Laurence Rabinowitz KC

"Laurence is a titan in what he does, but he's still responsive, even when unbelievably busy. He remains incredibly humble, always available and incredibly insightful." (International Arbitration, Chambers UK 2025)

• C v. R - For the Claimant in a major oil and gas arbitration seeking damages of in excess of US$200m for deceit, negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. It was listed for a 3-week trial commencing 6 February 2023. The case settled after the first day of trial on terms favourable to the claimants. It gave rise to complex questions of fact law, involving expert evidence in multiple disciplines and the arbitral Tribunal consisted of two former Supreme Court Justices and a former member of the Court of Appeal.
• LCIA arbitration - For a multi-commodity trader and trading partner in a claim for alternative relief including non-monetary reliefs up to US$ 1.817 billion. 
• Acted for the defendants in a case challenging a consent award from arbitration proceedings, seeking an extension of time to file the claim. An extensive extension was granted to state-owned companies to contest an arbitration award issued during the tenure of a former national leader. The companies alleged misuse in a fraudulent scheme involving the award and argued they couldn't pursue the claim while the leader was in power. After his departure, they acted reasonably in investigating and initiating the claim. The application was partially granted.
• Acted for sovereign state in Commercial Court proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of record-breaking arbitration awards issued under the Energy Charter Treaty. The claimants were awarded approximately $65 billion—the largest amount ever granted in arbitration. The state argued the awards were obtained through fraud by the claimants. It successfully secured a stay of the proceedings without posting the $7 billion security requested, which would have been the largest security order in English legal history. In 2022, the court lifted the stay, allowing enforcement actions on awards exceeding $50 billion.
• SIAC arbitration proceedings.  For a major international petroleum company and leading a large team of junior barristers at One Essex Court in defending an approx US$5.5 billion claim arising out of an investment into certain North Sea oil assets. English law/Singapore seat/SIAC Rules.
• ICC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings (2017) - Acting for Claimants in related, but separate, UNCITRAL (US$ 60 million) and ICC (US$ 90 million), London seated arbitrations regarding the curtailment of supply under their respective gas supply agreements with a state enterprise with a virtual monopoly over natural gas supplies. The claim involves allegations of breach of contract and breach of the Unfair Competition Act, the pleaded defence to which is over 200 separate Force Majeure claims.
• HKIAC arbitration proceedings (2017) - For a group of ‘sellers’ of LNG in a c. US$600 million arbitration at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre concerning non-delivery pursuant to a long term LNG sale and purchase agreement.
• ICC arbitration proceedings (2017) - As counsel for the Respondent in an arbitration claim for breach of warranties concerning the sale of a business.
• Acting for a major utilities company in a €1.4bn claim against a joint venturer.
• Acting for the respondent in arbitration proceedings in Singapore, concerning satellite and media disputes. 
• Jivraj v. Hashwani (Supreme Court 2011)
  Appearing for the LCIA.  By judgments given on 27 July 2011 in Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40 the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and held that UK discrimination law did not apply to the selection or appointment of arbitrators.  In the judgments under appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal had held that the stipulation of a religious qualification for an arbitrator was unlawful unless justified under the discrimination legislation.  This decision caused consternation in the arbitration world because it implied that common provisions excluding arbitrators from appointment on the grounds that they shared a nationality with one of the parties might similarly fall foul of the discrimination legislation, casting doubt on the validity of many arbitration agreements and on the enforceability of awards made under them. 
• Acting for the respondent in a dispute concerning a $7.5bn petroleum joint venture.
• Nominated as co-arbitrator in a dispute concerning a price review notice issued in respect of liquefied natural gas.

"Laurence is hugely experienced and insightful, and works brilliantly with clients." (Banking and Finance, Chambers UK 2025)

Laurence advises regularly on all aspects of international and domestic banking and finance.  His work includes banking regulation, credit-crunch litigation, guarantees, bank debt recovery, claims for and against banks, restructurings, cheques and negotiable instruments, letters of credit and performance bonds, disputes arising out of CDOs, swaps and securitisations.  In 2009 he was voted Banking & Finance Silk of the Year by Chambers & Partners. 

