v Szerelmey Ltd [2022] 1 All ER (Comm) 1013; [2020] Bus.L.R. 1647: Anna represented the claimants pursuing a derivative claim on behalf of certain companies within the Szerelmey Group against a director and shareholder (among others) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance. Despite fierce resistance, she obtained permission for the claimants to continue the derivative action.

Anna was also successful in the Court of Appeal, and the case has made new law on the issue of standing to pursue a derivative action and the Court’s jurisdiction to grant conditional permission to continue a derivative claim.

Magdeev v Tsvetkov: [2020] EWHC 887 (Comm); [2019] EWHC 1557 (Comm): Dispute between three wealthy Russian businessmen who opened up a Graff diamond boutique in Limassol.

Anna acted, with Steven Berry KC, for the Defendant, entirely successfully in this 3-week Commercial Court trial involving extensive witness examination and the law of illegality. Anna also recently represented the Respondent, with Sophia Hurst, in a 2-week LCIA arbitration and s.66 proceedings in a related matter.

RP Explorer Ltd (formerly Master Fund) v Malhotra [2020] EWHC 1225 (Comm): Anna represents RP Explorer, as sole advocate, in a long-running fraud and conspiracy case. The judgment addresses the correct approach (not considered in any prior case) under ECHR Article 6 where a defendant is in prison abroad and unable to attend trial.

Akhmedova v Akhmedov [2019] EWHC 2561 (Fam): Represented the Claimant (wife) as part of long running litigation by which Akhmedova is seeking to enforce a £453.5 million judgment against her former husband, Farkhad Teimur Akhmedov.

Anna obtained a £350 million freezing order against various Lichenstein Anstalts and trust companies in which Mr Akhmedov is believed to have hidden his fortune.

KMG International NV v (1) Chen and (2) Chipper [2019] EWHC 2389 (Comm); [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm): KMG International NV initiated several sets of proceedings worldwide in order to enforce a US$200 million arbitration award against a Swiss/Romanian corporate group, the DPH Group.

Freezing orders were obtained against the Defendants, alleged to have implemented an unlawful scheme of dissipation, together with orders for ancillary and third-party disclosure.

Successfully resisted a determined 2-day jurisdiction challenge by the Defendants before Moulder J. Also successfully resisted a separate strike out application and in so doing made new law, with Christopher Hancock KC deciding that the rule against reflective loss was a substantive rule of law and not procedural.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip: [2017] EWHC 1115 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1116 (Comm); [2017] CP Rep 6; [2017] 1 WLR 467; [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm); [2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

Anna represented defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors. The case has resulted in a series of decisions by the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal and involves issues relating to freezing orders, fiduciary duties and powers, limitation, discretionary trusts, s.423 IA 1986 and electronic disclosure.

In October 2016 she, along with Andrew Twigger KC, obtained from the Court of Appeal the first ever freezing order in favour of one defendant (against whom a freezing order had been granted) against another in respect of contribution proceedings: [2017] 1 WLR 1360

Anna also represented the Defendants at the three-month trial during 2017, which has produced two substantial judgments: [2017] EWHC 3374 (Comm) and [2018] EWHC 369 (Comm) (with David Foxton KC and as sole advocate).

Accident Exchange –v- Autofocus & Ors [2018] 4 WLR 26: Anna represented Accident Exchange in 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 was one of the largest and most complex matters before the Commercial Court in recent times, involving claims in conspiracy and deceit against the providers of the evidence as well as certain of the solicitors and firms who deployed it.

Anna was the lead junior barrister for the duration of the case, which settled immediately prior to the start of the 12-week trial in October 2018.

Such was the size of the matter, it required four CMCs and numerous contested applications throughout its existence. The case has also generated new law on the issue of when the fraud exception applies so as to override legal professional privilege: [2018] 4 WLR 26.

National Bank Trust v Yurov [2018]: Anna was instructed as sole counsel to represent the Part 20 Defendant in respect of the substantial and high-profile fraud claims brought by National Bank Trust against its former directors and shareholders following its bailout in Russia by the DIA in late 2014.

Bank of Moscow v Andrew Chernyakov & Ors [2016]: Anna acted for Bank of Moscow in its claims to enforce Russian judgments of over $200 million against the former owner of the largest construction group in Moscow. The case involved the Bank obtaining a series of freezing, disclosure and passport orders against the main defendant and others, including under the Chabra jurisdiction. The case concerned the defences to enforcement of a foreign judgment at common law, as well as claims to set aside transactions under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Alliance Bank JSC v (1) Zhuns (2) Arip [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm): Anna represented the defendants in a $300 million fraud and conspiracy claim brought by Alliance Bank in respect of a series of outstanding loans. The defendants obtained the discharge of the freezing and proprietary injunctions granted to Alliance and the English Court declined jurisdiction for want of a seriously arguable case (with Mark Howard KC).

Conapro v Ministry of Petroleum of the Gambia [2017]: Anna acted for the Claimant in its claim for loss of profits arising out of an oil supply contract with the Ministry of Petroleum of The Gambia. The Ministry claimed the contract was void by reason of bribery of the former Gambian ambassador to Qatar. The Claimant stated that the transactions were authorized by the then President of Gambia, Jammeh. Claim settled in 2017.

Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd v Benson & Ors [2018]: Anna acted, as sole counsel, for the UK’s largest steel manufacturer in respect of its claims in conspiracy against various former employees and, on the basis of vicarious liability, their employers. Celsa alleged that the defendants conspired to misappropriate hundreds of tons of steel from its steelworks in Cardiff. The case settled in 2018.

Kazatomprom v Dzhakishev & Ors [2015 – 2016]: Anna acted for the state atomic agency of Kazakhstan in its claims proceeding in the BVI against its former directors and others in respect of alleged diversion of interests in uranium assets worth some $250 million. Claim settled.

Red October International SA v CJSC “VMZ Red October” & Ors [2015]: Anna acted for several of the NCAD defendants against which freezing orders had been granted in the BVI under the Chabra jurisdiction. The case involved difficult questions of cross-border insolvency and conflicts of laws.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS)-v- (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2014]: Anna defended parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds.

The State of Brunei Darussalam & the Brunei Investment Agency v HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008] EWHC 1247 (Ch): committal proceedings for alleged breaches of freezing and disclosure orders and the submission of evidence without an honest belief in its truth.

Generally between 2008 and 2011, acting for HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah in his long running dispute with Brunei and the Brunei Investment Agency.

The State of Brunei Darussalam & the Brunei Investment Agency v HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008] EWHC 1248 (Ch): successful application for permission to cross-examine the Sultan of Brunei involving questions of sovereign immunity.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands: (1) the State of Brunei Darussalam (2) the Brunei Investment Agency v (1) Sol Properties, Inc (2) HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008]: application for rectification of the share register of a Cayman Islands incorporated company; involved the question of whether a non-money judgment could be enforced at common law; resulted in a change in the common law as applied in the Cayman Islands.

The State of Brunei Darussalam v Fidelis Nominees & Ors [2008] JRC 152: application to enforce a non-money judgment in Jersey. The case resulted in a change in the common law as applied in Jersey.

Before Anna took Silk in March 2021, she was named commercial litigation junior of the year in 2020 by Chambers & Partners, and was shortlisted for the equivalent award by Legal 500 in 2019. She was ranked in Band 1 for Commercial Litigation by Chambers & Partners 2021, and is now ranked as a ‘New Silk’ in Legal 500 and as a leading Silk by Chambers & Partners 2023.

“Anna has great judgment, and is excellent both on paper and on her feet. Opponents underestimate Anna at their peril.” (Legal 500 2023, commercial litigation)

“Anna is commercially savvy and quick to get to the issues. She is a real fighter who can be trusted with serious cases.” (Chambers & Partners 2023, commercial dispute resolution)

Anna deals with all kinds of commercial disputes, including commercial fraud, banking, financial services, shareholder and company disputes and all kinds of conflicts, jurisdiction and state immunity issues. She is equally at home in court or international arbitration, and has substantial experience in many and varied forms of injunctive relief.

Recent decisions and examples of work include:

London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Association Ltd v Spain [2021] EWCA 1589: Anna acts for the French State in two actions brought by the London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Association against France and the Kingdom of Spain in relation to judgments in excess of EUR

1.5 billion obtained by those states against the Club as liability insurer of the M/T Prestige, the total loss of which caused huge environmental and economic damage to the states.

Anna recently represented France in two jurisdiction challenges involving complex and novel issues of arbitration law, jurisdiction and state immunity. Anna successfully represented France (and indeed Spain) in the 5-day appeal which saw the Court decline jurisdiction in respect of both claims commenced by the Club.

Anna also represents France in a substantial related ad-hoc arbitration before Dame Elizabeth Gloster. The arbitration involves novel issues arising out of an alleged breach of an arbitration agreement including application of the conditional benefit principle to true third parties, damages for breach of an arbitration agreement and anti-suit / anti-enforcement injunctions.

Deutsche Bank v the Central Bank of Venezuela: Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 for a receivership order and to determine whether the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela appointed by Juan Guaidó or that appointed by Nicolás Maduro is authorised to represent the Central Bank in an LCIA arbitration. The proceedings have been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England.

Anna made novel use of receivership orders to protect DB against both contractual default and the imposition of US sanctions.

Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 661 (Ch); [2022] EWCA Civ 1264: Anna, with Alex Riddiford, represents the Issuers in a securitization structure in respect of committal proceedings brought against an individual for a series of breaches of an injunction. The case has produced several reported decisions on various aspects of committal applications and injunctions, including bench warrants, the right to silence, circumstantial evidence and retrospective dispensation of personal service. The maximim 24-month sentence was imposed following trial in February 2022.

Anna and Alex were recently successful on appeal, and the Court of Appeal has upheld the 24-month sentence against Mr Hussain and confirmed that retrospective dispensation of personal service is available under the new Part 81.

Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 981: Anna, with Wei Jian Chan, acted for Ness Global in a contractual dispute over software development  services and recently succeeded, at first instance and on appeal, in resisting a jurisdiction challenge involving novel points under the Brussels Recast Regulation (lis pendens in a third state with a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the English Court).

Boston Trust Co Ltd v Szerelmey Ltd [2022] 1 All ER (Comm) 1013; [2020] Bus.L.R. 1647: Anna represented the claimants pursuing a derivative claim on behalf of certain companies within the Szerelmey Group against a director and shareholder (among others) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance. Despite fierce resistance, she obtained permission for the claimants to continue the derivative action.

Anna was also successful in the Court of Appeal, and the case has made new law on the issue of standing to pursue a derivative action and the Court’s jurisdiction to grant conditional permission to continue a derivative claim.

