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.
Rachel is a commercial litigator and advises clients on complex, multi-jurisdictional disputes in court proceedings and international arbitration. She has particular experience in obtaining injunctive relief and in the cross-border enforcement of judgments and awards. Rachel is recognised in the current Legal 500 rankings as a “consummate professional” who can “sort the wheat from the chaff and distil complex issues into a brief and pithy synopsis that gets to the heart of the problem and leads to workable solutions”.
Prior to joining PCB Litigation in May 2018, Rachel was part of the commercial disputes team at a London city firm where she advised clients on complex commercial, fraud, regulatory, and insurance matters with a focus on international trade. Rachel qualified as a lawyer in England and Wales in 2013 and has experience of working in Athens and Piraeus. Rachel has an MA in Classics from Oriel College, Oxford.
What the directories say
In the 2020 edition of the Legal 500, Rachel was praised as ‘a good associate to manage a case’ and was described as someone who is ‘very easy to work with’.
Cases of note
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.
PCB acted for Mr Walid Giahmi in successfully challenging the jurisdiction of the English court. The case was one of a series of claims and threatened future claims against Mr Giahmi and a number of major Western banks, alleging that investments were made by the Libyan Investment Authority (“the LIA”) with those banks due to Mr Giahmi paying bribes to LIA employees. PCB persuaded the Court that the LIA had seriously breached its duty of full and frank disclosure when it obtained permission to serve him out of the jurisdiction, in particular because it had failed to draw the Court’s attention to the relevant test for limitation and the related evidence tending to show that the LIA could not satisfy that test. Indeed, the Court was persuaded that the LIA had no reasonable prospect of satisfying the test and the claims were therefore time-barred.