• Hopcraft and another v Close Brothers Limited UKSC/2024/0157 - Representing Close Brothers in the Supreme Court appeal, defending group claims concerning commission on car purchase loans
• PJSC National Bank Trust v Mint [2023] EWHC 118 (Comm) - Laurence Rabinowitz KC acts for D1, D2, D3 and D4 in these high profile proceedings, which have already generated judgments addressing novel questions of law concerning (1) issue estoppel and res judicata: see [2022] EWHC 871 (Comm) (D2 and D3 were entirely successful following a 2-day hearing (February 2022) before Mr Justice Foxton); and (2) the UK’s sanctions regime following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The sanctions issues were the subject of a 4-day Commercial Court hearing in December 2022 and a 4-day appeal in the Court of Appeal in July 2023.
• Breeze and others v TSB Bank plc (Whistletree Group Litigation) - Advising TSB on the strategy and approach to be taken in relation to a threatened (now made) claim worth up to £800m by alleged “mortgage prisoners” holding Whistletree accounts at TSB.
  The claim raises complex issues of law and procedure. The legal points include a number of novel issues arising under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and issues of consumer law raising questions of the status of European jurisprudence post-Brexit. The procedural aspects include the management of group litigation, and the interaction of the claim with current and potential FCA processes.
• Fiesta Hotels and Resorts v Deutsche Bank - Acting for claimants. Palladium, The Claimants are each corporate entities that are part of the group of companies known as the Palladium Hotel Group. Estimated $500 million foreign exchange derivative dispute, including allegations of breach of tortious duty and in relation to capacity. 12-16 week trial is listed for Jan 2025
• BNP Paribas Trust Corp UK Ltd v Uro Property Holdings S.A. - Acted for Defendants, Santander, seeking summary judgment or to strike out the proceedings brought by the claimant to recover a Bond Make Whole Premium following the early repayment of a loan by the defendant.
• Banco Santander Totta v Carris - The first Financial List trial, in which he acted for the successful claimant in both the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal. 
• Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation as Manager and Administration of The New Zealand Superannuation Fund & Ors. -v- Novo Banco S.A.  (Supreme Court)
  Appeals have their origins in the collapse in 2014 of a substantial Portuguese bank, Banco Espírito Santo, S.A. ("BES"), and the measures taken by the Portuguese central bank, Banco de Portugal, to avert a potential financial crisis. https://www.reuters.com/article/portugal-novo-banco-investors-idUSL8N1523UQ . 
• PCP Capital Partners LLP and others v. Barclays Bank Plc (Commercial Court 2017) - Acting for Barclays Bank Plc in a substantial claim in damages brought by PCP 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.  There are parallel criminal proceedings brought by the Serious Fraud Office which also arise out of the 2008 capital raisings.  The Bank is not a defendant in those proceedings, but Barclays PLC – the Bank’s parent company – and four former senior Barclays employees are.  The criminal trial is due to start on 9 January 2019 with an estimated length of 12 to 16 weeks. Laurence appeared for the Bank in a successful application to stay the Commercial Court proceedings until late 2019.  See also http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/news/pcp-capital-partners-llp-and-others-v.-barclays-bank-plc
• Dominion DX PCC Ltd -v- Prudential International Assurance Ltd & Prudential International Assurance PLC (Chancery Division)
  Acting for Prudential Insurance Assurance plc and an Irish subsidiary of Prudential plc.  The Client was involved in a dispute with fund management company called Dominion Fund Management Ltd, a Guernsey Company.  The dispute concerned the application by Prudential of market value reductions (MVRs) on proposed surrenders by Dominion of Prudential with-profits bonds.
• The Sisters of Charity of Jesus & Mary & Ors. –v- Morgan Stanley 
  This dispute concerns a group of Sisters and other investors who bought Saturn notes estimated to be worth €20m linked to Dresdner Bank bonds in 2005 and 2006.  The matter concerned allegations that Morgan Stanley failed to redeem the debt when a mandatory redemption was triggered in early 2009 after the German bank’s credit rating was cut below an agreed point.
• JP Morgan -v- Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe
  Currently acting for JP Morgan who are in dispute with Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (the  Berlin Transport Authority).  The dispute relates to credit derivatives transactions under which there have been a series of defaults.  We have issued proceedings for declaratory relief.
• OFT -v- Abbey plc & Ors. ‘Bank charges’ [2009] UKSC 6
  This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair, but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair.
• The RBS Rights Issue litigation in which he acted for the institutional investors claiming over £1 billion in relation to the bank's emergency rights issue in 2008.
• The Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst & Young, Roger Bowley & Ors [2005] EWHC 722 (Comm)
  Acting for former non-executive directors of ELAS, in their successful defence to a claim brought by the Society.
• Mahonia Ltd & JP Morgan Chase v. West LB AG & Anr

