CASES & ARBITRATIONS
Examples of International Arbitrations, High Court and Court of Appeal cases in which we have acted include:
Court of Appeal Win - August 2020
CANDEY acted for the successful party who won their appeal in the Court of Appeal against the High Court decision of Mr Justice Morgan.
The High Court had held that Ms. Glover, the litigation friend of two child Defendants who were unsuccessful in challenging the terms of an underlying trust dispute, was liable to pay the Claimants’ costs. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision: Lord Justices Patten, Moyland and Newey unanimously concluded that there was no sufficient justification for costs orders against Ms. Glover.
Lord Justice Newey found that Mr. Justice Morgan had “erred in principle” in the High Court when he applied a general approach to Ms. Glover’s liability as to costs. Lord Justice Newey instead found that there is no presumption that a defendant’s litigation friend should bear costs which the defendant would have been ordered to pay if not a child or protected party.
This decision creates important precedent addressing the costs consequences for the litigation friends of children and protected parties who are defendants to proceedings.
CANDEY successfully defeated a High Court appeal by a firm of London solicitors, The Khan Partnership LLP - July 2020
July 2020 – CANDEY successfully defeated a High Court appeal by a firm of London solicitors, The Khan Partnership LLP, on the question of security for costs and an insurance policy on behalf of the Administrators of Infinity Distribution Limited.
CANDEY allege on behalf of the insolvency practitioners that the solicitors at the Khan Partnership acted in breach of trust and fiduciary duty. They accuse The Khan Partnership of having acted unlawfully in unilaterally renegotiating the terms of their no win no fee agreement with their client after they had achieved a win. They allege that the Khan Partnership thereafter wrongfully helped themselves to client monies without due authorisation.
Dismissing the appeal in favour of CANDEY’s client, Stuart Isaacs QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge had to consider whether a recoverable ATE policy and Deed of Indemnity was adequate to defeat an application for security for costs. The Judge concluded that the size and potential recoverability of the costs of procuring the increased ATE cover and the Deed of Indemnity were not relevant when determining the adequacy of the proposed security.
An important decision on access to justice for insolvent entities, this Judgment is of real interest to lawyers and insolvency practitioners.
 EWHC 1657 (Ch) Read the Judgment here.
High Court Strike Out of Alleged Minority Shareholder Claim – March 2020
CANDEY successfully struck out and obtained judgment with costs against alleged minority shareholders in a leading London casino, extinguishing their claims.
United Kingdom Supreme Court Refuses Secretary of State for Defence Permission to Appeal the Court of Appeal Decision in Langford – March 2020
CANDEY successfully defended Ms Langford in an application brought by the Secretary of State for Defence for permission to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning Ms Langford’s rights to a pension and compensation following the death of her partner. Lords Wilson, Briggs and Kitchin held that the Government’s appeal failed to raise an arguable point of law.
This decision followed our successful appeal to the Court of Appeal in July 2019. Ms Langford’s appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned Article 30 of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011, which confers benefits on surviving adult dependants of deceased members of the scheme. The point in issue was the human rights compatibility of a rule – widely replicated across other public sector pension and compensation schemes – that a surviving adult dependant is disentitled from those benefits if he or she remains formally married to an ex-partner. Ms Langford contended that the Rule was discriminatory within the meaning of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) read with Article 1 of the First Protocol (‘A1P1’). She relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Brewster v Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee  1 WLR 519 (‘Brewster’), in which it was held that a rule requiring unmarried partners to be formally nominated was unlawful on the grounds of unjustified discrimination.
This decision brings an end to nearly 10 years of litigation for Ms Langford.
LCIA Arbitration and Related Proceedings – $1 Billion Shareholder Dispute Over Russian Bank
CANDEY is acting on behalf of a Russian holding vehicle in multi-jurisdictional proceedings in connection with a shareholder dispute over a substantial shareholding in a major Russian bank. There are a number of parallel LCIA arbitration claims in contract (including fraud) and tort arising out of the suite of transaction documents, with related proceedings ongoing in Cyprus, Russia, Italy and New York. The value of the parties’ competing claims is in the region of US$1 billion, and CANDEY’s client has already had initial success resulting in a partial award largely in its favour on substantive issues.
