Even before the independence of the CIS countries, Clive learned Russian to an advanced level and developed an interest in the CIS countries which has been enduring due to the explosion of this work in the UK courts.

He has appeared as Leading Counsel in numerous cases in international arbitration and in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in respect of CIS disputes, predominantly about joint ventures and commercial fraud. In recent years, this has occupied a large part of his professional time.

Cases include:

Russian Bank v K [2017]

Enforcement of Russian judgments in the BVI. Issues about service of proceedings in the BVI Commercial Court and in the  Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.

Russian Bank v  T [2015 – 2016]

Enforcement of Russian judgments in the UK on personal guarantees. Worldwide freezing order ancillary to Russian judgment and ancillary orders against a non-cause of action defendant.

A v B [2015]

Dispute between Russian business people about ownership of shares in a Russian company. Litigated in a trial in the BVI in November 2014 and on appeal in 2015. Judgment pending.

JSC Ukrssibank v Polyakov [2015] EWCA Civ 67

Acting for a Ukrainian bank against a Ukrainian businessman, formerly a Ukrainian MP, in section 25 proceedings in support of a claim in the court of Ukraine. Case concerned injunctions granted in support of Ukrainian proceedings.

Carl A Sax v Lev Tchernoy [2014] EWHC 795 (Comm)

Jurisdiction dispute by alleged joint venturer in which the claimant sought to establish jurisdiction of the English Court on the basis of a contract made subject to English law. The claimant sought over €50 million against the defendant, a successful Russian businessman. Clive acted for the defendant, successfully resisting jurisdiction of the English court. Hamblen J found that the claim that there was an alleged contract between the parties had no real prospect of success. In any event, the claim that it was subject to English law was not made out.

VTB Capital v Universal Telecom Management (Cayman Island Court of Appeal, 4 June 2013)

Application against two non-parties to English proceedings for freezing injunctions raising questions of jurisdiction and discretion. Case concerned the application of the Chabra jurisdiction.

VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 808: Lawtel 20/6/2012: [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 313

Action in fraud/conspiracy raising issues of lifting the corporate veil, jurisdiction, freezing orders, loss in tort of deceit and the effect of participation agreements on the right to recover damages.

C v M [2011] (Anonymised due to the confidential nature of arbitration proceedings)

LCIA arbitration concerning undisclosed interest of former management in the counterparty to contracts in Kazakhstan.

U v C [2010] (Anonymised due to the confidential nature of arbitration proceedings)

Appeared in arbitration in Sweden. Case concerned a joint venture dispute regarding investment into the exploration and development of an oil and gas field in Ukraine.

Kazakhgold v Assaubayev and others [2010] EWHC 2351 (Ch)

Alleged fraud in relation to hundreds of millions of dollars raised for gold mines in Kazakhstan. Application for injunctions. Clive then cross-examined defendants on their disclosure affidavits.

Shahar v Kolomoisky [2006]

Case concerning Ukrainian assets and allegation that compromise agreement was entered into by duress. Numerous applications including security for costs.

Watford Petroleum v Interoil [2005] All ER (D) 323

Case involving several parties in complex litigation in relation to joint venture/minority shareholder dispute in gas and oil interests in Ukraine. Claims in excess of $100 million against Russian client and large Ukrainian bank. Clients negotiated settlements following weeks of cross-examination.