"Laurence Rabinowitz KC is one of the best silks at the commercial Bar. He is fiercely intelligent and persuasive, and he is wonderful with clients and solicitors." (Civil Fraud, Chambers UK 2025)

• SKAT v. Solo Capital Partners LLP  - For High profile £1.5 billion claim against over 100 defendants arising out of an alleged international conspiracy to deceive the Danish tax authority through fraudulent representations. The case is believed to be one of the largest and most complex before the Commercial Court and raises a very large number of legal and factual issues, including related to sophisticated (and allegedly fraudulent) financial transactions involving stock lending and derivatives 
• Volkswagen Group Claim - ‘VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation’ - Possibly the largest ever group claims ever to come before the English courts. A £ multi-billion claim by over 100k purchasers of VW Group vehicles arising out of the well-known VW emissions scandal.
• NMC v EY
  For EY in relation to a claim for USD 2.5 billion by the holding company of a Gulf-based healthcare group, arising out of a fraud allegedly perpetrated by its majority shareholders and senior management
• Claimant Group v Glencore & Ors - Acting for Ivan Glasenberg a South African business executive and former chief executive officer of Glencore, one of the world's largest commodity trading and mining companies in the world. Glencore faces claims from more than a dozen global investors for damages, under section 90/90a Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Claims follow findings of bribery and corruption against the company.  A 10 week trial is listed for 5th October 2026. 
• 1Malaysia Development Berhad v International Petroleum Investment Company [2021] EWHC 2949 
  Acted for Abu Dhabi state owned investment funds IPIC and Aabar (with Craig Morrison KC and Nathaniel Bird), resisting a challenge under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to a multi-billion dollar LCIA arbitration award.
• Travelport Ltd & Ors. v. WEX Inc. in proceedings brought into being by the SARS
  Cov-2 pandemic, and which concerned a number of points relating to the proper construction of, and burden of proof in relation to, the definition of Material Adverse Effect contained in a Share Purchase Agreement.
• Autonomy Corporation Limited & Ors v Michael Lynch & Ors - One of the largest fraud cases of our generation a huge fraudulent misrepresentation claim in which Mr Justice Hildyard has found that the Hewlett-Packard claimants had "substantially succeeded", and reached clear conclusions on the civil liability of Dr Lynch and Mr Hussain for fraud under section 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, common law and the Misrepresentation Act 1967. For the Claimant companies within the HP group in the marquee proceedings seeking damages in excess of US$5 billion arising out of the multi-billion dollar acquisition of Autonomy by HP in 2011. The claims, involve factually complex allegations against former senior management of Autonomy for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. [2022] EWHC 1178 (Ch) – Hildyard J, held that, they had been induced into acquiring the company by fraudulent misrepresentations and dishonest statements and omissions in its published information
• Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) Limited -v- Dechert LLP
  Acting for ENRC in relation to potential professional negligence claim v Decherts following an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in relation to allegations of corruption by ENRC and Decherts work for ENRC in relation to that investigation. 
• Red Kite Management Limited & Ors v Barclays Bank PLC
  For Barclays with Orlando Gledhill KC and Adrian Beltrami KC, defending breach of confidence and LIBOR misrepresentation claims for US$860 million in the context of London Metal Exchange trading.
• Manning & Napier Fund Inc, Exeter Trust Company v Tesco PLC; Omers Administration Corporation v Tesco PLC 
  For a Defendant company, Tesco leading Conall Patton and Michael Watkins at One Essex Court in civil fraud claims arising out of Tesco’s historic c.£250 million profit overstatement in September 2014. The fraud claims are brought under s90A of FSMA and is the leading example of a statutory fraud claim under this provision currently before the English Courts. 
• Stanford International Bank v Proskauer Rose LLP (2017)
  Acting (with Niranjan Venkatesan and Ed Peel) for Proskauer Rose LLP in the High Court of Antigua and the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal in defending a c. $1 billion claim brought by the liquidators of Stanford International Bank for alleged breach of duty in failing to detect and report a Ponzi scheme. An application to set aside service out of the jurisdiction was heard in July 2017.
• 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.
• Trebuchet Finance Ltd -v- Merrill Lynch International Bank Ltd
  Acting for Trebuchet, the Claimant.  Representations were given to induce, and did induce, Trebuchet to enter into an agreement. Trebuchet relied on accuracy of representations in entering into the RPA.  Had Trebuchet (or, it is to be inferred, MLIB) known the Representation was false, the RPA would not have been signed.In fact, the Representation was false because the Offering Circular and the Investor Presentation were materially inaccurate and contained material misstatements and omissions.
• Enercon GmBH & Wobben Properties GmBH -v- Enercon 
  Acting for the Defendant (Enercon India Ltd) / EIL is a substantial Indian power company set up by Yogesh Mehra / German investors bought share of company from Mr Mehra / business became highly successful in the manufacture and sale of wind turbine generators / JV worked successfully between 1994 and 2006 / various disputes have subsequently arisen in relation to a 'technical know-how agreement' and an intellectual property licence agreement, as well as shareholders agreements.
• Boris Berezovsky –v- Roman Abramovich 
  In 2011 Berezovsky brought a civil case against Roman Abramovich in the High Court of Justice in London, accusing Abramovich of blackmail, breach of trust and breach of contract, and seeking over £3 billion in damages. This became the largest civil court case in British legal history.
• Acting for a large car company in potential claims being brought by shareholders / flows from potential takeover of another large car comapny and the ensuing regulatory investigation in Germany.