LCIA Arbitration – $500 Million Shareholder Dispute Over Russian Mine
CANDEY is acting for two BVI holding entities involved in a dispute over a Cypriot joint venture regarding a substantial Russian mining operation. This high stakes shareholder dispute has seen CANDEY’s clients successfully obtain a final LCIA arbitration award on substantive issues, with further proceedings ongoing in Cyprus and London as the dispute continues notwithstanding the findings in that award. The value of our clients’ claims, including with reference to the value of the underlying asset, is in excess of US$500m.
LCIA Arbitration and Related High Court Proceedings – Acting for Russia’s Largest Oil Refinery – December 2019
CANDEY acted for a substantial Russian oil refinery in hard fought LCIA arbitration proceedings with a Russian state owned bank in connection with a series of contractual and tortious claims valued at in excess of EUR 200m. A number of separate LCIA claims were initially commenced, which have since been consolidated. The proceedings have also seen:
(a) Hotly contested High Court injunction proceedings commenced in support of LCIA arbitration, with CANDEY’s client successfully obtaining the discharge of an interim mandatory order initially issued against it in December 2019; and
(b) Claims brought by a third party intervener in respect of the ownership of certain commodities which were the subject of the interim order, with Part 20 claims also sought to be brought by the original applicant as against other non-parties to the arbitration agreement.
CANDEY’s client is also now the subject of ongoing formal bankruptcy proceedings in Russia, which will have implications for these various proceedings.
Sheikh Mohamed Al Jaber & Ors v. Salfiti and Bosheh - High Court Freezing Order Against Alleged Top 20 Rich List Tycoon – August 2019
CANDEY successfully acted for Basem Bosheh, a Palestinian banker, against Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al-Jaber, a renowned international businessman who is astonishingly listed in the Sunday Times Rich List 2018 as being in the top 20 richest people in the UK.
Andrew Hochhauser QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, continued freezing injunction relief against the Sheikh’s residential homes in London and Paris, finding that the freezing of his assets was required given that the Sheikh had on numerous occasions and in different High Court proceedings given “disingenuous” and “misleading” evidence to the Court.
 EWHC (Ch) Read the Judgment here.
Speciality Magnetics Limited v Aglient Technologies UK Limited - Arbitration Act 1996 - July 2019
CANDEY successfully resisted an attempt by a defendant to a multi-million pound Commercial Court claim to argue that the claim should be stayed pursuant to s.9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis of a so-called arbitration clause in the underlying agreement. The judge, Sir Jeremy Cooke, produced the most recent authority on the point relying on his previous decision in Kruppa v Benedetti  EWHC 1887 (Comm). Sir Jeremy said “the application for a stay must therefore fail and the Defendant must bear the costs”.
 EHWC 1781 (Comm) Sir Jeremy Cooke. Read the judgment here.
Finnan v. Finnan - Bankruptcy Proceedings - July 2019
CANDEY successfully petitioned for the bankruptcy of a debtor pursuant to a settlement agreement in respect of s.994 (unfair prejudice) proceedings. The debtor had sought to oppose the making of a bankruptcy order on the basis that: (i) relying on s.271(3)(a) to (c) of the Insolvency Act 1986, the petitioner had unreasonably refused a settlement offer; and (ii) the petition was said to be an abuse of process, presented for a collateral purpose to ruin him. The judgment of Deputy ICC Judge Shekerdemian QC is the most up-to-date authority on these points.
BR-2019-000087 Read the judgment here.
Langford v. Secretary of State for Defence – Court of Appeal Win Against UK Government – July 2019
CANDEY successfully represented Ms Langford in the Court of Appeal against the Secretary of State for Defence. The appeal concerned Article 30 of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011, which confers benefits on surviving adult dependants of deceased members of the scheme. The point in issue was the human rights compatibility of a rule – widely replicated across other public sector pension and compensation schemes – that a surviving adult dependant is disentitled from those benefits if he or she remains formally married to an ex-partner. Ms Langford contended that the Rule was discriminatory within the meaning of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) read with Article 1 of the First Protocol (‘A1P1’). She relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Brewster v Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee  1 WLR 519 (‘Brewster’), in which it was held that a rule requiring unmarried partners to be formally nominated was unlawful on the grounds of unjustified discrimination.
By judgment dated 17 July 2019 the Court of Appeal unanimously found in favour of Ms Langford, allowing the appeal. The lead judgment was given by Lord Justice McCombe, who was critical of the government’s conduct of the litigating, stating: “The relaxed way in which the Minister and/or her advisers approached the procedural requirements in this case is not acceptable on the part of any litigant, whoever he or she may be.”
