Source: https://littletonchambers.com/people/charles-samek-qc/
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 17:19:59
Document Index: 689944840

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art 6', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art 1', 'Art 6', 'Arts 5']

Charles Samek QC | Littleton Chambers
"A very good advocate, strong on the law and with good commercial sense." "Tells it like it is and does not sugar-coat his advice, that means clients trust him."
"Charles is decisive, his arguments are confidently put, and he has good, sound judgement." "Charles Samek QC is a tenacious, creative and determined fraud lawyer." "A formidable opponent."
He has been consistently ranked in the leading directories (Chambers & Partners and Legal 500) as a leading QC in the practice areas of Commercial Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud. He is ranked as a leading QC in Chambers Global 2020 for Dispute Resolution (Commercial: UK). He is also ranked in Who’s Who Legal as a leading QC for Commercial Fraud.
As well as regularly appearing in the Business and Property Courts of the High Court, Charles is also a specialist appellate advocate, having appeared in the English Court of Appeal over twenty-five times. He has also appeared in the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, UK House of Lords and the UK Supreme Court.
Charles specialises in international commercial litigation and dispute resolution. He has special expertise in (i) commercial (civil) fraud and asset tracing, (ii) Russian, Ukrainian & FSU disputes, (iii) business crime, (iv) worldwide freezing orders and other interim protective relief, (v) private international law cases on jurisdiction and registration and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, (vi) shareholder and shareholder agreement claims, (vii) banking, financial and investment disputes, (viii) commodities disputes, (ix) committal and contempt proceedings, and (x) commercial employment claims.
Many of Charles’ cases involve acting for or against Russian, Ukrainian or FSU parties or where the UBOs of litigants are Russian, Ukrainian or FSU persons. So, for example, in addition to having acted for Mr Sergei Pugachev in 2017, between 2015 and 2019 Charles was acting in the latest round of the BTA Bank v Ablyazov litigation in proceedings brought by the bank against Mr Ablyazov’s son-in-law, Mr Ilyas Khrapunov, Charles’ client. In January 2018, Charles appeared in the Supreme Court on Mr Khrapunov’s behalf, reported at [2018] UKSC 19 / [2018] 2 WLR 1125 which is now one of the leading cases in the field of commercial fraud and private international law, Charles also appeared for Mr Khrapunov in the English Court of Appeal (reported at [2018] EWCA Civ 819), a now leading case on the Court’s approach to enforcement of its worldwide freezing order, including cross-examination on asset disclosure. In 2019 Charles also acted in the Tsareva v Ananyev 5-day Commercial Court jurisdiction battle.
Charles also acted throughout in the seminal Dadourian Group International v Simms commercial fraud litigation which established the Dadourian Guidelines on the enforcement of English worldwide freezing orders abroad, and successfully including leading the counsel team in the third Dadourian 6-day Court of Appeal case, a leading case on the tort of deceit.
He has also acted in several cases involving foreign law including Russian, Ukrainian, BVI, Italian, German, New York, Icelandic, UAE, Iranian, Saudi (Hanbali School).
Charles is an international arbitration practitioner and is a member of the LCIA European Users Council. He acts as counsel and as an arbitrator.
Charles enjoys working collaboratively as part of a team of solicitors, foreign lawyers and/or other QCs or junior barristers. He believes that the client’s best interests are served by the implementation of a clear and defined strategy formulated in consultation with all members of the client’s legal team. He is happy to attend consultations at solicitors’ or client’s offices, or by video link. He is also flexible on fees charged so as to reflect relevant financial considerations and constraints. In that regard, he is happy in appropriate cases to enter into conditional fee arrangements.
