Steven Elliott KC

• Acting for a Russian borrower in an LCIA arbitration, heard in 2024, resisting a claim for payment.
• Proceedings in Guernsey in which a Russian state-owned sovereign wealth fund claimed to terminate a limited liability partnership and recover the partnership assets from the general partner; the case was tried by the Royal Court in stages: Fonds Rusano Capital v CRGF [2021] GRC089; [2022] GRC039; [2022] GRC040; followed by a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal ([2023] GCA048); permission to appeal against which was refused by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 2024. That case is now in its concluding stages before the Royal Court of Guernsey.
• Acting for State Street Bank protecting contingent claims against various UK banks for reimbursement of withholding tax of more than €500 million that may be payable in Germany
• Acting in ad hoc arbitral proceedings concerning the division of a multi-billion dollar family business in Saudi Arabia and worldwide, with associated proceedings in Jersey and in Liechtenstein
• Vodafone v Ofcom at first instance [2020] QB 200 and on appeal [2020] QB 857; acting for EE claiming restitution of £83 million paid for spectrum licences under invalid regulations
• Acting for Aberdeen Standard Investments in an LCIA arbitration against Lloyds Bank concerning termination of an asset management mandate
• Acting in intended proceedings in the Cayman Islands and England concerning an attempt to force a division of multi-billion dollar interests amongst members of a wealthy Middle Eastern family through a winding up petition and other steps
• Acting for a defendant to a claim for dishonest assistance arising out of carbon emissions allowance trading said by the claimants to have been carried on pursuant to a €100 million missing trader VAT fraud: Bilta v RBS [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch) and on appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 680
• Acting in proceedings in the BVI and intended LCIA arbitrations concerning enforcement of option agreements relating to shares in a Russian smartphone company
• Acting in an LCIA arbitration, heard in 2017, involving a claim to enforce an introducing agent’s commission arising against the backdrop of the Lava Jato corruption investigations in Brazil
• Acting for an investment fund in Isle of Man proceedings concerning a £350 million claim against the promoters and former directors of the company alleging fraudulent mis-selling of their assets to the company (Hirco v Hiranandani); also acting in an associated LCIA Singapore arbitration, which was heard in 2015
• Acting in a Commercial Court dispute, tried in 2014, between the chairman and a former shareholder of a private Russian bank concerning a sale of shares in the bank said to have been procured by breach of trust: Kolyada v Yurov [2014] EWHC 2575 (Comm)
• Acting and advising in disputes between the promoters of, and the investors in, a number of troubled tax minimisation schemes, including film finance schemes in England and a whisky scheme in Australia
• Acting in an LCIA arbitration for an investment fund in a dispute with the fund's former manager involving allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and advising in relation to related proceedings brought by a co-investor in Mauritius
• Acting for the claimant in a landmark case concerning the measurement of damages: Parabola v MF Global [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 589 and [2011] QB 477 (CA)
• Acting for the claimant in Sempra Metals v IRC [2008] 1 AC 561, in which the House of Lords held that the English courts have a power to award compound interest in private law claims, overruling several of the House’s own decisions; described by the Court of Appeal as “historic"
• Acting for a group of hedge funds and investment houses suing an investment bank in relation to misrepresentations in a private placing memorandum

Steven Elliott KC has a longstanding interest in trusts law and disputes. Illustrative matters include:

• Crociani v Crociani in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Jersey Court of Appeal, the appeal raising issues about equitable compensation in the context of a traditional trust with successive interests
• Ocean Partners v Whyte, a dispute between the interests under a security trust relating to a copper mine in Botswana
• Giving expert evidence on behalf of Citibank in Russian litigation, the evidence concerning the nature of the trust constituted by a eurobond transaction
• Giving expert evidence on behalf of Privatbank in Ukrainian litigation, the evidence concerning the claims available to holders of loan participation notes
• Fonds Rusnano Capital v Molard [2019] GRC011 and in the Guernsey Court of Appeal [2019] GCA077, which involved the question whether a sole beneficiary of a discretionary trust can call for distribution of the trust assets under Saunders v Vauthier where the protector has a power to add further beneficiaries (a case now discussed in student texts internationally)
• Acting in a Commercial Court dispute, tried in 2014, between the chairman and a former shareholder of a private Russian bank concerning a sale of shares in the bank said to have been procured by breach of trust: Kolyada v Yurov [2014] EWHC 2575 (Comm)
• Advising a main UK bank on a group company’s liabilities in relation to a Guernsey unit trust
• Advising in relation to the proprietary interests of investors in a crypto-currency fund comprising part of the assets of the Three Arrows fund in Singapore

Steven Elliott KC has appeared for claimants in several of the leading cases in this area:

• Vodafone v Ofcom at first instance [2020] QB 200 and on appeal [2020] QB 857; acting for EE claiming restitution of £83 million paid for spectrum licences under invalid regulations; the case raises a fundamental question about the use of counter factual reasoning in the law of restitution
• Littlewoods Retail v HMRC at first instance [2009] STC 22, [2010] STC 207, [2014] STC 1761; in the Court of Justice Case C-591/10 [2012] STC 1714; in the Court of Appeal [2016] Ch 373; and in the Supreme Court [2018] AC 869, a case concerning restitution of compound interest amounting to £1.3 billion, raising complex issues of domestic and EU Law
• Investment Trust Companies v HMRC at trial [2012] STC 1150, [2013] STC 1129; and in the Court of Appeal [2015] STC 1280, involving restitution claims by end consumers of investment management services wrongly charged to VAT
• Sempra Metals v IRC [2008] 1 AC 561, in which the House of Lords held that the English courts have a power to award compound interest in private law claims, overruling several of the House’s own decisions; subsequently described by the Court of Appeal as “historic”
• Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group v IRC [2007] 1 AC 558, in which the House of Lords held that the taxpayer had a mistake-based restitution claim with the benefit of an extended limitation period

Steven Elliott KC’s cases often have financial and banking dimensions:

• Acting for Aberdeen Standard Investments in an LCIA arbitration against Lloyds Bank Plc concerning termination of an asset management mandate
• Giving expert evidence on behalf of a Russian party in an arbitration in Moscow (at which Steven was cross-examined), the evidence concerning English securities law
• Giving expert evidence on behalf of Citibank in Russian litigation, the evidence concerning the nature of the trust constituted by a eurobond transaction
• Giving expert evidence on behalf of Privatbank in Ukrainian litigation, the evidence concerning the claims available to holders of loan participation notes
• Acting for State Street Bank protecting contingent claims against various UK banks for reimbursement of withholding tax of more than €500 million that may be payable in Germany
• Acting for a defendant to a claim for dishonest assistance arising out of carbon emissions allowance trading said by the claimants to have been carried on pursuant to a €100 million missing trader VAT fraud: Bilta v RBS [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch) and on appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 680
• Acting for WestLB defending a claim brought by ICAP in respect of an unsettled trade in Venezuelan oil warrants
• Acting in a Commercial Court dispute, tried in 2014, between the chairman and a former shareholder of a private Russian bank concerning a sale of shares in the bank said to have been procured by breach of trust: Kolyada v Yurov [2014] EWHC 2575 (Comm)
• Acting for a group of hedge funds and investment houses suing an investment bank in relation to misrepresentations in a private placing memorandum
• Numerous cases concerning securities brokers including acting for the claimant in Parabola v MF Global [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 589 and [2011] QB 477 (CA)
• Acting for UBS resisting allegations of negligence in relation to an underperforming investment portfolio
• Acting for JP Morgan Chase enforcing a letter of credit said to have been procured by an accounting/securities fraud relating to commodity finance arrangements with Enron Corp: Mahonia v WestLB [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 911 and [2004] EWHC 1938 (Comm) (described by Chambers and Partners as a "tremendous win")

Civil fraud is a mainstay of Steven Elliott KC's practice.

• Acting for a defendant to a claim for dishonest assistance arising out of carbon emissions allowance trading said by the claimants to have been carried on pursuant to a €100 million missing trader VAT fraud: Bilta v RBS [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch) and on appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 680
• Acting in ad hoc arbitral proceedings concerning the division of a multi-billion dollar family business in Saudi Arabia and worldwide, with associated proceedings in Jersey and in Liechtenstein
• Proceedings in Guernsey in which a Russian state-owned sovereign wealth fund claimed to terminate a limited liability partnership on grounds of fraud and recover the partnership assets from the general partner; the case was tried by the Royal Court in stages: Fonds Rusano Capital v CRGF [2021] GRC089; [2022] GRC039; [2022] GRC040; followed by a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal ([2023] GCA048); permission to appeal against which was refused by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 2024. That case is now in its concluding stages before the Royal Court of Guernsey.
• Acting in the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the Guernsey Court of Appeal in Carlyle Capital Corporation v Conway, involving a claim that a judgment should be set aside for a fraud alleged to have been perpetrated by trial counsel
• Acting on behalf of the applicant husband in proceedings before the Family Court to set aside a financial remedies order for alleged fraud: AB v CD [2022] EWFC 116
• Acting in an LCIA arbitration, heard in 2017, involving a claim to enforce an introducing agent’s commission arising against the backdrop of the Lava Jato corruption investigations in Brazil
• Acting for an investment fund in Isle of Man proceedings concerning a £350 million claim against the promoters and former directors of the company alleging fraudulent misselling of their assets to the company (Hirco v Hiranandani); also acting in an associated LCIA Singapore arbitration, which was heard in 2015
• Acting in a Commercial Court dispute, tried in 2014, between the chairman and a former shareholder of a private Russian bank concerning a sale of shares in the bank said to have been procured by breach of trust: Kolyada v Yurov [2014] EWHC 2575 (Comm)
• Acting in an LCIA arbitration for an AIM listed investment fund in a dispute with the fund's former manager involving allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and advising in relation to related proceedings brought by a co-investor in Mauritius
• Acting for the claimant in a landmark claim against a broker concerning the measurement of damages in fraud: Parabola v MF Global [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 589 and [2011] QB 477 (CA)
• Acting in proceedings in the British Virgin Islands concerning the ownership and control of two investment funds, both sides alleging fraud.
• Acting for JP Morgan Chase enforcing a letter of credit said to have been procured by an accounting/securities fraud relating to commodity finance arrangements with Enron Corp: Mahonia v WestLB [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 911 and [2004] EWHC 1938 (Comm) (described by Chambers and Partners as a "tremendous win")