This decision is likely to have a far-reaching impact. The rule which was held to be unlawful in Ms Langford’s case is found in most public sector pension schemes including Education, Police, Fire Service, NHS and Civil Service, which have millions of members. Anyone who has been refused a surviving partner’s pension because they had not divorced an ex-partner may now be able to bring a claim, including for back payments. A link to the judgment can be found here.
Sheikh Mohamed Al Jaber & Ors v. Salfiti and Bosheh - Discharging High Court Injunction Obtained Unlawfully – November 2018
CANDEY successfully acted for Basem Bosheh against Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al-Jaber, a renowned international businessman who is listed in the Sunday Times Rich List 2018 as being in the top 20 richest people in the UK.
Al Jaber had obtained worldwide multi-million pound freezing orders against a Palestinian banker and UK solicitor and an injunction preventing the appointment of a receiver over Al Jaber’s residential home. The orders had been obtained without notice at an ex parte hearing on the basis of allegations that the Defendants had defrauded him in respect of various loan agreements.
Al Jaber was found to have misled the Court, and failed to disclose material facts, leading to an unfair presentation of the case. Contrary to Al Jaber’s assertions that he would never borrow money above 12%, the Judge found that he has a history of borrowing money at very high interest rates and that he had signed facility agreements at a much higher rate.
CANDEY succeeded in discharging all the Court Orders and lifting the injunctions with an order penalising Al Jaber, requiring him to pay CANDEY’s client’s costs on an indemnity basis. In a resounding judgment for CANDEY’s client the Judge found that Al Jaber’s presentation of the evidence at the ex parte hearing was “unacceptably one-sided” and his “failure to provide full and frank disclosure was wholesale.” The Court commented that Al Jaber’s multiple breaches of non-disclosure were so serious, substantial and culpable as to warrant discharging the freezing order and injunctions.
 EWHC 3038 (Ch) Read the Judgment here.
CANDEY Court of Appeal Win Against KPMG – October 2018
London litigation boutique CANDEY secured a third substantial victory against liquidators at KPMG in a Court of Appeal judgment handed down on 16 October 2018 [Crumpler & Bower v CANDEY  EWCA Civ 2256].
CANDEY acted for Peak Hotels and Resorts Limited (Peak) in complex litigation in London, the BVI, New York and Hong Kong in respect of the $368 million shareholder dispute over the ownership of Aman Hotels, the uber luxury hotel group favoured by billionaires (a case described as “a takeover battle the likes of which the luxury hotel-industry has never seen” and as featured in The Lawyer ‘Top 20 Cases of 2015’). The London litigation alone involved 8 High Court Judges. As Peak’s cash began to run out CANDEY agreed to cease charging hourly rates and instead agreed a fixed fee of £3.8 million to help Peak finance the litigation to the end of the proceedings. 8 weeks before trial, Peak entered liquidation. The liquidators instructed CANDEY to continue to represent them, but only 3 weeks later sacked them, minutes after having secured a substantial multi-million dollar settlement.
CANDEY had by this time incurred £1.2 million of notional hourly rates but was able to claim as a secured creditor for the full amount of the fixed fee. The liquidators challenged the security which comprised chiefly of monies paid into Court. The liquidators argued that where monies had been paid into Court, by way of security for costs and fortification of a cross undertaking in damages, the paying party loses all right in the monies. CANDEY disagreed. They contended that the paying party retains an interest in the monies, a right to demand its return on success, and that right was capable of being charged.
In June 2017 His Honour Judge Davis-White QC found in favour of CANDEY holding that it had a floating charge over the $12 million in funds paid into court and a further $1.5 million recovered from Standard Chartered Bank [Crumpler & Bower v CANDEY  EWHC 1511 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2017/1511.html]. At a further hearing in November 2017 His Honour Judge Raeside QC valued CANDEY’s services at the contractual price of £3.8 million plus interest.
KPMG appealed against both decisions. The appeal against the decision of HHJ Davis-White QC was today unanimously rejected by the Court of Appeal. Sir Colin Rimer, who delivered the judgment, said:
“In my judgment, the current of .. authority flows firmly in favour of CANDEY and against the liquidators: namely that the payer of money into court by way of providing security…retains its property in the money… subject to the security interest…I would also regard such current as flowing in the correct direction”.
 EWCA 2256 (Civ). Read the Judgement here.
