Thomas Beazley QC

Tom’s practice principally involves substantial commercial (including insurance and reinsurance) and financial services cases, frequently with a significant foreign or fraud element, in court, arbitration and regulatory proceedings. He is very familiar with the defence and prosecution of interim orders. He is known for his ability to deal with the detail, and broader picture, in large cases involving multiple difficult tactical as well as legal and factual problems, and to present them effectively in a range of courts and tribunals. He is frequently engaged in cases regarding the conduct of powerful, often non-English, individuals who for political or other reasons have fallen out with other powerful bodies, including governments.

General Commercial Litigation

• AHAB v Al-Sanea and others (2010)
  Tom acts for defendant Maan Al-Sanea, a major Saudi businessman, in a $9 billion claim alleging, amongst other things, fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty against Mr Al Sanea and many Cayman companies, advanced by the Saudi partnership AHAB in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. The matter is ongoing, but Tom successfully argued before the Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands for a stay of the proceedings in the Cayman Islands, pending determination of claims against Mr Al Sanea in Saudi Arabia. Tom also defended Mr Al Sanea on a contempt application. This case is of major interest in the Middle East.
• AIG and others v Kozeny and others (2009)
  Tom took over the representation of the claimants, major US entities and investors, in this large claim against a well-known figure in the financial world, Viktor Kozeny, in which the claimants alleged that they were defrauded of around $150 million through multi jurisdictional activity relating to the acquisition of privatisation vouchers issued in Azerbaijan. The legal issues included important question about the attribution of the knowledge of directors and agents to companies where wrongdoing is alleged. The case settled during trial of preliminary issues by the Commercial Court in London January 2009.
• The Rusal Litigation (2008)
  Tom acted for Rusal Aluminium, one of the world’s major aluminium companies, and related defendants, in various matters in the Commercial Court in London, and in commercial arbitrations, and in proceedings in the British Virgin Islands, relating to the affairs of the Tajik Aluminium plant, Tajikistan’s major economic asset. The matters included issues regarding jurisdiction, non-justiciability, state and sovereign immunity, the proper pleading of fraud and like claims against individuals, and the duties of solicitors.
• Weavering v Peterson (2010)
  Tom acts for the defendant Mr Peterson in a very large claim in the Chancery Division in London, in which the claimants allege, amongst other things, malpractice by the defendant as hedge fund manager and owner. The claim involves complex issues of financial services, and in particular hedge fund, practice.
• C v D (2010)
  Tom acts for a defendant in very substantial proceedings in the Chancery Division in London, being held in private, alleging wrongdoing in relation to the use and distribution of the assets of a wealthy individual. The case raises issues of fiduciary duty and the terms upon which assets were acquired and used in complex relations between wealthy individuals.
• Cherney and others v Neuman and others (2010)
  Tom acts for some of the defendants in a claim brought by a well-known oligarch against people who the oligarch alleges acted wrongfully in relation to certain property. The case is unusual in many ways: Tom successfully opposed an application by the claimants for a world-wide freezing order; the Court only granted a proprietary injunction and disclosure order; now there are cross allegations of contempt, and an application by defendants Tom represents to commit the first claimant to prison and to strike out the claim and/or the injunction for abuse of process by the claimants.
• Credit Suisse and another v Ansbacher (2010)
  Tom is acting for the claimants in a claim against a bank regarding an investment by the claimants which raises questions of the duties owed to an investor, and the responsibility of a bank for the acts of its directors and employees. Tom recently obtained an order which is important in relation to the role of third parties in commercial litigation.
• Apostolides V Orams (2010)
  Tom acted for the successful claimant in a very long and hard fought claim to establish the continuing rights of people who owned land in the northern area of Cyprus before the Turkish invasion to enforce judgments obtained by them in relation to such land in the Courts of the Republic of Cyprus in England and throughout the EU.  The case involved a reference to the (European) Court of Justice and detailed argument before the Court of Appeal. The case covered, amongst others, issues of Treaty interpretation, interpretation of European Regulations, private international law, and public policy on the European and domestic levels. The final appeal to the English Court of Appeal also involved an unsuccessful allegation by the defendants that the President of the European Court of Justice was apparently biased.
• Hunt v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz (2010)
  Tom acted for the claimant in a case which involves issues of state and head of state immunity, in circumstances where the head of state involved has died, and the acts were by the head of state’s alleged agents, and issues of justiciability.
• HSBC (Trustee) Ltd v Bank Nadra (2010)
  Tom is acting for the claimants in a case in the Commercial Court against a Ukrainian bank which raises issues of choice of law, as well as the proper interpretation and application of Ukrainian law.
• Secretary of State for Justice v Topland and others (2010)
  Tom is acting for the defendants in a claim alleging wrongdoing, including bribery, in relation to the sale and lease of a substantial property in London.
• A v B: confidential arbitration (2009)
  Tom acted for the successful claimant in a long-running commercial arbitration regarding the construction of the reinsurance policy and whether limits had been exceeded on Hurricane cover.
• X v Y (2008)
  Tom obtained summary judgment for a large pharmaceutical company against a salesman who had been bribed and who had orchestrated abuse of the company’s  rebate system.
• ACP Capital v IFR (2008)
  Tom acted for the claimants in a jurisdictional dispute in the Commercial Court in which he successfully argued that the defendants’ counterclaim should be stayed despite the advantages of having a “one stop shop” for arbitration or litigation.
• Jafari-Fini v Skillglass (2007)
  Tom acted in the Court of Appeal for the appellant, who had represented himself at first instance, in a case which is important for the law relating to the attribution of knowledge to companies, as well as issues relating to bribes. The appeal was unsuccessful, but the Court of Appeal was divided 2-1.
• Rhodia v Huntsman (2007)
  Tom acted for Rhodia in proceedings in the Commercial Court, and in Arbitration, relating to complex arrangements regarding a chemical business. The court case is important for the meaning of “reasonable endeavours” to obtain consent.
• Financial Services Compensation Scheme v GE Life Fund Management (2010)
  Tom acted for the Defendant in a large claim brought by the FSCS against GE Life in respect of alleged failures in the promotion of what are sometimes called Precipice Bonds. The case involves important issues regarding the classification of risk in financial products and the duties of product providers.
  