"Laurie is a titan of the law." (Commercial Dispute Resolution, Chambers UK 2025)

• Cobalt Data Centre 2 LLP v HMRC  [2024] UKSC 40 - Acting for Cobalt in the landmark case which will serve as a leading authority on contractual variations under common law. - The main issue concerned the test for determining when a change to a contract constitutes a variation of that contract (as opposed to a new contract). 
• Crociani v Crociani - Acting for BNP Paribas defending an appeal to the Privy Council from Jersey worth in excess of £100 million concerning the entitlements of children under a trust fund. BNP Paribas was a trustee at a time when the children’s grandmother took most of the trust assets. The case raises questions about the liability of a former trustee to reconstitute a traditional family trust with successive interests.
• PJSC National Bank Trust v Mint [2023] EWHC 118 (Comm) - Laurence Rabinowitz KC acts for D1, D2, D3 and D4 in these high profile proceedings, which have already generated judgments addressing novel questions of law concerning (1) issue estoppel and res judicata: see [2022] EWHC 871 (Comm) (D2 and D3 were entirely successful following a 2-day hearing (February 2022) before Mr Justice Foxton); and (2) the UK’s sanctions regime following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The sanctions issues were the subject of a 4-day Commercial Court hearing in December 2022 and a 4-day appeal in the Court of Appeal in July 2023.
• Contra v Bamford - [2022] EWHC 1857 (Comm) Acting for Mark Bamford defending claims for a success fee calculated as 1% of the value of the JCB Group of Companies, raising issues as to the implication of terms and the admissibility of pre-contractual negotiations.
• Various Claimants v. G4S Ltd (formerly G4S plc) [2021] EWHC 524 (Ch); [2022] EWHC 1081 (Ch); [2022] EWHC 1742 (Ch); [2022] EWHC 1719 (Ch); [2023] EWHC 2863 (Ch)
  Acting (with Simon Colton KC, Emma Jones and Harry Stratton) for G4S, the multinational security services company, defending shareholder claims arising out of alleged fraudulent misstatements in G4S’s annual reports. The claim raises issues concerning liability under section 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. In March 2021, Mann J struck out approximately 90% of the first claim, on a range of procedural grounds, following a successful application by G4S. In May 2022, Miles J upheld G4S’s arguments as to the interpretation of the ‘Person Discharging Managerial Responsibility’ (PDMR) in the context of s.90A, substantially narrowing the scope of the claimants’ available arguments at trial.
• The Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse International and Ors (The Tuna Bonds Case) - Acting for Credit Suisse in a claim for investors in loan assets purchased on the secondary markets in relation to the scandal-hit US$2bn “Proindicus” “tuna bond” loans made to the Republic of Mozambique which were arranged by Credit Suisse. The claims involve allegations that the loans were tainted by fraud, including through the payment of substantial multi million dollar bribes to Credit Suisse employees and former government officials. This is a major piece of fraud and banking litigation which has been widely covered in the press and led already to very substantial interlocutory hearings in connection with closely connected proceedings between other interested parties. 
•  Minister of Finance (Inc,) v. International Petroleum
  Investment Company (IPIC) - MoF is and was wholly owned by the Malaysian Government. 1MDB is a state-owned investment entity, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MoF. IPIC is an investment entity indirectly owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi. Aabar is wholly owned by IPIC.
• Jinxin Inc.v. ser Media Pte Ltd and Others [2022] EWHC 2431 (Comm) - Acting for Defendant 6 and Defendant 9 in defending claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy worth USD 661 million following the sale to Claimant of 65% of the shares in MP & Silva SA, formerly a global sports agency whose primary business is the acquisition and international resale of media rights for sporting events. The representations are alleged to have been made to Claimant in respect of inter alia the acquisition of the media rights to the Italian Serie A football matches and to the 2022 & 2026 FIFA World Cup for Italy, San Marino and the Vatican. Claimant seeks rescission of the SPA alternatively damages in the sum of USD 661 million. Split trial application refused; strike-out application granted
  