Finnan v. Finnan - s.994 Proceedings - High Court Settlement for Liverpool FC Football Player - March 2018
CANDEY acted for former Liverpool football player Steve Finnan in a High Court Section 994 unfair prejudice petition involving substantial property assets. The case settled on the third day of trial. Andrew Dunn was lead partner, assisted by Jonathan Child.
Kotak v. Kotak – High Court Win - March 2018
CANDEY acts for Jagdish (Jack) Kotak in a complex partnership dispute against his brother, Dinesh (Don) Kotak. The High Court found that multi-million pound borrowings were obtained without our client’s knowledge by forging his signature on some 20 loan agreements and 7 legal charges, with significant amounts of partnership funds being used for other commercial activities. The Judgment is a complete vindication for our client who was exposed to considerable financial risk without his authority or consent. Richard Singleton is lead partner.
 EWHC 318 (Ch). Read the Judgment here.
Farrar v. Miller 2018 EWCA Civ 172 – Court of Appeal Win – February 2018
CANDEY acts on behalf of a client who entered into a joint venture with his former business partner concerning the development and sale of lucrative development land. Our client alleges that the Defendant secretly misappropriated the property for his own profit. In an important recent Court of Appeal judgment, CANDEY successfully advised its client regarding the availability and scope of equitable remedies in circumstances where the contractual documents did not comply with statutory requirements regarding the transfer of land. We defeated the Defendant’s appeal with regard to the equitable principles of constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel, and successfully cross-appealed in respect of our client’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
The Defendant has appealed to the Supreme Court. Richard Singleton is lead partner.
 EWCA 172 (Civ) (Patten, Kitchin & Floyd LLJ). Read the Judgment here.
Dial Partners LLP and Dial House Consultants Limited v. Eastern Airways International Limited, Bryan Huxford and Richard Lake
Acting for a corporate finance house against an airline owner in Commercial Court proceedings in respect of a breach of contract/unjust enrichment claim. Richard Singleton and Leo Nabarro were lead partners. The case settled on the eve of trial, following which there was a preliminary issue on costs, clarifying the law on switching from a damages based fee agreement to a conditional fee agreement.
 EWHC B1 (Costs). Read the Judgment here.
Russell Crumpler & Anr (as Joint Liquidators of Peak Hotels and Resorts Limited) v. CANDEY Limited – Chancery Division, Companies Court – December 2017
Following the settlement by liquidators of The Lawyer 2015 top 20 case in which CANDEY acted for PHRL to secure control of the uber-luxury boutique hotel group, Aman Resorts, a dispute arose between CANDEY and KPMG, the liquidators of PHRL who challenged the firm’s secured fixed fee.
It was held that CANDEY had a floating charge in the sum of the value of services provided by CANDEY which in the context of s.245 Insolvency Act 1986 was held to be the sum of the fixed fee agreed of £3.86 million as opposed to the hourly rates expended of £1.2 million as contended by the liquidators. Judgment was given by HHJ Raeside QC in CANDEY’s favour in the sum of £4.4 million plus costs.
The question of whether CANDEY LLP can recover a further 100% uplift on its fees is set to be determined by the High Court in July 2018.
KPMG have appealed to the Court of Appeal.
 EWHC 3388 (Ch). Read the Judgment here.
Russell Crumpler & Anr (as Joint Liquidators of Peak Hotels and Resorts Limited) v. CANDEY Limited – Chancery Division, Companies Court – July 2017
The joint liquidators (KPMG) sought to avoid making payment to CANDEY by contending that their security was ineffective. The matter was brought in London pursuant to the insolvency cross-border regulations and following the judgment of HHJ Malcolm Davis-White QC has made new law on the value of legal services and Section 245 (6) of the Insolvency Act 1986. CANDEY were successful in the proceedings with the Court finding that CANDEY had a floating charge over $12 million in funds in Court and a further $1.5 million recovered from Standard Chartered Bank.
KPMG have appealed to the Court of Appeal.
 EWHC 1511 (Ch). Read the Judgment here.