Civil Fraud

Descriptions of these cases are given above in General Commercial Litigation.

• AHAB v Al-Sanea and others
• AIG and others v Kozeny and others
• The Rusal Litigation
• Weavering v Peterson
• Cherney and others v Neuman and others
• Secretary of State for Justice v Topland and others
• X v Y
• Jafari-Fini v Skillglass
• The Republic of X v Y and others (2008)
  Tom acted in a case abroad for a major international financier who was a defendant in an action brought by the Government of the country alleging grave wrongdoing in the restructuring of the debts of the country. Other defendants included the former prime minister of the country.
• The Secretary of State for Health v Ranbaxy (2008)
  Tom acted for Ranbaxy in cases in which the Scottish and Irish health services alleged that Ranbaxy and others in the pharmaceutical industry had fixed the prices of antibiotics and anti ulcer drugs.

Earlier notable cases in this area include:

• The Prince Jefri litigation
• The Morgan Grenfell/Peter Young cases
• In re Q’s estate and the subsequent arbitration
• The Republic of Nauru’s claims against Australian solicitors Allen, Allen & Hemsley
• The Bank Bumiputra Hong Kong affair
• In re Oriental Credit Ltd
• The National Bank of Brunei affair
• Kleinwort Benson v Glasgow City Council
• HMRC v Optigen
• Glidepath v Thompson & others
• The News International v Clinger litigation
• Ansbacher v Binks Stern

Tom is a contributor in relation to FSA Investigations of fraud, in Montgomery and Ormerod on Fraud, and has published various articles on Private International Law and Financial Services, and was the joint author of the Report of the Bar Council and the Law Society to the Law Commission on Choice of Law in Tort and Delict.

Much of Tom’s work involves Private International Law, in which he is well known as a specialist. His expertise covers not only jurisdiction and choice of law, but also the enforcement of foreign judgments, and the interface between Public and Private International Law.