Magdeev v Tsvekov [2020] EWHC 887 (Comm): Dispute between three wealthy Russian businessmen who opened up a Graff diamond boutique in Limassol.

Anna acted for the Defendant, with Steven Berry KC, entirely successfully in this 3-week Commercial Court trial involving extensive witness examination and the law of illegality. Anna also recently represented the Respondent, with Sophia Hurst, in a 2-week arbitration in a related matter as well as in related s.66 proceedings. Ongoing.

RP Explorer Ltd (formerly Master Fund) v Malhotra [2020] EWHC 1225 (Comm): Anna represents RP Explorer, as sole advocate, in a long-running fraud and conspiracy case. The judgment addresses the correct approach under ECHR Article 6 (not considered in any previous case) where a defendant is in prison abroad and unable to attend trial.

KMG International NV v (1) Chen and (2) Chipper [2019] EWHC 3634 (comm); [2019] EWHC 2389 (Comm); [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm): KMG International NV initiated several sets of proceedings worldwide in order to enforce a US$200 million arbitration award against a Swiss/Romanian corporate group, the DPH Group.

Freezing orders were obtained against the Defendants, alleged to have implemented an unlawful scheme of dissipation, together with orders for ancillary and third-party disclosure.

Successfully resisted a determined 2-day jurisdiction challenge by the Defendants before Moulder J. Also successfully resisted a separate strike out application and in so doing made new law, with Christopher Hancock KC deciding that the rule against reflective loss was a substantive rule of law and not procedural.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip: [2017] EWHC 1115 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1116 (Comm); [2017] CP Rep 6; [2017] 1 WLR 467; [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm);[2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

Anna represented defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors. The case resulted in a series of recent decisions by the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal and involved issues relating to freezing orders, fiduciary duties and powers, limitation, discretionary trusts, s.423 IA 1986 and electronic disclosure.

In October 2016 she, along with Andrew Twigger KC, obtained from the Court of Appeal the first ever freezing order in favour of one defendant (against whom a freezing order had been granted) against another in respect of contribution proceedings: [2017] 1 WLR 1360

Anna also represented the Defendants at the three-month trial during 2017, which has produced two substantial judgments: [2017] EWHC 3374 (Comm) and [2018] EWHC 369 (Comm) (with David Foxton KC and as sole advocate).

Accident Exchange –v- Autofocus & Ors [2018] 4 WLR 26: Anna represented Accident Exchange in 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 was one of the largest and most complex matters before the Commercial Court in recent times, involving claims in conspiracy and deceit against the providers of the evidence as well as certain of the solicitors and firms who deployed it.

Anna was the lead junior barrister for the duration of the case, which settled immediately prior to the start of the 12-week trial in October 2018.

Such was the size of the matter, it required four CMCs and numerous contested applications throughout its existence. The case has also generated new law on the issue of when the fraud exception applies so as to override legal professional privilege: [2018] 4 WLR 26.

Tau Power BV & Ors v (1) The Republic of Kazakhstan (2) JSC Shulbinsk (3) JSC Kamenogorsk GES [2018]: Anna acted for Tau Power, along with David Foxton KC, to obtain injunctions against the defendants, including the Republic of Kazakhstan, to prevent escrow monies from being paid away following a substantial ICSID arbitration and a series of decisions in the Kazakh court.

Premier Telecom -v- Grant Thornton [2018]: Anna acted for Grant Thornton, along with Simon Salzedo KC, in defending a valuer’s negligence claim. Settled shortly before trial.

LCIA Arbitration [2018]: Anna successfully represented the Claimant in a shareholders’ dispute in a 2-day arbitration as sole advocate (against a senior Silk), obtaining specific performance of a shareholders’ agreement and the transfer of shares to her client. Involved issues of contractual construction, estoppel and equitable remedies.

London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association v (1) Spain and (2) France (the Prestige) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 309; [2013] EWHC 2840 (Comm) and [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 33: Anna represented France and Spain in resisting s.66 applications to enforce Awards made against them so as to block their attempts to seek compensation for losses in excess of €4 billion caused by the ecological disaster arising out of the sinking of the M/T Prestige in 2002.

The case involved questions of the classification of causes of action/issues from the perspective of English private international law as well as the enforcement regime under the Judgments Regulation. (With Joe Smouha KC).

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS)-v- (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2014]: Anna defended parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds.

Alliance Bank JSC v (1) Zhuns (2) Arip [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm): Anna represented the defendants in a $300 million fraud and conspiracy claim brought by Alliance Bank in respect of a series of outstanding loans. Defendants obtained the discharge of the freezing and proprietary injunctions granted to Alliance and the English Court has declined jurisdiction for want of a seriously arguable case.

Conapro v Ministry of Petroleum of the Gambia: Anna acted for the Claimant in its claim for loss of profits arising out of an oil supply contract with the Ministry of Petroleum of The Gambia. The Ministry claims the contract is void by reason of bribery of the former Gambian ambassador to Qatar. The Claimant stated that the transactions were authorized by the then President of Gambia, Jammeh. Claim settled in 2017.

Ikon International (HK) Holdings Plc v Ikon Finance & Ors: Anna acted for the claimant in seeking sums due in respect of the profits of a joint venture pursuant to various letters of credit and guarantees (settled).