• Allianz Global Investors GmbH & others v G4S Limited (formerly known as G4S Plc) For the Defendant, G4S Limited (formerly Plc), the multi-national and well-known security services company, defending shareholder claims for in excess of £100 million arising out of alleged untrue and misleading statements in, and material omissions from, G4S’s published information. The claim raises issues concerning liability under section 90A and Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The case is part of the growing area of securities litigation and is being followed with interest by this part of the legal community. 
• BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 -

  For Sequana and the former directors of its subsidiary company in this landmark case in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court’s judgment is likely to become one of the leading company law authorities of this generation and considers a number of important questions of company law concerning the duties of directors.

• Travelport Ltd & Ors. v. WEX Inc. in proceedings brought into being by the SARS
  Cov-2 pandemic, and which concerned a number of points relating to the proper construction of, and burden of proof in relation to, the definition of Material Adverse Effect contained in a Share Purchase Agreement.
• SL Claimants and MLB Claimants v. Tesco plc [2020] EWHC 2106 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 3312 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 3315 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 2858 (Ch); and [2019] EWHC 109 (Ch) (Hildyard J).
  Acting (with Conall Patton KC and Michael Watkins) for Tesco plc defending high-profile claims against Tesco by certain shareholders seeking damages under section 90A and schedule 10A of FSMA 2000 arising out of the publication by Tesco in September 2014 of a historic profit overstatement. The litigation gave rise to a number of interlocutory judgments: SL Claimants and MLB Claimants v. Tesco plc [2020] EWHC 2106 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 3312 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 3315 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 2858 (Ch); and [2019] EWHC 109 (Ch).
• Arcadia Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth
  Acting (with Niranjan Venkatesan) in the Supreme Court  in a case concerning the jurisdictional characterisation of conspiracy, knowing receipt, dishonest assistance and breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Brussels Regulation (Recast) and the Lugano Convention.
• Société Générale v Goldas [2018] EWCA Civ 1093
  Acting (with Niranjan Venkatesan) for Société Générale in the Court of Appeal in a claim worth around $480 million. The issues before the Court of Appeal include the interpretation of CPR rule 6.15 and the law governing the enforcement of a cross-undertaking in damages.
• Mr Boris Berezovsky –v- Mr Roman Abramovich (Commercial Court) 
  In 2011 Berezovsky brought a civil case against Roman Abramovich in the High Court of Justice in London, accusing Abramovich of blackmail, breach of trust and breach of contract, and seeking over £3 billion in damages. This became the largest civil court case in British legal history
• Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc – ‘Buncefield’ [2009] EWHC 540 (Comm)
  Acting for Shell UK in its £100m claim against Total and HOSL for loss and damages arising out of the Buncefield terminal fire and explosion.
• Cooper Tire & Rubber Co v Shell Chemicals UK Ltd (Commercial Court), [2009] EWHC 2609 (Comm)
  A challenge to the English Court’s jurisdiction following proceedings subsequent to a finding of the European Commission that 13 companies were guilty of an infringement of the EC Treaty (Nice) Art. 81, in relation to the market for the supply of certain kinds of rubber used in car tyres.
• Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL (House of Lords), 30 July 2009
  The issues examined by the House of Lords, were (1) whether the language of CPR 71.2 purports to confer power to order examination of a foreign director of a foreign company, (2) whether it purports to confer power to order such examination in respect of foreign assets, (3) whether, if it does, it is ultra vires the rule-making power, (4) whether, if it does, there is any basis under CPR 6 for service upon Mr Khoury out of the jurisdiction in Greece, and (5) whether, if there is, the English courts should nonetheless give “primacy” or priority to use of the Evidence Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 , before contemplating such domestic means.
• JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt Des Offentlichen Rechts [2009] EWHC 1627 (Comm)
  Successfully resisting an application by a German public law institution, Berliner, which applied for an order pursuant to Regulation 44/2001 Art. 22(2) that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim brought against it by the respondent company JPM. JPM claimed from Berliner approximately $112 million said to be due under a commercial agreement pursuant to which Berliner sold to JPM protection against the credit risk of certain companies.
• Alessandro Benedetti, M Finance SA v Naguib Onsi Naguib Sawiris, April Holding, OS Holding, Cylo Investments Limited [2009] EWHC 1330 (Ch)
  Acting for the 1st and 4th Defendants in a claim for specific performance of an agreement entitling the Claimant to certain share capital, or alternatively claimed in equity for breaches of fiduciary duty or constructive trust, or claimed for a quantum meruit. A dispute arose as to the contribution that the Claimant had made to an acquisition and whether he was entitled to shares in a company used as an investment vehicle in the transactions, or to a further payment for his services beyond the €67 million he had already received under a brokerage agreement.