• Apostolides v Orams (2010)
  Tom acted for the successful claimant in a very long and hard fought claim to establish the continuing rights of people who owned land in the northern area of Cyprus before the Turkish invasion to enforce judgments obtained by them in relation to such land in the Courts of the Republic of Cyprus in England and throughout the EU. The case involved a reference to the (European) Court of Justice and detailed argument before the Court of Appeal. The case involved, amongst others, issues of Treaty interpretation, interpretation of European Regulations, private international law, and public policy on the European and domestic levels. The final appeal to the English Court of Appeal also involved an unsuccessful allegation by the defendants that the President of the European Court of Justice was apparently biased.
• AHAB v Al-Sanea and others (2010)
  Tom acts for defendant Maan Al-Sanea, a Saudi businessman,  in a $9 billion claim alleging, amongst other things, fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty against Mr Al Sanea and many Cayman companies, advanced by the Saudi partnership AHAB in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. The matter is ongoing, but Tom successfully argued before the Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands for a stay of the proceedings in the Cayman Islands, pending determination of claims against Mr Al Sanea in Saudi Arabia. This case is a cause célèbre in the Middle East.
• The Rusal Litigation (2008)
  Tom acted for Rusal Aluminium, one of the world’s major aluminium companies, and related defendants, in various matters in the Commercial Court in London, and in commercial arbitrations, and in proceedings in the British Virgin Islands, relating to the affairs of the Tajik Aluminium plant, Tajikistan’s major economic asset. The matters included issues regarding jurisdiction, non-justiciability, state and sovereign immunity, the proper pleading of fraud and like claims against individuals, and the duties of solicitors.
• ACP Capital v IFR (2008)
  Tom acted for the claimants in a jurisdictional dispute in the Commercial Court in which he successfully argued that the defendants’ counterclaim should be stayed despite the advantages of having a “one stop shop” for arbitration or litigation.
• Hunt v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz (2010)
  Tom acted for the claimant in a case which involves issues of state and head of state immunity, in circumstances where the head of state involved has died, and the acts were by the head of state’s alleged agents, and justiciability.
• HSBC (Trustee) Ltd v Bank Nadra
  Tom is acting for the claimants in a case in the Commercial Court against a Ukrainian bank which raises issues of choice of law, as well as the proper interpretation and application of Ukrainian law.
• C v D (2010)
  Tom acts for a defendant in very substantial proceedings in the Chancery Division in London, being held in private, alleging wrongdoing in relation to the use and distribution of the assets of a wealthy individual. The case raises issues of fiduciary duty and the terms upon which assets were acquired and used in complex relations on a world wide scale between wealthy individuals.

Earlier notable cases in this area include:

• Owens Bank v Bracco in the ECJ and the House of Lords
• Kleinwort Benson v Glasgow City Council in the ECJ and the House of Lords.
• Berezovsky v Michaels (Forbes Magazine) in the House of Lords
• HMRC v Optigen in the ECJ
• Marinari v Lloyd’s Bank in the ECJ
• Konkola Copper v Zambian State Insurance
• Continental Bank v Aeakos
• Kurz v Stella Musical

Tom has published various articles on Private International Law, and was the joint author of the Report of the Bar Council and the Law Society to the Law Commission on Choice of Law in Tort and Delict.

Before the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”), Tom conducted, and advised on, many of the largest disciplinary proceedings for the SROs (particularly the Securities and Futures Authority). Under the replacement regulatory regime of FSMA, Tom led some of the major cases for the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”). In recent times he has acted for, and advised, clients in their dealings with the FSA. Tom has acted for, and advised, banks in relation to banking issues, particularly those with a private international law dimension.

• Landsbanki (2010)
  Tom has acted for and advised Landsbanki (Icesave) in its dealings with the FSA relating to the Icelandic banking problems, including with regard to the application of EU Directives and Regulations, and the role of the FSA in relation to banks and financial institutions in the EU and EFTA.
• Financial Services Compensation Scheme v GE Life (2010)
  Tom acted for, and advised, GE Life in its defence of proceedings brought against it by the FSCS in relation to selling of so-called precipice bonds. The case involved analysis of the powers of the FSCS and the precipice and related bond market, and possible remedies for wrongdoing. The case, which settled recently, involved important issues regarding the classification of risk in financial products and the duties of product providers.
• HSBC (Trustee) Ltd v Bank Nadra (2010)
  Tom is acting for the claimants in a case in the Commercial Court against a Ukrainian bank, which raises issues of choice of law, as well as the proper interpretation and application of Ukrainian law; the issues include the role of the law of the place of incorporation in possible limitations on lending powers, and in possible invalidation of guarantees given by banks.
• Various Confidential cases
  Tom has acted for, and advised, many clients regarding financial services and banking matters, including the alleged carrying on of unauthorised business in the UK by banks and financial institutions, other alleged breaches of FSMA, the Principles and FSA Rules, money laundering, the provision of information to regulators domestically and internationally, claims to the Financial Ombudsman, and the proper conduct of mergers and takeovers, which require complete confidentiality.
• AIG and others v Kozeny (2009)
  Tom acted for AIG and the other investor claimants in a claim against a well known financier, in which the claimants alleged that they had been defrauded of most of their investment. The case, which settled during a trial of preliminary issues, raised important issues for the investment community, including as to attribution of knowledge to companies.
• Credit Suisse and another v Ansbacher (2010)
  Tom is acting for the claimants in a claim against a bank regarding an investment by the claimants which raises questions of the duties owed to an investor, and the responsibility of a bank for the acts of its directors and employees. Tom recently obtained an order which is important in relation to the role of third parties in commercial litigation.
• Mckenzie v Sharratt (2009)
  Tom acted for the claimant in a trial involving consideration of remuneration of agents and investors in a major acquisition and funding. The case settled at trial.
  The Split Capital Investment Trust matters
  Tom acted for, and advised, the FSA in relation to the Split Capital Investment Trust matters, which involved a very large investigation of a large market segment, and analysis of the regulatory implications and potential remedies for wrongdoing in the sector.
• The Republic of X v Y (2008)
  Tom acted in a case abroad for a major international financier who was a defendant in an action brought by the Government of the country alleging grave wrongdoing in the restructuring of the debts of the country.  Other defendants included the former prime minister of the country.