Northampton Town Football Club v Grossman & Ors [2016]: Anna represented Northampton Town FC in its claims for breach of duty and an account from parties involved in the redevelopment of the facilities at the Sixfields Stadium and adjoining land.

Burger King Corporation v King Franchises Ltd [2013] EWHC 1761 (Comm): Anna successfully represented Burger King in obtaining declaratory relief and mandatory final injunctions against its former Cypriot franchisee.

RP Explorer Master Fund v Chilukuri [2013] EWCA Civ 1307 and [2014] EWHC 4170 (Comm): Anna acted for RP Explorer Master Fund, a hedge and investment fund, in its contractual claims to enforce security arising out of its purchase of global depository receipts for

$77 million from an Indian company listed on the BSE and in respect of a failed refinery project in Haldia, West Bengal.

Anna also acted for RP Explorer its subsequent claims in conspiracy and deceit against various promoters of the refinery project. The matter is also the subject of regulatory proceedings in India and elsewhere.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands: (1) the State of Brunei Darussalam (2) the Brunei Investment Agency v (1) Sol Properties, Inc (2) HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008]: application for rectification of the share register of a Cayman Islands incorporated company; involved the question of whether a non money judgment could be enforced at common law; resulted in a change in the common law as applied in the Cayman Islands.

The State of Brunei Darussalam v Fidelis Nominees & Ors [2008] JRC 152: application to enforce a non-money judgment in Jersey. The case resulted in a change in the common law as applied in Jersey.

Many of Anna’s cases are of a commercial Chancery nature involving issues related to director’s and fiduciary  duties and powers, fraud, company and partnership law, trusts, property, insolvency and professional negligence.

Anna is also currently acting in a number of company matters (including s.994 petitions), insolvency matters as well as on financial services and professional negligence matters (valuers, tax  advisors and solicitors).

Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 661 (Ch); [2022] EWCA Civ 1264: Anna, with Alex Riddiford, represents the Issuers in a securitization structure in respect of committal proceedings in the Financial List brought against an individual for a series of breaches of an injunction. The case has produced several decisions on various aspects of committal applications including bench warrants, the right to silence, circumstantial evidence and retrospective dispensation of personal service. The maximum 24-month sentence was imposed following trial in February 2022.

Anna and Alex have recently been successful on appeal, and the Court of Appeal has upheld the 24-month sentence against Mr Hussain and confirmed that retrospective dispensation of personal service is available under the new Part 81.

Boston Trust Co Ltd v Szerelmey Ltd [2022] 1 All ER (Comm) 1013; [2020] Bus.L.R. 1647: Anna represents the claimants pursuing a derivative claim on behalf of certain companies within the Szerelmey Group against a director and shareholder (among others) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance. Despite fierce resistance, she obtained permission for the claimants to continue the derivative action.

Anna was also successful in the Court of Appeal, and the case has made new law on the issue of standing to pursue a derivative action and the Court’s jurisdiction to grant conditional permission to continue a derivative claim.

Manek v Wirecard AG [2022]: Anna was instructed for an appeal in relation to the application of the Recast Insolvency Regulation and the effect of the liquidation of Wirecard AG in Germany on English proceedings. Recently settled.

Rudan v Leo Services & Ors [2022]: Anna was instructed to defend an unfair prejudice petition  presented against the holding company of a fiduciary services group. Allegations include forgery and acting in breach of duty and the company’s articles by transferring subsidiaries out of group ownership.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip: [2017] EWHC 1115 (Comm); [2017]EWHC 1116 (Comm); [2017] CP Rep 6; [2017] 1 WLR 467; [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm);[2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

Anna represented defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors. The case has resulted in a series of recent decisions by the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal and involves issues relating to freezing orders, fiduciary duties and powers, limitation, discretionary trusts, s.423 IA 1986 and electronic disclosure.

In October 2016 she, along with Andrew Twigger KC, obtained from the Court of Appeal the first ever freezing order in favour of one defendant (against whom a freezing order had been granted) against another in respect of contribution proceedings: [2017] 1 WLR 1360

Anna also represented the Defendants at the three-month trial during 2017, which has produced two substantial judgments: [2017] EWHC 3374 (Comm) and [2018] EWHC 369 (Comm) (with David Foxton KC and as sole advocate).

LCIA Arbitration [2018]: Anna successfully represented the Claimant in a shareholders’ dispute in a 2-day arbitration as sole advocate (against a senior Silk), obtaining specific performance of a shareholders’ agreement and the transfer of shares to her client. Involved issues of contractual construction, estoppel and equitable remedies.

Premier Telecom -v- Grant Thornton [2018]: Anna acted for Grant Thornton, along with Simon Salzedo KC, in defending a valuer’s negligence claim. Settled shortly before trial.

Alliance Bank JSC v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm): Anna represented the defendants in a $300 million fraud and conspiracy claim brought by Alliance Bank in respect of a series of outstanding loans. Defendants have obtained the discharge of the freezing and proprietary injunctions granted to Alliance and the English Court has declined jurisdiction for want of a seriously arguable case.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS)-v- (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2014]:

Anna is defending parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds. The proceedings in London and New York involve allegations of fraud and knowing receipt against Anna’s clients. (With Robert Miles KC)

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip [2017] CP Rep 6; [2016] EWHC 2363(Comm); [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm); [2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

Anna represents defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud, conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors. The case has resulted in a series of recent decisions by the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal and involves issues relating to freezing orders, fiduciary duties and powers, limitation, discretionary trusts, s.423 IA 1986 and electronic disclosure. In particular, the case concerns the application of freezing orders to discretionary trusts and questions of jurisdiction and enforcement relating to trust assets.

