Maximilian Schlote

• Copley Motorcars Corporation & Anr v Bonhams 1793 Limited & Ors (Comm) (2015-16)
  For Claimant buyers of a vintage Ferrari in multi-party proceedings before the Commercial Court involving, inter alia, claims for fraud and misrepresentation. The case also raised issues concerning the agency relationship between the auction house and the vendor. (With Neil Kitchener QC)
• Acted for recruitment agencies on several cases involving the placement of individuals with employers. (Sole Counsel).
• Successfully resisted the setting aside of summary judgment in favour of the defendant in a claim brought by an estate agency for a minimum fee under an agency agreement. (Sole Counsel).

• ICC Proceedings (2019)
  For South Stream (a Gazprom subsidiary) in major, complex and technical arbitration proceedings brought by Italian energy services company Saipem in connection with the termination of c. €2 billion contract for the construction of a 900km gas pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria across the Black Sea. (With Alexander Gunning QC)
• LCIA Proceedings (2017-19)
  For Claimant, joint-venture contractor, in major, complex and technical arbitration proceedings relating to a construction project in the energy sector. The claim raised, amongst other things, a difficult issue concerning the interpretation of a construction sub-contract viewed in its relevant factual matrix. (With Charles Graham QC)

• Copley Motorcars Corporation & Anr v Bonhams 1793 Limited & Ors (Comm) (2015-16)
  For Claimant buyers of a vintage Ferrari in multi-party proceedings before the Commercial Court involving, inter alia, claims for fraud and misrepresentation. The case also raised issues concerning the agency relationship between the auction house and the vendor. (With Neil Kitchener QC)
• For a successful bidder for a vintage Jaguar in potential fraud and misrepresentation claims and claims under the Sale of Goods Act. (Sole Counsel).
• For the owner of a painting in a potential claim against an auction house. The painting had been consigned to an auction house for auction where it became the subject of a rival claim to title and a Holocaust restitution claim. (Sole Counsel).
• For the owner of a different painting in a potential claim against an art dealer and an auction house. The painting had been consigned to an auction house for auction but then became the subject of a rival claim to title by an art dealer. (Sole Counsel).
• For the purchaser of a luxury vintage car in a claim concerning the failure by the dealer to repay a deposit when the purchase could not be completed because of quality/mis-description issues. (Sole Counsel).

• Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Arsanovia Ltd & Ors (Comm) (2018)
  For the Claimant in arbitration award enforcement proceedings before the Commercial Court involving, inter alia, world-wide freezing injunctions and the appointment of equitable receivers. (With Daniel Toledano QC)

• Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation) v Primeo Fund [2020] UKPC 3
  For the Additional Liquidator of Herald in his appeal before the Privy Council in the long-running dispute between Herald and Primeo (Herald’s largest shareholder) concerning the rectification of Herald’s register of shareholders. This case, like the Reichmuth and Fairfield cases, arose out of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. (With Francis Tregear QC)
• RBS Rights Issue Litigation (ChD) (2015-16)
  For the (UK) financial institutions in their high profile FSMA claim against RBS for misstatements in respect of its £12bn rights issue in 2008. (With Laurence Rabinowitz KC).
• PCP Capital Partners LLP v Barclays Bank PLC [2017] EWHC 2897
  For the bank, defending high profile claims in damages in connection with PCP’s alleged role in the Bank’s 2008 capital raisings. The trial of this matter was scheduled to commence on 15 January 2018 and was listed for eight weeks. On Barclays’ successful application to the Commercial Court, this trial was adjourned until the conclusion of related criminal proceedings. (With Laurence Rabinowitz KC).
• Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 278 (Comm); [2018] EWHC 277 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2928 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2605 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2340 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1896 (Comm)
  For the Claimant in Commercial Court proceedings which sought to declare various transaction documents governing its US$700 million ‘sukuk’ financing invalid on account of the fact that those documents do not comply with certain fundamental principles of Shariah and are contrary to UAE law (the law governing one of the main transaction documents). The case raises questions of contractual construction, the (English) law of common mistake and conflict of laws (in particular, the impact of the fact that certain obligations are unlawful under a foreign law on transaction documents governed by English law). The Claimant obtained an injunction from the English Court preventing the exercise of certain (purported) rights of the holders of the ‘sukuk’ (or bonds). The case was then listed for a 5-day speedy trial in September 2018.This claim also gave rise to several difficult procedural issues, in particular because Dana Gas (the Claimant) was prevented from attending the trial as a result of an anti-suit injunction having been obtained against it in the UAE. The Claimant obtained two adjournments of the English trial, but ultimately the trial took place in its absence. The Claimant then applied to have the judgment set aside pursuant to CPR 39.3(3). Difficult issues also arose as a result of there being parallel proceedings in Sharjah, UAE. (With Richard Gillis KC).
• PCP v. Barclays Bank PLC [2017] EWHC 2897 (Comm)
  Appeared (alongside Laurence Rabinowitz KC and Alexander Polley) for Barclays in its high profile and susccesful stay application - news item linked here.
• Pearson v Primeo Fund [2017] UKPC 19
  For Reichmuth & Co, a Swiss private bank,, intervening in Privy Council appeal proceedings arisingout of the winding-up of Herald Fund, one of the ‘feeder funds’ of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Reichmuth, a shareholder in Herald, argued that its claim to redemption proceeds had priority over the claims of certain other shareholders. (With Laurence Rabinowitz KC).
• Fairfield Sentry Ltd v Migani [2014] UKPC 9; Times, May 1, 2014
  For Credit Suisse in Fairfield Sentry’s appeal to the Privy Council. The case concerned Fairfield’s claim to recover redemption payments made to investors in Fairfield, a ‘feeder fund’ of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and raised issues relating to the construction of a company’s articles of association and the interaction between those articles and restitutionary remedies. (With Laurence Rabinowitz KC)
• Sabre v Standard Bank (Comm) (2014-15)
  For the Claimant in an (ultimately settled) £50 million Commercial Court claim ( relating to the banking of an oil and gas project. (With Laurence Rabinowitz KC).
• Advised an insurance company on an issue relating to the Life Assurance Act 1774 and the conflict of laws. (With Ian Glick KC).

• SKAT v Solo Capital Partners, a multi-billion claim in the Commercial Court against over 100 defendants arising out of a fraud on SKAT, the Danish revenue authority. Max acted for SKAT in the recent four-week Commercial Court trial of preliminary issues [2023] EWHC 590 (Comm)
• For the Claimant, a company in liquidation, in proceedings in the Chancery division against a former director and related parties for fraudulent breach of duty and dishonest assistance (with Neil Kitchener KC).
• Copley Motorcars Corporation & Anr v Bonhams 1793 Ltd & Ors (Comm) (2015-16)
  For Claimant buyers of a vintage Ferrari in multi-party proceedings before the Commercial Court involving, inter alia, claims for fraud and misrepresentation. The case also raised issues concerning the agency relationship between the auction house and the vendor. (With Neil Kitchener QC)
• Currently advising the successful bidder for a different vintage car in potential fraud and misrepresentation claims and claims under the Sale of Goods Act. (Sole Counsel).
• Advised insurance company on a potential claim for fraud against an insured. (Sole Counsel).