Earlier notable cases in this area include FSA cases against:

• Davidson
• Nomura and its traders in respect of arbitrage in Australia
• Reed and Murch
• BZW
• Dootson
• Dobb White

One of Tom’s principal specialities is civil and commercial cases with private/public international elements in national and foreign Courts and Tribunals. In the course of his recent practice he has, for example, acted and advised in relation to treaty interpretation; international law immunities and privileges, non-justiciability, jurisdiction and general principles of international law.

• Apostolides v Orams (2010)
  Tom was Leading Counsel in this complex, and politically charged, case which went to a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal in England, with Tom’s client being ultimately successful in both those Courts. Principal issues in the case included whether European law (the acquis communautaire) had to be applied by Courts throughout the European Union in relation to events and property situated in the Northern Area of Cyprus, or whether such application was suspended by the Treaty by which the Republic of Cyprus joined the European Union, or prohibited under International law. The outcome of the case depended on matters such as the proper interpretation of the Accession Treaty and its Annexes, on the status under International and European law of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, and on analysis of broad principles of International law, including the Namibia principle and principles regarding belligerent occupation.
• AHAB v Maan Al Sanea and others (2010)
  Tom is Leading Counsel in these multi-billion dollar cases, taking place in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere, which involve, amongst other issues, the extent to which national Courts can assert jurisdiction, including contempt jurisdiction, in relation to events and people in other states, where the latter State’s vital economic and political interests are engaged.
• In re a Bank (2008)
  Tom was Leading Counsel in a case involving attempts by State A to regulate and control a bank primarily based in State B, where the economic and political interests of State B are engaged. This case involves consideration of the proper ambit of state financial regulation in the international banking sector.
• Hunt v His Royal Highness Prince Abdul Aziz (2010)
  Tom acted for the claimant in a case which involves issues of state and head of state immunity, in circumstances where the head of state involved has died, and the acts were by the head of state’s alleged agents, and justiciability.
• The Rusal Cases (2008)
  Tom was Leading Counsel for Rusal Aluminium in very substantial cases both in the Commercial Court in England, and in the Courts of the British Virgin Islands, relating to arrangements for the production and sale of aluminium from Tajikistan. The case included, amongst other issues, important questions as to the non-justiciability in domestic courts of transactions of foreign sovereign states, Act of State, State Immunity, and the immunities and privileges of a Head of State.
• The Republic of X v Y (2008)
  Tom acted in a case abroad for a major international financier who was a defendant in an action brought by the Government of the country alleging grave wrongdoing in the restructuring of the debts of the country. Other defendants included the former prime minister of the country. Issues of Act of State, Head of State immunity and the like were involved.
• AIG and others v Kozeny and others (2009)
  Tom was Leading Counsel in this case in which a major issue involved analysis of the effect of the issue by a foreign state of vouchers supposedly giving interests in state enterprises, and the liability of actors in that process in other nations’ courts.
• Cases concerning the State of Brunei v Prince Jefri
  Over a period of years through to the early 2000s Tom acted for a Bruneian prince, Prince Jefri, in extensive disputes between the Prince and the authorities of Brunei, and others, in various jurisdictions. These matters involved extensive analysis of non-justiciability, State and Head of State Immunity, and other immunities.
  Komarek v Ramco Energy
  Tom was brought in to this case as Leading Counsel specifically to argue the international law elements of this libel case. The claim concerned the publication of allegedly defamatory words to Her Majesty’s Ambassador in Prague, and involved, amongst other international jurisdictional elements, the proper interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, diplomatic immunity more generally, and the inviolability of diplomatic and consular archives and communications, and how such matters should be treated in a domestic Court.
• International Cartel and Civil Fraud Cases
  Tom has acted and advised as Leading Counsel in a large number of international fraud and cartel cases often linked to Government interests. Such cases have involved wide ranging private international law issues and wider jurisdictional issues, as well as dealing with vital Governmental and political issues.