Red October International SA v CJSC “VMZ Red October” & Ors [2015]: Anna acted for several of the NCAD defendants against which freezing orders had been granted in the BVI under the Chabra jurisdiction. The case involved difficult questions of cross-border insolvency and conflicts of laws.

RP Explorer Master Fund -v- (1) R Chilukuri (2) Spice International Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1307: Anna represented a Cayman investment fund in a dispute concerning global depository receipts issued on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. The appeal concerned the correct approach to share valuation and, in particular, the DCF valuation method. The first instance decision dealing with additional issues of breach of contract and construction is at [2013] EWHC 103 (Ch). (With David Lord KC and later Jeffrey Gruder KC)

Independent Trustee Services Ltd-v- (1) GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Ors (2) Susan Morris [2012] EWCA Civ 195: A decision on when the ‘purchaser aspect’ of the bona fide purchaser defence is to be assessed; rescission; setting aside of a consent order. The Supreme Court gave permission to appeal but the matter settled at an advanced stage.

Rookledge –v- (1) Topological Systems Ltd (2) Tomassi [2012] Ch D (CR Baister): Hard fought s.994 (unfair prejudice) proceedings. Anna successfully defended the petition at trial.

Liquidators of Connor Williams Ltd v Williams & Ors [2013]: Anna defended misfeasance and negligence proceedings brought against a director of a substantial insolvent corporate group.

Anna has experience of a wide range of company and corporate and personal insolvency applications, including obtaining injunctions to prevent the presentation of winding up petitions. Moreover, and due to her experience in civil fraud matters, she has experience of appointing provisional liquidators and obtaining recognition of foreign office holders under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations.

Anna is currently acting in a number of company matters (restorations, validation applications) and she is currently advising on matters involving the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Boston Trust Co Ltd v Szerelmey Ltd [2020] EWHC 1136 (Ch); [2020] Bus.L.R. 1647: Anna represents the claimants pursuing a derivative claim on behalf of certain companies within the Szerelmey Group against a director and shareholder (among others) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance. Despite fierce resistance, she obtained permission for the claimants to continue the derivative action.

The case has made new law on the issue of standing to pursue a derivative action and the Court’s jurisdiction to grant conditional permission to continue the claim.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS)-v- (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2015]: Anna defended parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds. The proceedings in London and New York involve allegations of fraud and knowing receipt against Anna’s clients. (With Robert Miles KC)

Red October International SA v CJSC “VMZ Red October” & Ors [2015]: Anna acted for several of the NCAD defendants against which freezing orders had been granted in the BVI under the Chabra jurisdiction. The case involved difficult questions of cross-border insolvency and conflicts of laws.

RP Explorer Master Fund -v- (1) R Chilukuri (2) Spice International Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1307: Anna represented a Cayman investment fund in a dispute concerning global depository receipts issued on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. The appeal concerned the correct approach to share valuation and, in particular, the DCF valuation method. The first instance decision dealing with additional issues of breach of contract and construction is at [2013] EWHC 103 (Ch). (With David Lord KC and later Jeffrey Gruder KC)

BNE –v- Greatline Developments [2013]: Anna represented a commercial property agent in its attempt to enforce a profit share agreement against a property developer. The case involved several allegations of forgery against the developer. After a full seven-day trial in December 2013, the matter settled.

Independent Trustee Services Ltd-v- (1) GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Ors (2) Susan Morris [2012] EWCA Civ 195: A decision on when the ‘purchaser aspect’ of the bona fide purchaser defence is to be assessed; rescission; setting aside of a consent order. The Supreme Court gave permission to appeal but the matter settled at an advanced stage. (With Andrew Twigger KC and James Lewis KC).

Liquidators of Connor Williams Ltd v Williams & Ors [2013]: Anna defended misfeasance and negligence proceedings brought against a director of a substantial insolvent corporate group.

CHRS Ltd (In Liquidation) -v- (1) Kirby (2) Kirby [2010]: Anna successfully acted for the Liquidator in proceedings for specific performance of a settlement agreement and declarations as to the validity of the Liquidator’s security over the Defendant’s beneficial interest in real property.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands: (1) the State of Brunei Darussalam (2) the Brunei Investment Agency v (1) Sol Properties, Inc (2) HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008]: application for rectification of the share register of a Cayman Islands incorporated company; involved the question of whether a non money judgment could be enforced at common law; resulted in a change in the common law as applied in the Cayman Islands.

The State of Brunei Darussalam v Fidelis Nominees & Ors [2008] JRC 152: application to enforce a non-money judgment in Jersey. The case resulted in a change in the common law as applied in Jersey.

London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Association Ltd v Spain [2021] EWCA 1589: Anna acts for the French State in two actions brought by the London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Association against France and the Kingdom of Spain in relation to judgments in excess of EUR

1.5 billion obtained by those states against the Club as liability insurer of the M/T Prestige, the total loss of which caused huge environmental and economic damage to the states.

Anna recently represented France in two jurisdiction challenges involving complex and novel issues of arbitration law, jurisdiction and state immunity. Anna successfully represented France (and indeed Spain) in the 5-day appeal which saw the Court decline jurisdiction in respect of both claims commenced by the Club.

