Jon’s practice focuses on complex, high-value litigation for financial institutions, corporate clients, high net-worth individuals and insolvency practitioners. Since joining PCB he has been involved in multi-jurisdictional asset tracing cases including obtaining freezing orders in England and various European jurisdictions, a ground-breaking Search Order against a respondent against whom there is no cause of action, and disclosure orders against third parties in England and the US. Jon also has particular experience in contentious insolvency, including in relation to cross-border recognition.
Jon was named by one legal publication as its ‘Lawyer in the News’ for obtaining a rare maximum two year prison sentence for contempt of Court. Having authored numerous articles for publications, he is also a member of Lexis PSL’s Case Analysis Expert Panel on Dispute Resolution, and has been recommended by Legal500 for banking litigation. Prior to joining PCB Litigation, Jon spent ten years at a global law firm and his work was highly commended in the Financial Times 2012 Special Report, Innovative Lawyers.
Cases of note
PCB acted for the claimant bank in seeking to commit the defendants for contempt of court by failing to disclose assets in breach of court orders. The defendants did not attend the hearing and the court proceeded in their absence. In view of their deliberate decision not to attend the hearing so that they could be cross-examined, the veracity of their account could not be tested and the court was entitled to conclude that it was implausible. The bank established to the criminal standard of proof that Mr Chernyakov had deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the court's order to produce statements and had given false evidence on affidavit with the intention of interfering with the course of justice. There was no doubt that that breach was in order to hide assets from the bank. The Court also found there was a deliberate and intentional breach of the orders made against Ms Erokhova. The maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment was imposed on Mr Chernyakov. Although she had had a 10-month-old child, Ms Erokhova was sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
PCB acted for the claimants in what is believed to be the first reported judgment regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to grant a search order against a third party. PCB had obtained a third party disclosure order against the respondent in respect of documents relevant to enforcement proceedings against the defendant. The disclosure provided led the claimants to believe that there had been serious non-compliance and that the respondent had been complicit in the production by the defendant of forged evidence. Accordingly PCB sought and obtained a search order against the respondent on the basis that the court had jurisdiction to make such an order (a point that has apparently not been considered by the Court in any previous case). The respondent sought to argue that (i) such an order could not be granted after judgment against the defendant, alternatively (ii) the Court could not grant such an order wider than the terms of the third party disclosure order. The court rejected both grounds and upheld the search order. The court also granted permission to use documents obtained from the search order for purposes of committal proceedings against the defendant and the respondent.
PCB acted for the claimant bank seeking to enforce Russian judgments in the sum of approximately £150m against the defendant. A worldwide freezing order had been obtained by PCB and we were able to demonstrate that the asset disclosure provided had been unsatisfactory. Applying the principles in Jenington v Assaubayev (another successful PCB case on cross-examination), the Court concluded that this was an appropriate case for the defendant to be cross-examined on his asset disclosure.
PCB acted for the second defendant to a claim to enforce a charge granted over a house. The claim was defended on the basis that the charge amounted to a regulated mortgage contract which the claimant was not licensed to provide, that the charge was void under s284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and that it had been procured by undue influence and that the house was in any event held on trust for the defendants’ daughter. The second defendant counterclaimed for a declaration that the charge was unenforceable, void or voidable and for it to be set aside. The claimant failed to file a defence to the counterclaim and judgment in default was granted, setting aside the charge and declaring it void. PCB successfully opposed an application to set aside the default judgment.