Earlier Cases in the European Court of Justice

Tom has acted as Leading Counsel in a number of other cases in the European Court of Justice dealing with the proper interpretation of international conventions and instruments and wider international principles, such as:

• Optigen Ltd v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise
• Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Glasgow City Council
• Marinari v Lloyds Bank Plc
• Owens Bank v Bracco

Tom has acted in a number of EU and Competition cases both domestically and in the (European) Court of Justice. He has dealt with cartel cases, as well as cases involving the proper interpretation of EU instruments.

• Apostolides v Orams (2010)
  Tom acted for the successful claimant in a very long and hard fought claim to establish the continuing rights of people who owned land in the northern are of Cyprus before the Turkish invasion to enforce judgments obtained by them in relation to such land in the Courts of the Republic of Cyprus in England and throughout the EU. The case involved a reference to the (European) Court of Justice and detailed argument before the Court of Appeal. The case involved, amongst others, issues of Treaty interpretation, interpretation of European Regulations, private international law, and public policy on the European and domestic levels. The final appeal to the English Court of Appeal also involved an unsuccessful allegation by the defendants that the President of the European Court of Justice was apparently biased.
  Optigen v HMCE
  Tom acted for successful appellants in a reference to the (European) Court of Justice in relation to the principles of EU Law, the proper interpretation of EU law relating to VAT, and whether transactions involved in alleged missing trader fraud were subject to VAT.
• Landsbanki  (2010)
  Tom has acted for and advised Landsbanki (Icesave) in its dealings with the FSA relating to the Icelandic banking problems, including with regard to the application of EU Directives and Regulations, and the role of the FSA in relation to banks and financial institutions in the EU and EFTA.
• The Secretary of State for Health v Ranbaxy (2008)
  Tom acted for Ranbaxy in cases in which the Scottish and Irish health services alleged that Ranbaxy and others in the pharmaceutical industry had fixed the prices of antibiotics and anti ulcer drugs.
• Viking Line v the ITF  (2008)
  Tom advised the Appellants in relation to a Court of Appeal hearing consequent on a decision of the ECJ in this matter. The case settled.
• Corus v Welsh Water
  Tom acted for Corus in a case involving allegations of breaches of competition law by Welsh Water, and seeking remedies for such breaches.
• Other Confidential Cases
  Tom has advised and acted in a number of other confidential cases involving alleged cartels and other breaches of domestic and EU competition law.

Tom continues to be instructed in insurance and reinsurance arbitrations (which are largely confidential), and sometimes in Court, mostly where they contain an international element.

• A v B: confidential arbitration (2008)
  Tom successfully acted for a well known insurance company against a reinsurer in an arbitration, which had two substantial hearings, on which the insurance company succeeded in its claim to recover in respect of reinsurance cover for hurricane damage. The case involved construction of the policies concerned, as well as the determination (including by expert and factual evidence) of the total quantum of hurricane losses in a particular year.
• Konkola Copper Mine v Zambian State Insurance Co (2006)
  In this major case Tom acted for the insured instructed by two firms of solicitors on a large insurance claim in respect of the collapse of the wall of a Zambian copper mine. The case involved serious jurisdictional issues, and the structure of insurance arrangements between Konkola and its then parent’s captive insurer, including important issues about Difference in Conditions cover and the meanings of landslip and collapse.
• Enterprise Oil v Strand (2006)
  Commercial court case involving not only important questions of insurance liability law, but also novel questions of Texas tort law and how the English Court should deal with settlement of foreign liability claims.

Tom acts regularly in commercial domestic and international arbitrations (most of which are confidential). He has also acted on Court applications relating to such arbitrations, including appeals.

• A v B: confidential arbitration (2008)
  Tom successfully acted for a well known insurance company against a reinsurer in an arbitration, which had two substantial hearings, on which the insurance company succeeded in its claim to recover in respect of reinsurance cover for hurricane damage. The case involved construction of the policies concerned, as well as the determination (including by expert and factual evidence) of the total quantum of hurricane losses in a particular year.
• Rusal arbitration (2009)
  Tom acted for Rusal in a confidential arbitration relating to the duties of solicitors in complex commercial cases.
• Rhodia arbitration  (2007)
  Tom acted for Rhodia in a confidential arbitration relating to the sale of a chemical works.
• Glidepath arbitration (2007)
  Tom acted for Glidepath in a long running commercial arbitration regarding alleged breaches of duty in the context of funding of an international venture.

• Phoenix v FIA
  Tom acted for the FIA in obtaining a stay and other relief from the Court on the basis of an arbitration clause.

Membership of professional bodies:

Combar