Anna also represents France in a substantial related ad-hoc arbitration before Dame Elizabeth Gloster involving the application of the conditional benefit principle to third parties, equitable compensation for breach of an arbitration agreement, anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, as well as damages in lieu under the successor to Lord Cairn’s Act.

Deutsche Bank v the Central Bank of Venezuela: Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to determine whether the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela appointed by Juan Guaidó or that appointed by Nicolás Maduro is authorised to represent the Central Bank in an LCIA arbitration. The proceedings have been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England.

Anna made novel use of receivership orders to protect DB against both contractual default and the imposition of US sanctions.

Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 981: Anna, with Wei Jian Chan, acted for Ness Global in a contractual dispute over software development services and recently succeeded, at first instance and on appeal, in resisting a jurisdiction challenge involving novel points under the Brussels Recast Regulation (lis pendens in a third state with a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the English Court).

Manek v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd, Ramasamy & Ors: Anna represents, with Josh Crow, the former minority shareholders of Hermes i-Tickets Private Ltd against the former majority shareholders in relation to an alleged fraud involving the sale of Hermes to Wirecard AG, which subsequently collapsed into insolvency, for EUR 326 million. Anna is also instructed in relation to a substantial jurisdiction challenge, to be heard next year, by defendants in related proceedings.

Tau Power BV & Ors v (1) The Republic of Kazakhstan (2) JSC Shulbinsk (3) JSC Kamenogorsk GES [2018]: Anna acted for Tau Power, along with David Foxton KC, to obtain injunctions against the defendants, including the Republic of Kazakhstan, to prevent escrow monies from being paid away following a substantial ICSID arbitration and a series of decisions in the Kazakh court.

KMG v (1) Chen (2) Chipper [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm): Anna, together with Alain Choo Choy KC and Sophie Weber, acts for KMG in claims based on an unlawful scheme of dissipation under Dutch law and conspiracy under English law. The claims form part of enforcement proceedings taken by KMG to enforce its $200 million arbitration award. A hard fought jurisdiction challenge, based on forum non conveniens, was successfully resisted in mid 2018: [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm).

Anna also successfully resisted a separate strike out application and in so doing made new law, with Christopher Hancock KC deciding that the rule against reflective loss was a substantive rule of law and not procedural.

National Bank Trust v Yurov [2018]: Anna was instructed as sole counsel to represent the Part 20 Defendant in respect of the substantial and high-profile fraud claims brought by National Bank Trust against its former directors and shareholders following its bailout in Russia by the DIA in late 2014. The substantive claims were governed by Russian law, which conflicted with the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 and the procedural rules governing the bringing of contribution claims in England and Wales.

London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association v (1) Spain and (2) France (the Prestige) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 309; [2013] EWHC 2840 (Comm) and [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 33: Anna represented France and Spain in resisting s.66 applications to enforce Awards made against them so as to block their attempts to seek compensation for losses in excess of €4 billion caused by the ecological disaster arising out of the sinking of the M/T Prestige in 2002.

The case involved questions of the classification of causes of action/issues from the perspective of English private international law as well as the enforcement regime under the Judgments Regulation. (With Joe Smouha KC).

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands: (1) the State of Brunei Darussalam (2) the Brunei Investment Agency v (1) Sol Properties, Inc (2) HRH Prince Jefri Bolkiah [2008]: application for rectification of the share register of a Cayman Islands incorporated company; involved the question of whether a non money judgment could be enforced at common law; resulted in a change in the common law as applied in the Cayman Islands.

The State of Brunei Darussalam v Fidelis Nominees & Ors [2008] JRC 152: application to enforce a non-money judgment in Jersey. The case resulted in a change in the common law as applied in Jersey.

While not listed out in this section individually, nearly all of Anna’s cases are international in nature and therefore involve questions of conflicts. Anna is very familiar with jurisdiction challenges, questions of governing law and the operation of the European and common law jurisdiction regimes.

Conapro v Ministry of Petroleum of The Gambia [2017]: Anna acts for the Claimant in its US$ 30 million claim for loss of profits arising out of an oil sales contract entered into with The Gambia. The case also involves allegations of bribery of the former ambassador of The Gambia to Qatar.

Kazatomprom v Dzhakishev & Ors [2015]: Anna acts for the state atomic agency of Kazakhstan in its claims proceeding in the BVI against its former directors and others in respect of alleged diversion of interests in uranium assets worth some US$250 million.

AJ Crane Ltd –v- BP (Caspian Sea) Ltd [2013]: Anna acted for a supplier of cranes in a dispute with BP concerning the provision of substantial amounts of equipment for an energy project in Azerbaijan (settled). The case involved FCPA issues.

LCIA arbitration [2012]: Anna acted as sole advocate in a two week arbitration representing a seller of wafers for photovoltaic panels in a dispute relating to a long-term ‘take or pay’ contract. She obtained an Award of circa $13 million for her client.

LCIA arbitration [2012]: Anna acted for an international energy commodity trader in an LCIA international commercial arbitration concerning an oil pipeline in Ghana (settled).

Deutsche Bank v the Central Bank of Venezuela: Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to determine whether the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela appointed by Juan Guaidó or that appointed by Nicolás Maduro is authorised to represent the Central Bank in an LCIA arbitration. The proceedings have been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England.