• Virgin Enterprises Limited v Brightline Holdings LLC
  A ca. US$125m claim in the Commercial Court arising out of the early termination by Brightline of a 20+ year licensing agreement. Max acted for Virgin in the three-week Commercial Court trial of this matter in July 2023.
• SKAT v Solo Capital Partners
  Multi-billion claim in the Commercial Court against over 100 defendants arising out of a fraud on SKAT, the Danish revenue authority. Max acted for SKAT in the recent four-week Commercial Court trial of preliminary issues [2023] EWHC 590 (Comm)
• For the Claimant, a company in liquidation, in proceedings in the Chancery division against a former director and related parties for fraudulent breach of duty and dishonest assistance (with Neil Kitchener KC).
• Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation) v Primeo Fund (PC) (2018-19)
  For the Additional Liquidator of Herald in his (upcoming) appeal before the Privy Council in the long-running dispute between Herald and Primeo (Herald’s largest shareholder) concerning the rectification of Herald’s register of shareholders. This case, like the Reichmuth and Fairfield cases, arises out the Madoff Ponzi scheme. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC)
• Oleg Kolyada v Ilya Yurov (Comm) (2014)
  For the Defendant, in Commercial Court proceedings which settled during its 6-week trial. The parties were formerly co-owners of a Russian bank. The dispute arose out of the transfer of Mr Kolyada’s shares to Mr Yurov. Mr Kolyada brought claims for rectification, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duties and undue influence. (With Neil Kitchener QC)
• Copley Motorcars Corporation & Anr v Bonhams 1793 Ltd & Ors (Comm) (2015-16)
  For claimant buyers of a vintage Ferrari in multi-party proceedings in the Commercial Court involving, inter alia, claims for fraud and misrepresentation. (With Neil Kitchener QC).
• RBS Rights Issue Litigation (ChD) (2015-16)
  For the (UK) financial institutions in their high profile FSMA claim against RBS for misstatements in respect of its £12bn rights issue in 2008. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• PCP Capital Partners LLP v Barclays Bank PLC [2017] EWHC 2897
  For the bank, defending high profile claims in damages in connection with PCP’s alleged role in the Bank’s 2008 capital raisings. The Commercial Court trial of this matter was scheduled to commence on 15 January 2018, for 8-weeks. On the bank’ss’ successful application , the trial was adjourned until the conclusion of related criminal proceedings. [link to http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/news/p...]. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 278 (Comm); [2018] EWHC 277 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2928 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2605 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2340 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1896 (Comm)
  For the Claimant, in Commercial Court proceedings which sought to declare various transaction documents governing its US$700 million ‘sukuk’ financing invalid on account of the fact that those documents do not comply with certain fundamental principles of Shariah and are contrary to UAE law (the law governing one of the main transaction documents). The case raises questions of contractual construction, the (English) law of common mistake and conflict of laws (in particular, the impact of the fact that certain obligations are unlawful under a foreign law on transaction documents governed by English law). The Claimant obtained an injunction from the English Court preventing the exercise of certain (purported) rights of the holders of the ‘sukuk’ (or bonds). The case was then listed for a 5-day speedy trial in September 2018. This claim also gave rise to several difficult procedural issues, in particular because Dana Gas (the Claimant) was prevented from attending the trial as a result of an anti-suit injunction having been obtained against it in the UAE. The Claimant obtained two adjournments of the English trial, but ultimately the trial took place in its absence. The Claimant then applied to have the judgment set aside pursuant to CPR 39.3(3). Difficult issues also arose as a result of there being parallel proceedings in Sharjah, UAE. (With Richard Gillis QC).
• Pearson v Primeo Fund [2017] UKPC 19
  For Reichmuth & Co, a Swiss private bank, intervening in Privy Council appeal proceedings arising out of the winding-up of Herald Fund, one of the ‘feeder funds’ of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Reichmuth, a shareholder in Herald, argued that its claim to redemption proceeds had priority over the claims of certain other shareholders. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• Fairfield Sentry Ltd v Migani [2014] UKPC 9; Times, May 1, 2014
  For Credit Suisse, in Fairfield Sentry’s appeal to the Privy Council. The case concerned Fairfield’s claim to recover redemption payments made to investors in Fairfield, a ‘feeder fund’ of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and raised issues relating to the construction of a company’s articles of association and the interaction between those articles and restitutionary remedies. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• Sabre v Standard Bank (Comm) (2014-15)
  For the Claimant, in an (ultimately settled) £50 million Commercial Court claim relating to the banking of an oil and gas project. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).

• Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation) v Primeo Fund (PC) (2018-19)
  For the Additional Liquidator of Herald in his (upcoming) appeal before the Privy Council in the long-running dispute between Herald and Primeo (Herald’s largest shareholder) concerning the rectification of Herald’s register of shareholders. This case, like the Reichmuth and Fairfield cases, arises out the Madoff Ponzi scheme. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC)
• RBS Rights Issue Litigation (ChD) (2015-16)
  For the (UK) financial institutions in their high profile FSMA claim against RBS for misstatements in respect of its £12bn rights issue in 2008. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• Pearson v Primeo Fund [2017] UKPC 19
  For Reichmuth & Co, a Swiss private bank, intervening in Privy Council appeal proceedings arising out of the winding-up of Herald Fund, one of the ‘feeder funds’ of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Reichmuth, a shareholder in Herald, argued that its claim to redemption proceeds had priority over the claims of certain other shareholders. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• Fairfield Sentry Ltd v Migani [2014] UKPC 9; Times, May 1, 2014
  For Credit Suisse, in Fairfield Sentry’s appeal to the Privy Council. The case concerned Fairfield’s claim to recover redemption payments made to investors in Fairfield, a ‘feeder fund’ of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and raised issues relating to the construction of a company’s articles of association and the interaction between those articles and restitutionary remedies. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• Advised the beneficial owner of a group of companies on the extent of his powers to remove the directors of the relevant companies and to transfer legal title to the shares to himself. This concerned principally the proper scope of the Duomatic principle. (Sole Counsel).
• For a company in the commodities trading sector in a dispute concerning the validity and priority of certain share mortgages/charges securing liabilities of about US$4 million. (Sole Counsel).
• Companies Court applications, e.g. rectification of the register of charges. (Sole Counsel).
• Winding-up petitions. (Sole Counsel).

• ICC Proceedings (2019)
  For South Stream (a Gazprom subsidiary) in major, complex and technical arbitration proceedings brought by Italian energy services company Saipem in connection with the termination of c. €2 billion contract for the construction of a 900km gas pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria across the Black Sea. (With Alexander Gunning QC)
• LCIA Proceedings (2017-19)
  For Claimant joint-venture contractor, in major, complex and technical arbitration proceedings relating to a construction project in the energy sector. The claim raised, amongst other things, a difficult issue concerning the interpretation of a construction sub-contract viewed in its relevant factual matrix. (With Charles Graham QC)

• For the Defendants in a substantial claim in the High Court brought by a former supplier alleging conspiracy and other economic torts. (With Anthony de Garr Robinson QC).

• Municipio de Mariana and others v BHP Group PLC and BHP Group Ltd
  For the defendant, BHP, in the high-profile claim brought by ca. 200,000 Brazilian Claimants in relation to the collapse of the Fundão dam in Mariana, Brazil. This is the largest (by number of Claimants) group litigation in England ever. Max has acted for BHP in its jurisdiction challenges in the High Court [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC) and Court of Appeal [2022] EWCA Civ 951 and is instructed to act for BHP on the trial which is currently listed for autumn 2024.
• ICC Proceedings (2019)
  For South Stream (a Gazprom subsidiary) in major, complex and technical arbitration proceedings brought by Italian energy services company Saipem in connection with the termination of c. €2 billion contract for the construction of a 900km gas pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria across the Black Sea. (With Alexander Gunning QC)
• LCIA Proceedings (2017-19)
  For Claimant joint-venture contractor, in major, complex and technical arbitration proceedings relating to a construction project in the energy sector. The claim raised, amongst other things, a difficult issue concerning the interpretation of a construction sub-contract viewed in its relevant factual matrix. (With Charles Graham QC)

• Acting, as sole counsel, for a company in the commodities trading sector in a dispute concerning the validity and priority of certain share mortgages/charges securing liabilities of about US$4 million.

• Municipio de Mariana and others v BHP Group PLC and BHP Group Ltd
  For the defendant, BHP, in the high-profile claim brought by ca. 200,000 Brazilian Claimants in relation to the collapse of the Fundão dam in Mariana, Brazil. This is the largest (by number of Claimants) group litigation in England ever. Max has acted for BHP in its jurisdiction challenges in the High Court [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC) and Court of Appeal [2022] EWCA Civ 951 and is instructed to act for BHP on the trial which is currently listed for autumn 2024.
• Milasi Josiya & Ors v British American Tobacco PLC, British American Tobacco (GLP) Limited & Ors
  For the BAT Defendants, in a claim by over 7,000 Malawian tobacco farmers for compensation under three causes of action.
• For a FTSE 250 company in claims brought by tens of thousands of claimants who claim to have been affected by a cyber-attack on the company.
• The RBS Rights Issue Litigation
  For the institutional investor Claimants in claims arising out RBS’s 2008 rights issue.

• Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 278 (Comm); [2018] EWHC 277 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2928 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2605 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2340 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1896 (Comm)
  For the Claimant, in Commercial Court proceedings which sought to declare various transaction documents governing its US$700 million ‘sukuk’ financing invalid on account of the fact that those documents do not comply with certain fundamental principles of Shariah and are contrary to UAE law (the law governing one of the main transaction documents). The case raises questions of contractual construction, the (English) law of common mistake and conflict of laws (in particular, the impact of the fact that certain obligations are unlawful under a foreign law on transaction documents governed by English law). The Claimant obtained an injunction from the English Court preventing the exercise of certain (purported) rights of the holders of the ‘sukuk’ (or bonds). The case was then listed for a 5-day speedy trial in September 2018.This claim also gave rise to several difficult procedural issues, in particular because Dana Gas (the Claimant) was prevented from attending the trial as a result of an anti-suit injunction having been obtained against it in the UAE. The Claimant obtained two adjournments of the English trial, but ultimately the trial took place in its absence. The Claimant then applied to have the judgment set aside pursuant to CPR 39.3(3). Difficult issues also arose as a result of there being parallel proceedings in Sharjah, UAE.Difficult issues also arose as a result of there being parallel proceedings in Sharjah, UAE. (With Richard Gillis QC).

• Municipio de Mariana and others v BHP Group PLC and BHP Group Ltd
  For the defendant, BHP, in the high-profile claim brought by ca. 200,000 Brazilian Claimants in relation to the collapse of the Fundão dam in Mariana, Brazil. This is the largest (by number of Claimants) group litigation in England ever. Max has acted for BHP in its jurisdiction challenges in the High Court [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC) and Court of Appeal [2022] EWCA Civ 951 and is instructed to act for BHP on the trial which is currently listed for autumn 2024.
• Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 278 (Comm); [2018] EWHC 277 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2928 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2605 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 2340 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1896 (Comm)
  For the Claimant, in Commercial Courtproceedings which sought to declare various transaction documents governing its US$700 million ‘sukuk’ financing invalid on account of the fact that those documents do not comply with certain fundamental principles of Shariah and are contrary to UAE law (the law governing one of the main transaction documents). The case raises questions of contractual construction, the (English) law of common mistake and conflict of laws (in particular, the impact of the fact that certain obligations are unlawful under a foreign law on transaction documents governed by English law). The Claimant obtained an injunction from the English Court preventing the exercise of certain (purported) rights of the holders of the ‘sukuk’ (or bonds). The case was then listed for a 5-day speedy trial in September 2018. This claim also gave rise to several difficult procedural issues, in particular because Dana Gas (the Claimant) was prevented from attending the trial as a result of an anti-suit injunction having been obtained against it in the UAE. The Claimant obtained two adjournments of the English trial, but ultimately the trial took place in its absence. The Claimant then applied to have the judgment set aside pursuant to CPR 39.3(3). Difficult issues also arose as a result of there being parallel proceedings in Sharjah, UAE. Difficult issues also arose as a result of there being parallel proceedings in Sharjah, UAE. (With Richard Gillis QC).

• Various interim applications in the High Courts, for example, a recent appearance in front of the Chief Chancery Master on an application in a multi-million £ fraud claim.
• Appearances in trials and on applications in the County Court.

Max has a particular academic interest in this area of law and has, over many years, lectured on, contributed to and published work in its respect:

• The San Giorgio “cause of action” [2014] 2 BTR 103
• The Principle of Effectiveness and Restitution of Overpaid Tax, Restitution of Overpaid Tax, S Elliott, B Häcker, C Mitchell (eds) (Hart, 2013)
• Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v IRC and Littlewoods Retail Limited v HMRC: concurrency of remedies and compound interest in recovering overpaid tax [2012] 4 BTR 500
• Littlewoods v HMRC: compound interest as a matter of EU law [2012] 2 BTR 144

In terms of practical application of his expertise, Max has also appeared in the following cases:

• Littlewoods Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] EWHC 868 (Ch); [2014] STC 1761 and [2015] EWCA Civ 515; and [2017] UKSC 70
  For Littlewoods, in its high profile restitution claims for £1.2 billion of compound interest in respect of overpaid VAT dating back to 1973. The case raised important issues of EU law and the English law of unjust enrichment. More information can be found here: http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/news/c...; (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• For a charitable organisation in a High Court claim for restitution of overpaid VAT. The claim raised the difficult question of what remedy a consumer has against HMRC in circumstances where it had paid VAT (that was not due) to a contractor which then goes out of business so that the consumer cannot recover from the contractor. The claimant charitable organisation pursued a claim directly against HMRC for the overpaid VAT. (Sole Counsel).
• Fairfield Sentry Ltd v Migani [2014] UKPC 9; Times, May 1, 2014
  For Credit Suisse, in Fairfield Sentry’s appeal to the Privy Council. The case concerned Fairfield’s claim to recover redemption payments made to investors in Fairfield, a ‘feeder fund’ of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and raised issues relating to the construction of a company’s articles of association and the interaction between those articles and restitutionary remedies. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• Veolia & Ors v Viridor & Ors (Comm & ChD) (2014-15)
  For Veolia in Commercial Court and Chancery proceedings for restitution of overpaid landfill tax. (Sole Counsel).
• Advised a financial institution on a potential claim for the recovery of overpaid VAT. (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).

• Copley Motorcars Corporation & Anr v Bonhams 1793 Limited & Ors  (Comm) (2015-16)
  For Claimant buyers of a vintage Ferrari in multi-party proceedings before the Commercial Court involving, inter alia, claims for fraud and misrepresentation. The case also raised issues concerning the agency relationship between the auction house and the vendor.  (With Neil Kitchener QC)
• For a successful bidder for a vintage Jaguar in potential fraud and misrepresentation claims and claims under the Sale of Goods Act. (Sole Counsel).
• For the owner of a painting in a potential claim against an auction house.  The painting had been consigned to an auction house for auction where it became the subject of a rival claim to title and a Holocaust restitution claim.  (Sole Counsel).
• For the owner of a different painting in a potential claim against an art dealer and an auction house.  The painting had been consigned to an auction house for auction but then became the subject of a rival claim to title by an art dealer.  (Sole Counsel).
• For the purchaser of a luxury vintage car in a claim concerning the failure by the dealer to repay a deposit when the purchase could not be completed because of quality/mis-description issues.
• For the purchaser of a luxury yacht against the dealer and manufacturer in breach of contract claims arising out of manufacturing defects.  (Sole Counsel).

• SKAT v Solo Capital Partners
  A multi-billion claim in the Commercial Court against over 100 defendants arising out of a fraud on SKAT, the Danish revenue authority. Max acted for SKAT in the recent four-week Commercial Court trial of preliminary issues [2023] EWHC 590 (Comm)
• Littlewoods Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] EWHC 868 (Ch); [2014] STC 1761 and [2015] EWCA Civ 515; and [2017] UKSC 70
  For Littlewoods, in its high profile restitution claims for £1.2 billion of compound interest in respect of overpaid VAT dating back to 1973. The case raised important issues of EU law and the English law of unjust enrichment. More information can be found here: http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/news/c...; (With Laurence Rabinowitz QC).
• For a charitable organisation in a High Court claim for restitution of overpaid VAT. The claim raised the difficult question of what remedy a consumer has against HMRC in circumstances where it had paid VAT (that was not due) to a contractor which then goes out of business so that the consumer cannot recover from the contractor. The claimant charitable organisation pursued a claim directly against HMRC for the overpaid VAT. (Sole Counsel).

• Oleg Kolyada v Ilya Yurov (Comm) (2014)
  For the Defendant, in Commercial Court proceedings which settled during its 6-week trial.  The parties were formerly co-owners of a Russian bank. The dispute arose out of the transfer of Mr Kolyada’s shares to Mr Yurov.  Mr Kolyada brought claims for rectification, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duties and undue influence.  (With Neil Kitchener QC)