Call +44 207 306 0102 or contact us

Marcia Shekerdemian QC

Call: 1987    QC: 2015

+44 (0)20 7306


Marcia also has an established reputation in the fields of commercial dispute resolution and fraud.

Significant cases:

  • Zavarco Plc (2016 and ongoing) Marcia is representing a major shareholder (holder of 360,000,000 shares)  in an ongoing dispute over his voting rights in this PLC which controls a Malaysian telecoms network. The issues involve the construction of Section 594 of the Companies Act 2006 within the framework of share swap.
  • Mortgage Express v Batra and others (2016 and ongoing). Marcia is representing the claimants in proceedings for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution over 3 trading hotels and 71 individual hotel rooms in central London, with freeholds held by BVI companies.
  • Re X Ltd [2015] (anonymised following a confidential settlement). Marcia represented the Defendants in proceedings for the recovery of £7million following the sale of a group of oil companies and the assignment of mining rights to an oilfield in Tunisia.
  • M Sustainable Developments Ltd V Philip Wallis & others [2014] EWHC 2375 (Ch) (led by Lexa Hilliard QC): representing the claimant in this multi-million pound claim for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy.
  • Barclays Pharmaceuticals Ltd and ors v Waypharm LP, Antoine Mekni and ors [2013] EWHC 503 (Comm): the judgment in this case has become a key authority on the question whether the court’s permission is needed before a court appointed receiver can be sued for negligence/breach of duty. Marcia represented the receiver.
  • Re Ultraclass Ltd, sub nom Michael v Assemakis & Evans (2012). Marcia acted for the liquidator in this multi-million pound fraud proceedings arising out of a ‘land banking’ scam. Obtained freezing injunctions and their continuation without a requirement that the limited cross-undertaking in damages be fortified.
  • Trade Storage Ltd v Papanicola [2011] BCC 503. Marcia acted for the successful defendant. The issue for the Court was whether a defendant with a potential counterclaim could seek security for costs against an impecunious claimant.