Anna made novel use of receivership orders to protect DB against both contractual default and the imposition of US sanctions.

Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 661 (Ch); [2022] EWCA Civ 1264: Anna, with Alex Riddiford, represents the Issuers in a securitization structure in respect of committal proceedings in the Financial List brought against an individual for a series of breaches of an injunction. The case has produced several decisions on various aspects of committal applications, and an order of committal was made following trial in February 2022. Anna and Alex were successful on appeal in July 2022.

Cayman hedge fund [2021]: Anna advised the investment advisor to a Cayman  hedge and feeder fund structure in relation to claims brought by an investor for a proprietary interest in the assets of the fund.

LCIA Arbitration [2019]: Obtained the appointment of receivers pursuant to s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 over a termination sum payable pursuant to the early termination of a gold bullion swap governed by an ISDA Master Agreement.

RP Explorer Master Fund -v- (1) R Chilukuri (2) Spice International Ltd [2020] EWHC 1225 (Comm): Anna represented a Cayman investment fund in a dispute concerning global depository receipts issued on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. The appeal concerned the correct approach to share valuation and, in particular, the DCF valuation method. Anna subsequently represented the hedge fund in its claims for deceit and conspiracy in respect of the issue of $200 million global depository receipts.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v (1) Zhunus (2) Arip [2017] CP Rep 6; [2016] EWHC 2363 (Comm); [2015] EWHC 3059 (Comm); [2015] 404 (Comm); and [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm):

Anna represents defendants in a substantial and hard-fought fraud, conspiracy and breach of duty claim brought by KK Plc against its former directors. The case involves allegations that, among other things, the proceeds of KK’s 2007 IPO on the LSE and the proceeds of a bond issue on the KSE were misappropriated. The case also involves the application of international audit and accounting standards.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS) -v- (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2013]: Anna is defending parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds. The Bermudan aspect of the case concerns the structural aspect of two hedge funds, restitution, constructive trusts as well as allegations of professional negligence against financial advisors. (With Robert Miles KC)

Interest rate swap litigation (various): Anna is currently acting for various businesses which have brought claims in respect of the alleged mis-selling of interest rate swap hedging products.

Anna has advised banks and others on a number of disputes concerning FOREX trading, breaches of the ISDA Master Agreement and termination as well as the construction of contracts governing futures and interest rate swaps. Further, a substantial part of her fraud work has involved the operation of Cayman and BVI hedge funds.

Anna has experience of a wide range of company and corporate and personal insolvency applications, including obtaining injunctions to prevent the presentation of winding up petitions.

Manek v Wirecard AG [2022]: Anna was instructed to act on an appeal relating to the application of the Recast Insolvency Regulation and the effect of the liquidation of Wirecard AG in Germany on English proceedings. Recently settled.

Red October International SA v CJSC “VMZ Red October” & Ors [2015]: Anna acted for several of the NCAD defendants against which freezing orders had been granted in the BVI under the Chabra jurisdiction. The case involved difficult questions of cross-border insolvency and conflicts of laws.

Rookledge –v- (1) Topological Systems Ltd (2) Tomassi [2012] Ch D (CR Baister): Hard fought s.994 (unfair prejudice) proceedings. Anna successfully defended the petition at trial.

Liquidators of Connor Williams Ltd v Williams & Ors [2013]: Anna defended misfeasance and negligence proceedings brought against a director of a substantial insolvent corporate group.

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS)-v- (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2013]: Anna is defending parties in claims brought by the Liquidator of Bernard L Madoff Securities LLC and the Liquidator of two substantial Bermudan hedge funds. The Bermudan aspect of the case concerns the structural aspect of two hedge funds, restitution, constructive trusts as well as allegations of professional negligence against financial advisors. (With Robert Miles KC)

CHRS Ltd (In Liquidation) -v- (1) Kirby (2) Kirby [2010]: Anna successfully acted for the Liquidator in proceedings for specific performance of a settlement agreement and declarations as to the validity of the Liquidator’s security over the Defendant’s beneficial interest in real property.

Anna advises and acts in a wide range of arbitral proceedings conducted both domestically and internationally. She also has experience of seeking (and resisting) injunctive relief (including anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions) and receivership orders pursuant to s.44 of the 1996 Act, enforcing or resisting the enforcement of arbitral awards and appeals to the High Court pursuant to ss.68 and 69. Recent examples of cases include:

London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Association Ltd v Spain [2021] EWCA 1589: Anna acts for the French State in two actions brought by the London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Association against France and the Kingdom of Spain in relation to judgments in excess of EUR

1.5 billion obtained by those states against the Club as liability insurer of the M/T Prestige, the total loss of which caused huge environmental and economic damage to the states.

Anna recently represented France in two jurisdiction challenges involving complex and novel issues of arbitration law, jurisdiction and state immunity. Anna successfully represented France (and indeed Spain) in the 5-day appeal which saw the Court decline jurisdiction in respect of both claims commenced by the Club.

Anna also represents France in a substantial related ad hoc arbitration before Dame Elizabeth Gloster involving the application of the conditional benefit principle to third parties, equitable compensation for breach of an arbitration agreement, anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, as well as damages in lieu under the successor to Lord Cairn’s Act.

Deutsche Bank v the Central Bank of Venezuela: Anna acts for Deutsche Bank in proceedings brought under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 for a receivership order and to determine whether the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela appointed by Juan Guaidó or that appointed by Nicolás Maduro is authorised to represent the Central Bank in an LCIA arbitration. The proceedings have now been joined with those brought by the Central Bank against the Bank of England.