“Charles is decisive, his arguments are confidently put, and he has good, sound judgement.” “Charles Samek QC is a tenacious, creative and determined fraud lawyer.” “A formidable opponent.” (Chambers & Partners 2020)
“A very good advocate, strong on the law and with good commercial sense.” “Tells it like it is and does not sugar-coat his advice, that means clients trust him.” (Legal 500 2020)
“A superb advocate and cross-examiner who fights his corner tirelessly. He’s a team player and reads the tribunal well.” “A real street fighter who never knowingly undersells a point.” “Extremely diligent and intelligent.” “A very good advocate who gets the court on his side. He is a very good team player and he is incredibly bright.” (Chambers & Partners 2019)
“A redoubtable fighter with a silver tongue, he can charm or bash in equal measure.” “A powerful advocate who really fights his client’s corner.” (Legal 500 2018)
“A superb advocate with razor-sharp recall, who fights tirelessly and reads the tribunal well.” “He’s fantastically hands-on, and a very user-friendly and talented advocate.” “Extremely bright, hard-working and responsive.” “A tenacious, creative and determined fraud lawyer.” (Chambers & Partners 2018)
“Incredibly impressive: a great strategist and polished advocate.” “Excellent on civil fraud and injunctions particularly.” (Legal 500 2017)
“He’s an outstanding advocate. He has real presence in court and you can see that the judges really listen to him. He came across really well.” “He is extremely bright, hard-working and responsive.” “Very clear in terms of his thinking, advice and advocacy.” “A fantastically hands-on, very user-friendly and talented advocate.” (Chambers & Partners 2017)
“Sources are quick to point to the quality of his advice and advocacy in commercial disputes.” “A real team player, who is able to get to grips with difficult applications under huge time pressures.” (Chambers UK 2014)
“…noted for his experience of securing and discharging injunctive relief.” “Incredibly user-friendly and very much one of the team.” (Chambers UK 2014)
Russian & CIS Arbitration Network
Russian Layer Network
Charles Samek QC is also a member of the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Territory of the British Virgin Islands) and has appeared before the BVI Commercial Court and the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
Charles is also a member of the Astana International Financial Centre Court with unlimited rights of audience.
Charles was educated at St. Paul’s School and Oriel College, Oxford University where he read Literae Humaniores (Latin and Greek Literature, Greek and Roman History, Modern and Ancient Philosophy). He speaks Italian (excellent) and French (good). He is currently learning Russian.
JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2018] UKSC 19 – Charles appeared for Mr Khrapunov (leading Marc Delehanty) in the UK Supreme Court what is now the leading English case on the scope of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy and on the application of the Brussels / Lugano jurisdiction scheme to such claims. See also [2018] EWCA Civ 819 on privilege against self-incrimination and cross-examination on assets in face of extradition threat.
Tsareva & ors. v Ananyev & ors. [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm) – Commercial Court case on whether English Court had jurisdiction to hear claims by depositors against oligarch Ananyev brothers arising out of collapse of Promsvyaz Bank in Russia.
Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos [2018] EWCA CIV 1 – Charles appeared for the successful appellant, Cyprus Popular Bank, in the leading English appellate case on the application of the Brussels / Lugano enforcement of judgments regime to foreign worldwide freezing order and on the meaning and interpretation of the English procedural rules and the Brussels / Lugano scheme to what matters constitute ‘enforcement’ and which are thus prohibited within the period of an appeal against registration of a foreign judgment.
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017] – Charles acted for Mr Sergei Pugachev in litigation with the claimants arising out of the insolvency of JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank, a subsidiary liability Russian judgment against him and an English default judgment enforcing the former Reported judgments at [2017] EWHC (Ch) 1751; 1767; 1847; 1853.
GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh et al. [2017] Charles was instructed by one of the defendants in Commercial Court litigation against David Haigh, formerly of Leeds United FC. The present action concerns the claimant’s attempt to register a Dubai money judgment against Mr Haigh and parasitic claims against third parties.
Abela v Baadarani [2017] – Charles was instructed by defendants who are resisting fresh proceedings brought by the claimants on the back of default judgment obtained against the principal defendant, Mr Baadarani. There has been a decision (unreported) by Nugee J in relation to a Third Party Debt Order and a Norwich Pharmacal Order which is the subject of an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Louis Dreyfus Commodities MEA Trading DMCC v Concorde pour L’Industrie et L’Exploitation SPRL [2015] EWHC (Comm) 1711. Worldwide freezing order and anti-suit injunction obtained to restrain proceedings in Democratic Republic of Congo; unsatisfactory disclosure of assets by Defendants; Charles (acting for Louis Dreyfus) successfully obtaining order for cross-examination of Fourth Defendant as to assets of all Defendants
PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Sergey Maksimov and others [2014] EWHC 3771 (Comm). 5-day committal hearing against first defendant for alleged breach of two worldwide freezing orders. Burden and standard of proof. Whether necessary to prove every component of each allegation of contempt. Obligation of directors of companies subject to the injunctions. And see also [2014] EWHC 1958 (QB). Applicability of Art 6 ECHR to committal proceedings. Right of defendant to be present at hearing. Public interest in contempt proceedings. Whether proper question is whether there can only be a fair trial if the defendant participates or rather whether notwithstanding an inability to participate, there can nevertheless be a fair trial. See also [2013] EWHC 3203. Further proceedings in which Charles successfully resisted an application by the Twenty-Seventh Defendant (“Carlsbad”) to discharge the worldwide freezing order granted by Field J as referred to in the case below. Carlsbad applied to discharge on various grounds including that there was no good reason to suppose on further evidence which it sought to adduce that its assets belonged to D1; that there was no jurisdiction to serve the arbitral claim form and WFO against it out of the jurisdiction and that there was insufficient connection with England. Blair J rejected the application and maintained the freezing order.