Laurence Rabinowitz has a significant oil, gas and power practice.  He regularly advises many of the major oil and gas companies directly, on all aspects of JOAs, TPAs, field and pipeline contracts, exploration and exploitation agreements, pre-emption rights and ‘take or pay’ contracts.

"Laurence has superb knowledge of law and he is very persuasive." (Energy and Natural Resources, Chambers UK 2025)

• C v. R - For the Claimant in a major oil and gas arbitration seeking damages of in excess of US$200m for deceit, negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. It was listed for a 3-week trial commencing 6 February 2023. The case settled after the first day of trial on terms favourable to the claimants. It gave rise to complex questions of fact law, involving expert evidence in multiple disciplines and the arbitral Tribunal consisted of two former Supreme Court Justices and a former member of the Court of Appeal.
• Siccar Point (Cayman) Holdco I Limited & Ors v. Ithaca Energy (UK) Limited & Anr -Acting for Ithaca Energy, a corporate group engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration, development and production. Pursuant to a sale and purchase agreement Siccar Point Energy Luxembourg SCA sold to Ithaca Energy. Hearing listed for 2026. 
• TAQA Bratani Ltd v Fujairah Oil and Gas UK LLC - These high-profile proceedings concern the Brae complex in the North Sea. The Cs and the D were parties to joint operating agreements and licences governing operations in the Brae complex. On 8 April 2022, Cs obtained an order from the Commercial Court (Charles Hollander KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) that the D’s interest in the Brae complex had been validly forfeited; and on 7 October 2022 Mr Justice Butcher ordered that certain forfeiture documents be executed on behalf of the D by a person nominated by the Court pursuant to s39(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
• R (oao ClientEarth) v The Financial Conduct Authority and Ithaca Energy plc - Acting for the interested party in these high-profile judicial review proceedings arising out of Ithaca’s successful listing on the London Stock Exchange in 2022 (the largest IPO of the year). ClientEarth seeks a declaration that the FCA’s decision to approve the prospectus was unlawful on the ground that Ithaca’s prospectus allegedly did contain adequate disclosure of climate-related risks. The case also raises complex points of law concerning the applicability of Aarhus costs protection to climate-related claims. Permission for judicial review was refused at a hearing on 13 December 2023.
• A v B; C v B
  Acted for the Claimants (leading Emma Jones at One Essex Court)) in related, but separate, UNCITRAL (US$ 60 million) and ICC (US$ 90 million), London seated arbitrations regarding the curtailment of supply under the Claimants’ respective gas supply agreements with a state enterprise with a virtual monopoly over natural gas supplies. The claims involved allegations of breach of contract and breach of the Unfair Competition Act, to which the pleaded defence was over 200 separate Force Majeure claims.
• HKIAC Proceedings
  Acted for a group of oil/gas companies including Chevron (leading Emma Jones of One Essex Court) in c. US$600 million arbitration proceedings before the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre concerning non-delivery pursuant to a long term LNG sale and purchase agreement.
• UNCITRAL arbitration
  Acting for a major international oil company in a dispute which relates to an alleged breach of a shareholders agreement for an oil and gas joint venture in Russia. By way of  relief, the claimants are seeking nominal damages ($1) and a number of declarations confirming the respondents’ breach
• ICC Arbitration
  Acting for a large energy provider, the Respondent in an ICC arbitration. The claimant is a Thai listed company which owns a portfolio of 12 electricity generating assets in Thailand and Laos.  The dispute concerns attempted share disposal and claims that our client did not use 'best endeavours' to complete a transaction under best endeavours obligations in the contract and was in breach of exclusivity obligations.
• British Gas Ltd v Amerada Hess Ltd (Court of Appeal), [2006] EWCA Civ 900
  Contract terms; Oil and gas production; Termination notices.
• Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch)
  Trespass to land; Pipelines; Oil extraction under claimant's land; Basis of assessment of damages.
• National Power Plc v. United Gas Co Ltd
• Total Gas Marketing Ltd v. ARCO British Ltd & Ors
• Conoco & Ors v. Philips
• Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK v. Abdul Fattah Khaled Al Bader & Ors
• Shell & Ors v. Enterprise Oil

