is a specialist, conflict-free, distribute resolution practice with a total commitment to effective solutions
The quality of the skills dedicated to a case is far more important than the number of people. We provide an authoritative, highly knowledgeable, partner-led team of specialists who have considerable experience of working in frontier markets, international financial centres and offshore jurisdictions. We speak a number of languages.
Andrew is a commercial litigator with experience in a range of complex commercial disputes and investigations.
Andrew joined PCB Litigation in October 2019. Prior to joining, Andrew worked in the litigation team of one of New Zealand’s premier commercial law firms. He has acted on a variety of significant commercial matters, including regulatory and fraud investigations, contractual disputes, and bribery and corruption matters, as well as general commercial litigation. He has acted and appeared as a junior and sole counsel in the High Court of New Zealand, as well as participating in mediations and arbitral proceedings.
Andrew was admitted to the bar in New Zealand in 2016, and is enrolled as a Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. Andrew holds a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) and a Bachelor of Arts, with a double major in Music and Philosophy, from the University of Auckland.
Cases of note
The Commercial Court has today given judgment in favour of PCB’s client, Mr Dmitry Tsvetkov, who was defending a claim brought under a guarantee by his former business partner, Rustem Magdeev. At the centre of the case was a Graff diamond franchise, established by Mr Tsvetkov, and invested in by Mr Magdeev.
The case was unusual because whilst the claim was based on a written document, being the guarantee, the successful defence was based on establishing that the parties had entered into two oral agreements, pursuant to which various payments had been made by which the loan underlying the guarantee had been repaid.
The defence was successful because Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE was persuaded that the circumstances of this case were such “the documentary record cannot be regarded as entirely reliable” with the result that “less weight is placed on such documents as signed contracts than is usual in this Court”.
The Family Division extended the scope of a freezing injunction imposed on a company in matrimonial proceedings, where the company was found to be the husband's alter ego, and where the husband had sought to frustrate enforcement of a financial award in the wife's favour. The Court was persuaded to include the de facto directors of the company in a penal notice attached to the injunction so that committal proceedings could be brought against them in the event of non-compliance.
Ms Akhmedova was granted without notice freezing injunctions against two Liechtenstein trustees in circumstances where she had a good arguable case from which the court could infer that they had helped her husband put monetary assets out of her reach, as part of his wider strategy of evading enforcement of the £453.5 million judgment that she had been awarded in financial remedy proceedings.
In this judgment the Family Division demonstrated a willingness to assist a party to enforce a financial remedy order by allowing use of confidential documents where (i) there was evidence of deliberate attempts by the respondent to frustrate English court’s orders, and (ii) there was no evidence that the applicant acted unlawfully in accessing those confidential materials.
The judgment also supplemented Mr Justice Mostyn’s prior guidance in UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards) Fam 35 with suggestions derived from the standard search order in civil proceedings. These suggestions were aimed at resolving the issues that might arise where one party to litigation had illegitimately obtained confidential or privileged documentary material belonging to another party, in circumstances where the other party was not represented by a solicitor and/or was failing to engage with the proceedings, particularly as to when the need for further intervention of the court may be necessary.
Revisions were also subsequently made to the Family Division search order to give effect to the suggestions made in this judgment in order to align the Family Division Search Order more exactly with its civil counterpart in CPR PD 25A.