Anna made novel use of a receivership order to protect the bank against both  contractual default and the imposition of US sanctions.

[2022] LCIA arbitration: Dispute between several wealthy Russian businessmen in relation to a diamond business.

Anna represented the Respondent, with Sophia Hurst, in the 2-week LCIA arbitration.

LCIA Arbitration [2018]: Anna successfully represented the Claimant in a shareholders’ dispute in a 2-day arbitration as sole advocate (and against a senior Silk), obtaining specific performance of a shareholders’ agreement and the transfer of shares to her client. Involved issues of contractual construction, estoppel and equitable remedies.

Tau Power BV & Ors v (1) The Republic of Kazakhstan (2) JSC Shulbinsk (3) JSC Kamenogorsk GES [2018]: Anna acted for Tau Power, along with David Foxton KC, to obtain injunctions against the defendants under s.44 AA 1996, including the Republic of Kazakhstan, to prevent escrow monies from being paid away following a substantial ICSID arbitration and a series of decisions in the Kazakh court.

London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association v (1) Spain and (2) France (the Prestige) [2013] EWHC 3188 (Comm) and [2015] EWCA Civ 333: Anna represented Spain and France at first instance and on appeal in resisting s.66 applications to enforce negative declarations granted in Awards made against them in relation to their attempts to seek compensation for losses of over €4 billion caused by the ecological disaster arising out of the sinking of the M/T Prestige in 2002. Sovereign immunity, conflicts of laws, arbitrability, the Judgments Regulation and ss.67/72 of the Arbitration Act 1996. (With Joe Smouha KC)

LCIA Arbitration [2016/7]: Defending proceedings brought by a Turkish intermediary for fees arising out of a consultancy agreement in respect of military hardware provided to the Turkish military. The case involved questions of contractual construction and bribery.

Ikon International (HK) Holdings Plc v Ikon Finance & Ors [2016]: Anna acted for the claimant in an ad hoc arbitration seeking damages in respect of the operation of a joint venture relating to online forex trading. Anna further acted for the claimant in Commercial Court proceedings brought in respect of sums due pursuant to various letters of credit and guarantees (settled).

SIAC arbitration: Anna defended a Delaware company and a director and shareholder of that company in a contract and shareholder dispute with a substantial Indian co-operative. The matter concerned a prospective phosphorus rock off-take agreement in relation to one or more Australian mines.

Ad hoc arbitration: Anna acted for a wealthy individual in a dispute related to the proposed demolition of a valuable London property. Anna also obtained interim relief pursuant to s.44.

LCIA arbitration [2012]: Anna acted as sole advocate in a two week arbitration representing a seller of wafers for photovoltaic panels in a dispute relating to a long-term ‘take or pay’ contract. She obtained an Award of circa $13 million for her client.

LCIA arbitration (Dubai) [2012]: Anna acted for a large international law firm in a partnership dispute (settled).

LCIA arbitration [2010]: Anna acted for an international energy commodity trader in an LCIA international commercial arbitration concerning an oil pipeline in Ghana (settled).

LCIA arbitration [2009-2010]: Anna acted for a large international telecoms and technology company in an LCIA international commercial arbitration concerning the implementation of a 3G network (settled after the final hearing and Award).

Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC 1 (Comm): The first reported (and widely commented upon) decision on the Court’s powers under s. 42 Arbitration Act 1996 with regard to enforcement of a peremptory order made by a Tribunal.

Ad hoc arbitration [2008-2010]: Anna acted in the hearing of a very substantial ad hoc commercial arbitration regarding alleged breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties (including the diversion of business opportunities) arising out of a business venture in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Anna has acted in many cases before the courts of Jersey, Guernsey, the BVI, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Brunei, including in relation to the application of US sanctions. See references above to e.g. the Prince Jefri Bolkiah litigation, Kazatamprom and Red October (see above in other sections).

A number of Anna’s cases listed above have involved allegations of professional negligence (see RP Explorer (negligence proceedings brought by RP against its former solicitors in respect of breaches of duty arising out of advice and representation in contentious proceedings), Irving Picard, Premier Telecom, Connor Williams and Wilson v Emmott).

Anna has also recently defended a large accountancy practice and a private bank against allegations of negligence. These and many of Anna’s other professional negligence cases against solicitors, directors, accountants, pension fund trustees and auditors, remain confidential.

Many of Anna’s cases involve restitutionary claims, both within and outside of the civil fraud context. But for reported decisions see in particular:

Irving Picard (Trustee of BLMIS)-v- (1) Kingate Management Ltd (2) FIM Ltd & Ors [2013]: A cutting edge case arising out of the Bernard Madoff fraud which is proceeding in Bermuda and which will develop the law on unjust enrichment.

Independent Trustee Services Ltd-v- (1) GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Ors (2) Susan Morris [2012] EWCA Civ 195: A case on rescission and restitution arising out of the innocent receipt of trust monies. The case involved difficult questions about the consequential effects of rescission and restitutio in integreum.

2021: Silk

2008: Call

2002-2008: Solicitor, Commercial Litigation (Stephenson Harwood and Simmons & Simmons)

1999: Legal Practice Course
1998: Law and French Law at University College London
1997: Université d’Assas