Sheikh Saoud Bin Abdullah Al-Thani v Affat [2014] EWHC Ch (Barling J, Nugee J, Asplin J) (Three applications) Worldwide freezing order obtained against defendant in relation to fraud relating to obtaining title to property; court also ordered passport delivery-up orders, that the defendant should not leave the jurisdiction and arrest orders. Bench warrant also issued. Discussion of court’s powers so to do. Further case of judgment in default being entered against defendant.
Governors of the Bank of Ireland v Bailey [2012] EWHC QB.Claim brought by bank against defendant employee for alleged making of secret profits. Charles successfully obtained the discharge of a freezing order on grounds of insufficient evidence of risk of dissipation.
KBC (UK) Ltd v Total Asset Ltd (in admin ) & Dartnell [2011]. Instructed for the individual defendant in relation to an alleged £130 million ‘Ponzi’ scheme. (Commercial Court)
Dadourian Group Int’l v Simms [2006] 1 WLR Establishment of Court of Appeal guidelines on the enforcement of worldwide freezing orders abroad: “the Dadourian Guidelines”.
Commercial / Banking Litigation
Agate Assets SA et al. v Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild Europe SA et al. [2020] – Commercial Court – Charles (since 2017) is acting for the liquidator of an Italian investment fund and for an Italian pension fund in litigation arising out of the sale by Commerzbank of a structured product alleged inter alia to contravene Luxembourg / EU legislation relating to UCITS 5-week trial to take place in November 2021.
Horlick and others v Cavaco and others [2020] – Charles is acting for a number of defendants in a case brought by various claimants to inter alia recover sums alleged to be due arising out of sundry agreements allegedly entered into in relation to a mining opportunities in Mozambique.
Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd v Inflamax Research Inc [2017-2018] – breach of contract case concerning provision of services in relation to testing of anti-pollen allergy product produced by claimant; Charles (leading Marc Delehanty) acted for the defendant research organisation 5 weeks trial settled days before hearing.
Alexandroff v Credit Suisse International [2017-2018] – Commercial Court – Charles acted for the claimant suing for introduction fees in relation to two lucrative banking transactions.
Financière Mademoiselle Desserts v French et al [2017] Chancery Division – Charles acted for the claimant in a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty arising out of a share sale agreement in relation to a dessert and cake production business.
ICICI Bank (Singapore Branch) Ltd v Essar Global Fund Ltd [2017] – Commercial Court – Charles acted for claimant bank in successful application to enforce $580 million New York judgment.
Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 367 – appellate case concerning construction and application of CPR72 10 to monies in court – consideration of interests of secured creditor – effect of prior judgment ordering payment out of sums.
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair [2017] EWCA Civ 3 – Charles (leading Adam Solomon) was successful before the Court of Appeal in overturning a decision of Teare J ([2012] EWHC 2560 (Comm)) striking out the claimant’s claim for abuse of process on the grounds that the fundamental basis of the claim had been determined against it in a prior related arbitration between it and a third party.The case will now proceed to trial in the Commercial Court. See also the linked case below ([2015] C P Rep 45).
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair [2017] EWCA Civ 55 – Charles (leading Adam Solomon) was again successful before the Court of Appeal in overturning a decision of Whipple J.The Court of Appeal held that the correct CPR rule for (in general) applying for stays of execution of money judgments, including of registered foreign judgments, was CPR 83.7 rather than under CPR 3.1(2)(f). It also held that the judge’s alternative exercise of discretion based on the correct rule was flawed and that there was no basis for disturbing the usual ‘pay-as-you-go’ rule.
AmTrust Europe Ltd v Trust Risk Group SpA [2016] – in a suite of Commercial Court hearings before Blair J, Charles (leading Alexander Robson) successfully acted for the defendant Italian brokerage house in resisting claims for further injunctive relief and amendments to allege corruption of a Milanese arbitral tribunal trying claims between the same parties and to allege attempted extortion of one of the claimant’s directors.
Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Sinclair [2015] C P Rep 45. Charles (leading Adam Solomon) successfully persuaded a full Court of Appeal to set aside an order of Lewison LJ refusing to lift a stay on an appeal (against a 2012 order of Teare J) and thereafter striking out the appeal; relief from sanctions; CPR3 1(7); change of circumstances. The consequence is that the appeal will now proceed to be heard in 2016. (The appeal raises important questions about the interplay between litigation and arbitration, and specifically it raises the issue as to whether an arbitral decision as between A and B should bind A in subsequent litigation between A and C.)
AmTrust Europe Ltd v Trust Risk Group Spa [2015] EWCA Civ 437. Dispute between insurer and broker regarding priority of jurisdiction and applicable law clauses in framework agreement and Lloyds standard form terms of business agreement.Issues concerned the role of the court of appeal in hearing appeals against judge’s orders on allocation of jurisdiction and the applicability of the “one-stop shop”
Fiona Trust presumption in two-contract cases.
Dexia Crediop SpA v Provincia Di Crotone, Commercial Court. Charles acted for the defendant, an Italian municipal authority, which successfully resisted a summary judgment application brought by Dexia Crediop to dispose of major parts of the Defence and Counterclaim in this swaps claim (2013)
Isis Investments Ltd v Adalsteinsson [2010] EWHC 724 (Ch). Successfully obtained summary judgment for the defendant for breach of an investment sub-participation agreement.The judge stayed a costs order in favour of the defendant purportedly pursuant to the provisions of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations. Permission to appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal and the matter settled shortly thereafter.
Tahmassebi v Persia International Bank plc [2007] Pens LR 297.Charles successfully acted for the State-owned defendant Iranian bank in its defence of a seven-figure pension claim brought by its ex-general Manager.
Horlick and others v Cavaco and others [2020] – Charles is acting for a corporate defendant challenging the jurisdiction of the English Court in a case brought by various claimants to inter alia recover sums alleged to be due arising out of sundry agreements allegedly entered into in relation to a mining opportunities in Mozambique.
JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2018] UKSC 19 – Charles appeared for Mr Khrapunov (leading Marc Delehanty) in what is now the leading English case on the application of the Brussels / Lugano jurisdiction scheme to tortious conspiracy See above.
BNP Paribas SA v Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani SPA [2019 + 2017-2018] – Court of Appeal and Commercial Court – jurisdiction dispute arising out of ISDA swap transaction for defendant corporation – 3 days hearing in June [2019] EWCA Civ 768
St Vincent European General Partner Ltd v Robinson [2016] EWHC 2920 (Comm) – Charles (leading Rupert D’Cruz) successfully resisted a jurisdiction challenge to English proceedings in relation to a Cypriot-law shares pledge.The Court accepted Charles’ arguments that the English court was bound to take jurisdiction even though the shares pledge contained a Cypriot exclusive jurisdiction clause because it was bound to recognise a prior Cypriot High Court ruling that the English Court had jurisdiction.
Cyprus Popular Bank Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos – see above.
Dexia Crediop SpA v Provincia Brescia [2016] EWHC 3261 (Comm) – Charles acted for the Italian public authority defendant in Swaps litigation against Dexia and Deutsche banks. This case concerned a jurisdiction battle in relation to competing English and Italian exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners [2016] EWHC 3010 (Comm) – Charles acted for the defendant in anti-suit injunction proceedings brought by the claimant to restrain proceedings in New South Wales, Australia.
Trust Risk Group SpA v AmTrust Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 437 Dispute over jurisdiction between arbitration in Milan under Italian law and litigation in England under English law. Consideration of applicability of Fiona Trust “one-stop” shop presumption.
Louis Dreyfus Commodities MEA Trading DMCC v Concorde pour L’Industrie et L’Exploitation SPRL [2014] EWHC (Comm). Worldwide freezing order and anti-suit injunction obtained to restrain proceedings in Democratic Republic of Congo
Polymer Vision R&D Ltd v Van Dooren [2012] ILPr 14. Claim for misrepresentation and breach of contract against a Dutch liquidator in relation to a settlement. The court held that the so-called ‘bankruptcy exception’ in Art 1.2(b) of Council Regulation 44/2001 (the Judgments Regulation) applied so that jurisdiction could not be founded in England. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was given; case settled thereafter.
FKI Engineering Ltd v De Wind Holdings Ltd [2009] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 118. Appeal by German company against ngative jurisdiction declaration based on inapplicability of Art 6(1) of Council Regulation 44/2001 (the Judgments Regulation) to contingent claims.
