| Call 1992
Experience and Expertise
A significant proportion of Shantanu’s practice involves parties domiciled abroad as well as litigation and arbitration in foreign jurisdictions including Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Switzerland, Tanzania, various US states as well as Federal jurisdictions, the Caribbean, the Channel Islands, the Marshall Islands and other “offshore” jurisdictions. He is well used to dealing with matters of foreign law and procedure and regularly drafts documents for use in foreign litigation.
Cases & Work of Note
- He acts (in conjunction with lawyers at leading German and Swiss law firms) for a Turkish agent in various hotly contested arbitral and legal proceedings including:
- a successful 4-day challenge in the Commercial Court under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator (a leading English commercial silk) and who was due to conduct an arbitration in Istanbul in the following week – see ASES Havacilik Servis Ve Destek Hizmetleri A.S. v Delkor UK Limited  EWHC 3518 (Comm),  1 Lloyd’s Rep 254.
-  EWHC 3667 (Comm) – under CPR Part 62.1.5(b) the Court may permit serve of a claim form on a defendant out of the jurisdiction seeking an injunction under s 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 notwithstanding that the arbitration in support of which it is made has a foreign seat and there is no in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.
- arbitral proceedings in Switzerland (under Swiss law);
- demand guarantees subject to Turkish law and jurisdiction but restrained from payment by (English) injunction under s 44 Arbitration Act 1996.
- He acts for the claimant in prospective claims in England, the Marshall Islands and by arbitration in Switzerland to recover various investments.
- He acts for the defendant in an injunctive claim by a Swiss private bank in the Commercial Court in aid of Swiss criminal and civil proceedings for the recovery of monies said to have been paid by mistake under a complex financial instrument.
- He acted for a Russian airline in LCIA Arbitrations Nos 122159, 122160, 122161 involving claims under a number of aircraft leases.
- He advised the minority shareholders of a Guernsey-incorporated company on a c £10m fraud involving transfers of property and shares through a web of subsidiary companies and which involves conflict of laws – trying to bring a derivative claim in England but applying Guernsey company law, breaches of fiduciary duty, insolvency, property &c.
- He acted for BVI and Luxembourg companies defending two claims (totalling US$25m)
- in the Commercial Court Crastvell Trading Ltd v Bozel SA  EWHC 166 (Comm) – US$15m summary judgment application in the Commercial Court. (http://www.lawtel.com/UK/Searches/7/AC0123715);
- as well as drafting documents (in conjunction with local lawyers including Conyers Dill & Pearman) for use in hearings in associated proceedings
- in Florida (see Crastvell Trading Limited v Bozel LLC in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Civil Division on 13th January 2010),
- Luxembourg and
- BVI (Wellgate International Ltd v Crastvell Trading Ltd in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Commercial Division (BVI) – click here to see judgment of Bannister J on 16 December 2009.
- He advised the East African Development Bank in Blueline Enterprises Limited v East African Development Bank: proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal of Tanzania seeking to challenge a USD 63m arbitration award. Involving questions of limitation, the effect of the doctrine of stare decisis, bias, foreseeability, mitigation and other issues.
- He acted for the Dubai claimant in Peekay Intermark Limited v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd  2 Lloyd’s Rep 511 (Court of Appeal),  PNLR 42, Times June 10, 2005 (Comm Court) in a misrepresentation claim arising from investment in Russian GKOs and Russia’s 1998 foreign debt default. The decision in the Court of Appeal is one of the leading cases on the doctrine of contractual estoppel.
- In Inter-Tel Inc v OCIS plc  EWHC 2269 (QB),  All ER (D) 142 (Oct) – he acted for an Arizona corporation in a High Court claim in aid of proceedings in the US involving issues of conflict of laws – forum non conveniens – choice of law in tort – the application of Arizona state law in the English court – the fact that an injunction granted by the US Federal court would be unenforceable in England and Wales meant that the US court could not be the clearly more appropriate forum – the effect of a pending appeal to the US Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
- He has been instructed by a leading Singapore/East Asian firm to advise on various issues in major regional arbitrations including
- a dispute over an Indonesian plantation;
- a joint venture between a Swiss telecommunications company and a Singapore corporation.
- He advised a major US corporation on disputes under its agreements with a number of Singapore/Asia-Pacific agents.