For full information in relation to our response to COVID-19, please click here.

Call +44 207 306 0102 or contact us

Andrew Mold QC

Call: 2003    QC: 2020

+44 (0)20 7306 0102amold@wilberforce.co.uk

Commercial

Andrew has extensive experience of business and commercial litigation before a wide variety of courts and tribunals. His cases often involve allegations of fraud or breach of fiduciary duties and asset tracing. He is also regularly instructed in relation to company and partnership disputes, claims against directors or amongst shareholders as well as claims relating to investment vehicles.

Recent notable matters that Andrew has worked on include the following:

  • Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd.  Andrew appeared for the successful appellant before the Supreme Court in Takhar which is the leading case on the test for setting aside judgments on the grounds of fraud.  The Supreme Court decided that a litigant who seeks to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud does not need to show that he or she could not have discovered the fraud by reasonable diligence.
  • Re Torchlight Fund. Andrew was instructed by the general partner of a Cayman Islands investment fund to defend a petition to wind up the fund on the just and equitable basis. The litigation involved one of the longest trials in the Cayman Islands in recent times and McMillan J delivered a judgment running to almost 400 pages.
  • Rolle v Rolle. This was a case before the Privy Council on appeal from the Bahamas which raised the tricky legal issues of the validity of pre-incorporation contracts and the doctrine of escrow.
  • Acting in proceedings against a number of high-profile parties in relation to a wide ranging dispute involving claims for breach of confidence, unlawful means conspiracy, breach of contract and abuse of process.
  • Ackerman v Ackerman & Thornhill. Substantial proceedings brought to set aside the provisional report of an expert who determined the division of a large property empire between two sides of a family. The challenge was made on the grounds of bias, collusion and material departure from instructions.
  • Merchantbridge & Co v Safron General Partner 1. This case concerned proceedings brought by an investment adviser against the fund manager of a Cayman Islands-based hedge fund for breach of an investment advisory agreement. A third-party costs order was also obtained against the shareholders of the fund manager who were financing its defence.
  • Harley Street Capital v Tchigirinski and others. High Court litigation centring around an Anglo-Russian energy company involving claims of fraud, the rights of minority shareholders, derivative proceedings, service out, freezing injunctions and breach of fiduciary duties.
  • Hammonds v Danilunas and others. Acting for a former partner in a dispute with the law firm Hammonds over the repayment of alleged over-drawings on account of partnership profits which did not materialise.
  • Sagicor (Cayman) Ltd v Hurlstone and others. Proceedings before the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands in which claims of insurance fraud arising out of Hurricane Ivan were successfully defended. Further proceedings for an account of damages suffered as a result of a freezing injunction which had been in place for three years and for abuse of process followed the main action.
  • Reeves v Sprecher. Acting for one partner in a dispute over the ownership of a successful hedge fund business. Parallel proceedings were launched in England and St Kitts & Nevis involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation and the unfair redemption of shares.
  • Demco Investment and Commercial SA v S-E Banken Forsakring Holding Aktiebolag. Large scale arbitration under the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce relating to pensions misselling, the conduct of the Pensions Review and indemnities under a sale and purchase agreement.
  • Confidential proceedings in the Queen’s Bench Division to obtain an urgent injunction preventing a licensor from repudiating a worldwide licence agreement for the manufacture of clothing. Simultaneous proceedings were ongoing in Delaware and Illinois.