• Allianz Global Investors GmbH & others v G4S Limited (formerly known as G4S Plc) For the Defendant, G4S Limited (formerly Plc), the multi-national and well-known security services company, defending shareholder claims for in excess of £100 million arising out of alleged untrue and misleading statements in, and material omissions from, G4S’s published information. The claim raises issues concerning liability under section 90A and Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The case is part of the growing area of securities litigation and is being followed with interest by this part of the legal community
• Breeze and others v TSB Bank plc (Whistletree Group Litigation) - Advising TSB on the strategy and approach to be taken in relation to a threatened (now made) claim worth up to £800m by alleged “mortgage prisoners” holding Whistletree accounts at TSB. The claim raises complex issues of law and procedure. The legal points include a number of novel issues arising under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and issues of consumer law raising questions of the status of European jurisprudence post-Brexit. The procedural aspects include the management of group litigation, and the interaction of the claim with current and potential FCA processes.
• Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) v Tesco Stores Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 978 - Advising Tesco in relation to the ultimately successful appeal from Ellenbogen J, who had granted a permanent injunction to prevent Tesco dismissing and re-engaging a significant number of employees in order to remove a substantial pay supplement known as “retained pay”. The terms governing their entitlement to retained pay were contained in a collective agreement with USDAW, they had been summarised in various documents addressed to union members and those members had voted to accept them. On the basis that the explanatory documents had stated that retained pay would be “guaranteed for life”, that it would remain in place for as long as they were employed by the employer in their current role, and that it could not be negotiated away by either the employer or the union, the Judge had held that the employees’ contracts of employment contained an implied term preventing Tesco from dismissing any employee in order to remove retained pay.
• Claimant Group v Glencore & Ors - Acting for Ivan Glasenberg a South African business executive and former chief executive officer of Glencore, one of the world's largest commodity trading and mining companies in the world. Glencore faces claims from more than a dozen global investors for damages, under section 90/90a Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Claims follow findings of bribery and corruption against the company. A 10 week trial is listed for 5th October 2026. 
•  "The RBS Rights Issue” litigation - Greenwood & ors v Goodwin & Ors - Substantial claims were brought by various claimant parties, including institutional investors as well as thousands of claimants as part of a GLO seeking to recover a total of c. £4 billion in respect of the RBS Rights Issue (in 2008). The key allegation was that the Rights Issue prospectus included misleading statements, untrue statements and/or omissions (in breach of Section 90 of the Financial Services and Markets Act). Almost certainly the largest, single piece of commercial litigation recently before the UK Courts and described as “the biggest banking case of the decade” by The Lawyer, the dispute involves a £4 billion claim arising out of the £12 billon rights issue.

• Commercial and Interregional Card Claims II v Visa & Others [2024] CAT 3 - Laurence Rabinowitz KC is acting for Visa, at the helm of a star-studded counsel team in multiparty claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

  These multi claims relate to the level of the Merchant Interchange Fee Visa and Mastercard have charged to merchants in respect of inter-regional card transactions and/or commercial card transactions. The case seeks compensation for businesses which were charged Multilateral Interchange Fees by their banks on Mastercard and Visa transactions. c. £10bn claim on behalf of 46m consumers

• Volkswagen Group Claim - ‘VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation’ Possibly the largest ever group claims ever to come before the English courts. A £ multi-billion claim by over 100k purchasers of VW Group vehicles arising out of the well-known VW emissions scandal.