Crucial Music Corporation v Klondyke Management AG [2008] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 642. Claim for damages for breach of contract to acquire catalogue of musical sound recordings.Successfully resisted an appeal against the lower court’s finding that jurisdiction could be founded under Arts 5(1) and 5(3) of the Judgments Regulation 44/2001.
Charles is a member of the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Territory of the (British) Virgin Islands.
Capital WW Investment Ltd v Tall Trade Ltd [2020]. Charles successfully reiststed an application by a loan debtor to set aside a statutory demand issued by the creditor. Jack J sitting in the BVI Commercial Court applied the Sparkasse principles in a comprehensive judgment rejecting the application.
Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited [2016]. Application to wind up BVI registered company; BVI Arbitration Act 2013, Insolvency Act 2003 & Insolvency Rules 2005; Charles successfully obtained dismissal of petition on behalf of the company – 1/2 day hearing before Justice Barry Leon, Commercial Judge. Charles also successfully obtained the dismissal of a further petition presented by Mr Emmott in late November 2016 at a 1-day hearing before Wallbank J ruling that there was no evidence that the defendant was insolvent.
SFC Swiss Forfaiting Company Limited v Swiss Forfaiting Limited [2016]. Allocation of jurisdiction; investment trusts; Charles successfully obtained the setting aside of service of proceedings in the BVI on behalf of the defendant – 1/2 day hearing before Justice Barry Leon, Commercial Judge. Charles also was successful in the landmark Easter Caribbean Court of Appeal (Blenman, Michel and Webster JJA) in resisting the claimant’s appeal against that ruling. This decision is now a leading case in this legal area and is reported online at
https://www.eccourts.org/sfc-swiss-forfaiting-company-ltd-v-swiss-forfaiting-limited/
Sakraney v Portillo Holdings & Primate Target Developments Inc. [2015]. Shareholder dispute; construction of memorandum and articles of association; right of transferee to be registered as member; rectification of share register; BVI Business Companies Act 2004 (as amended) – 3 day trial before Justice Barry Leon, Commercial Judge.
Charles has acted as advocate in arbitrations: eg. for a group of shareholders in an LCIA arbitration concerning a shareholders’ dispute in an alcohol producing company; he has also acted in another LCIA arbitration in a dispute concerning Ukrainian grain infrastructure.
Charles was one of three arbitrators in an LCI arbitration last year (5 days) concerning the international supply and importation of cold rolled steel. Charles is current acting as 1 of 3 arbitrators in an LCIA arbitration regarding a commodities dispute and on an UNCITRAL arbitration.
Charles is a member of the European users’ council of the LCIA. Recent litigation concerning arbitration:
Veon Ltd v Orascom Tmt Investments SARL [2017] Commercial Court – enforcement of part of LCIA arbitral award in context of s. 68 Arbitration Act 1996 challenge
AmTrust Europe Ltd v Trust Risk Group SpA Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), 08 June 2016 (Blair J) – successful resistance of amendments to allege corruption of Milan arbitration
AmTrust Europe Ltd v Trust Risk Group SpA [2015] 2 Lloyd’s 231 – successful resistance of anti-arbitration injunction in respect of Milan arbitration
Trust Risk Group SpA v AmTrust Europe Ltd [2016] 1 AER (Comm) 325 – dispute over jurisdiction between arbitration in Milan under Italian law and litigation in England under English law
PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Sergey Maksimov and others [2013] EWHC 3203 – successful resistance of application to discharge 44 Arbitration Act 1996 WFO
Newcastle International Airport Limited v Parkin (2008 – 2012) Acted for first defendant ex-CEO in Chancery Division action brought against him by ex-employer regional airport in relation to alleged wrongful procurement of contractual benefits and breach of fiduciary duty (Action settled on eve of trial). Then acted for same ex-employee in subsequent contribution proceedings brought by defendant solicitors.
Charles Samek QC, appeared today in the BVI Commercial Court for Blackbrook Asset Management Limited on its application for the appointment of joint liquidators over High Elms Capital Limited (HEC).
WEBINAR: Frustration of contracts and Force Majeure clauses
Freedom of contract: Does it still exist?
Charles Samek QC presenting in a Webinar on: Choice of law, choice of forum and the enforcement of judgments post-Brexit’
Charles Samek QC identified as one of the UK’s leading Silks for Civil Fraud litigation
BVI Commercial Court applies ‘Sparkasse Bregenz’ Principles to reject Debtor’s Application to set aside Statutory Demand