Peak Hotels & Resorts Ltd v. Tarek Investments Ltd & Ors. - $400 Million High Court Hotel Ownership Dispute
We acted for Peak Hotels in Peak Hotels & Resorts Ltd v. Tarek Investments Ltd & Ors. The case concerned a $400 million joint venture dispute over Aman Resorts, a collection of leading luxury resorts and hotels in Asia, Europe and the Americas. The defendants included Russian billionaire, Vladislav Doronin, and the CEO of Head N.V., Carol Johan Eliasch. The case came before the Chancery Division on a multitude of occasions, resulting in a variety of injunctions being granted in our client’s favour. This case was described by Departures magazine as “a takeover battle the likes of which the luxury hotel-industry has never seen”. The case was listed as one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2015. Ashkhan Candey, Andrew Dunn and Leo Nabarro were lead partners.
Jinpeng Group Ltd v. Peak Hotels & Resorts Ltd - HKIAC Arbitration & BVI Court of Appeal
We acted for Peak Hotels, in a HKIAC Arbitration and before the Commercial Division of the High Court of the British Virgin Islands, in the case of Jinpeng Group Ltd v. Peak Hotels & Resorts Ltd, and before the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal. The Caribbean proceedings concerned a dispute arising from a US$ 35 million convertible loan facility with a state investment vehicle, controlled by the People’s Republic of China. Ashkhan Candey, Andrew Dunn and Leo Nabarro were lead partners.
Monde Petroleum SA v. WesternZagros Ltd - ICC Arbitration and High Court Proceedings
Acting for Monde Petroleum SA in the matter of Monde Petroleum SA v. WesternZagros in an ICC Arbitration which Monde won on all grounds. The claim related to a lucrative billion dollar oil and gas agreement in respect of 2000 square kilometres of oil fields in the Kurdistan region of Northern Iraq. We succeeded in evidencing in the High Court that Monde had been deceived by WesternZagros’s Directors. Ashkhan Candey and Leo Nabarro were lead partners.
 EWHC 67 (Comm). Read the Judgment here.
 EWHC 1472 (Comm). Read the Judgment here.
Barclays Bank Plc v. Langraf & Ors. - Commercial Court
We acted for three of four senior lawyers in Barclays Bank Plc v. Langraf & Ors. The case concerned the collapse of US law firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf, and claims by Barclays against former partners in that law firm for repayment of partner capital loans. It was listed by The Lawyer as one of the Top 20 cases of 2015. We succeeded in defeating the bank’s summary judgment application and confidential settlements were thereafter obtained for our clients. Andrew Dunn and Lara Robson were lead partners.
 EWHC 503 (Comm). Read the Judgment here.
Adriaan Zecha - HKIAC Arbitration
We acted for Peak Hotels & Resorts Ltd and legendary international hotelier, Adriaan Zecha, in US $50 million Hong Kong arbitration proceedings and related Hong Kong High Court proceedings. Ashkhan Candey and Andrew Dunn were lead partners. We continue to represent Adriaan Zecha in proceedings in the British Virgin Islands.
ICC Arbitration – Dispute over Acquisition of Saudi Arabian Cement Plant
CANDEY is instructed by a Saudi Arabian company in connection with its acquisition of a cement company based in Saudi Arabia from Italian, Egyptian and German companies. The dispute involves matters of English and Saudi law. Leo Nabarro is the lead partner
Brova Consultatoria De Gestao, Unipessaol LDA and Swiss Garantie Issuance AG - High Court
Acting for Brova Consultatoria De Gestao, Unipessaol LDA and Swiss Garantie Issuance AG in claims against Credit Suisse (UK) Limited arising from alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by Credit Suisse alleged rogue director, Hans Olav Eldring, and a €150 million guarantee. Andrew Dunn was lead partner.
Financial Conduct Authority v. Capital Alternatives Limited & Ors. - Court of Appeal
Acting for one appellant in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the matter of Financial Conduct Authority v. Capital Alternatives Limited & Ors, a case concerning the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the operation of Collective Investment Schemes. Andrew Dunn was lead partner.
 EWHC 144 (Ch). Read the Judgment here.
 EWCA 284 (Civ). Read the Judgment here.
Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group Import and Export Company Limited - UNCITRAL Arbitration
Richard Brown v. The Queen
In January 2003, our client, Mr Brown, was convicted of the murder of Errol Lynch in September 1998 in Jamaica. Our client was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour for a minimum of 25 years until parole. However, Mr Brown has a significant history of mental illness and has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The case examined whether his conviction for murder was unsafe in light of his diagnosis. Our team advised Mr Brown on a pro-bono appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) of his murder conviction and sentence. The JCPC did not overturn Mr Brown’s conviction, but sent his case back to the Jamaican Court of Appeal for re-sentencing which led to a reduction of his sentence by eight years.