‘…one of the leading barristers of his generation.  His broad commercial practice takes in a substantial amount of negligence cases and he is particularly noted for his expertise in handling accountancy claims.’ Chambers UK 

• Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc – ‘Buncefield’ [2009] EWHC 540 (Comm)
  Acting for Shell UK in its £100m claim against Total and HOSL for loss and damages arising out of the Buncefield terminal fire and explosion.
• Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Trustees (Bermuda) Ltd / Hamilton Investment Management Ltd v. Baring Asset Management
• Bank Austria v. Price Waterhouse
• Yeoman v. Warburgs & Linklaters
• Socpen v. UBS
• Atlantic Computers plc v. BZW & Ors
• G E Capital Corporate Finance Group v. Bankers Trust Company & Ors

• IGE v HMRC 
  A matter which dealt with equitable and common law rescission, the operation of s.36 of the Limitation Act and the scope of the rule in Young v Bristol Aeroplane (which allows the Court of Appeal to decline to follow otherwise binding authority in certain circumstances).
• Littlewoods –v- HMRC [2014] EWHC 868 (Ch); [2014] STC 1761 and [2015] EWCA Civ 515; and [2017] UKSC 70
  For Littlewoods (with Max Schlote) in the Supreme Court on 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.
• Franked Investment Income (FII) Group Litigation –v- HMRC
  The purpose of the litigation was to determine various questions of law arising from the tax treatment of dividends received by UK-resident companies from non-resident subsidiaries, as compared with the treatment of dividends paid and received within wholly UK-resident groups of companies. The provisions giving rise to these questions related to the system of advance corporation tax (“ACT”) and to the taxation of dividend income from non-resident sources under section 18 (Schedule D, Case V) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (“the ICTA”) (“the DV provisions”).
• The Investment Trust Companies -v- HMRC
  Acting for The Investment Trust Companies (ITC), closed end investment trusts who got investment management services from management companies, sued to recover overpaid VAT from the HMRC. The managers usually got paid by fees plus VAT. It was thought there was no exemption possible, and VAT was charged at a standard rate. But then the ECJ said in 2007 the services should have been exempt from VAT since 1 January 1990. The litigation had begun in 2004, and at that point the managers claimed VAT refunds from 2001 to 2004. The claims were not made for any earlier accounting periods because theValue Added Tax Act 1994 section 80(4) installed a three year limitation period. HMRC repaid net amounts (because s 80(2A) required a set off from deductions of input tax already made for supplying services). After Fleming (t/a Bodycraft) v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2008] UKHL 2, more refund claims were allowed going back to 4 December 1996. ITC claimed they had a remedy for restitution, that this claim was not excluded by the VATA 1994 section 80(7), and that EU law gave an effective right to reimbursement.
• Lookers plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Commissioners, [2009] UKUT 175 (TCC)
  Acting for one of five appellant motor traders, in conjoined appeals, appealing against a decision of the respondent commissioners not to pay compound interest on repayments of overpaid tax. The appellants carried on business as motor dealers and had all paid excess output tax on bonus payments paid by motor manufacturers and on the sales of demonstrator vehicles they had used for the purposes of their businesses. The excess tax was paid as a result of the United Kingdom's failure to implement provisions of Directive 77/388 correctly.
• Sempra Metals v. Inland Revenue, [2007] UKHL 34
  Successfully resisting an appeal by the IRC, against a decision ([2005] EWCA Civ 389, [2006] Q.B. 37) that the respondent company Sempra, was entitled to interest for the loss of use of money on a compound basis. Sempra had paid advance corporation tax in respect of certain dividends prematurely. The premature payment of such tax gave rise to a breach of Community law. Sempra's claim was in restitution, it being alleged that the money had been paid under a mistake.

Rail industry disputes

• GNER v. Strategic Rail Authority 
• Crosscountry Train Limited, West Coast Trains Limited & Virgin Rail Group Limited

• As Expert on English law on jurisdiction in US securities litigation involving Vivendi Universal.
• As Expert on English law in US proceedings arising from the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, between Canary Wharf Management Ltd and Heron Quays (HQ1) T1 Limited/ Heron Quays (HQ1) T2 Limited. He was deposed in those proceedings.
• As Expert on English law and procedure in proceedings between the State of Qatar and First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC/ Samba Financial Group SJSC. 
• As Expert on English law in US Court proceedings concerned with the Global Patent License Agreement between Ericsson and Apple.

• Kuwait Shipping v. UBS
• University of Keele v. Price Waterhouse
• Amicus Curiae in R v. Governor of Brockhill Prison: ex parte Evans (HL) and Turner v. Grovit (HL)