Call +44 207 306 0102 or contact us


Call: 1993    QC: 2017

+44 (0)20 7306

Civil Fraud

Max is a “well regarded” civil fraud practitioner whose financial background makes him an ideal choice for complicated asset tracing claims. He is recommended by both Chambers UK and The Legal 500 who refer to the fact that he has a “very quick mind” and is “a brilliant advocate; his advice is clear and straightforward”.

Some of his recent work includes:

  • Zoo International v Dreamsport & Ors. Max acts for the Defendants in two related actions that are being case-managed together. The Claimant claims payment as assignee of numerous invoices arising out of the supply of sportswear. It also seeks registration of Dreamsport’s register of members to register its alleged shareholding in Dreamsport. The various defences raised by the Defendants include allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation.
  • The Kings litigation. Max has acted for the corporate parties in this complex, on-going litigation involving numerous related actions, including a claim in fraud/breach of fiduciary duty, an order for sale of shares and a section 994 petition.
  • Max recently acted for a client seeking very substantial damages against one of the high street banks and other parties for their participation in a fraudulent scheme to pressure the client into selling his shares in a a large private company owned and controlled by him at an undervalue.
  • Max recently advised an individual claiming compensation from his bank for money fraudulently misappropriated from the client’s online bank account in respect of his claim against.
  • Brainbox Digital Limited v Backbord Media & Ors. Max acted for the Claimant in this claim for damages for breach of contract and/or restitution arising out of a contract between the Claimant and the Defendants for the supply to the Claimant of specified digital services. It was the Claimants case that the Defendants had obtained payment under the contract by fraud, Max applied for and obtained a without notice freezing and proprietary injunction. Permission to enforce these orders out of the jurisdiction was obtained and after further interlocutory skirmishing (including an application for security for costs and to fortify the Claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages).
  • Eminent Energy v Daxin Baltic. Max acted for the Claimant in this Commercial Court claim for damages and declarations arising out of the supply of Naphtha to the Claimant by the Defendant. The Defendant alleged fraud and conspiracy. Max obtained an urgent without notice injunction to prevent the Defendant from disposing of a quantity of Naphtha held at a storage facility in Latvia.
  • Nextam v Mughal. Max acted for the Claimant in his claim for breach of fiduciary duty/fraud against a former director. Max obtained a number of urgent interlocutory orders (including freezing and disclosure orders) before obtaining judgment for about £2 million. Max also represented the Claimant in its application to commit the Defendant to prison for contempt of Court. Following a 4 day hearing, Whipple J committed the Defendant to prison.
  • In the matter of African Safari Club Limited (in liquidation). Max acted for the liquidators in this claim against ex-directors for fraud/breach of fiduciary duty and compensation under sections 212 and 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
  • ICF v MistryMax acted for the Claimant in this claim for damages/equitable compensation against an ex-director of the claimant company. Max obtained a freezing injunction on very short notice in March 2016.
  • African Land Ltd v Haddow & others. Max acted for the Claimant in this high value action for fraud and breach of contract in relation to investment in plots of land in Sierra Leone. Max obtained a number of interlocutory orders on behalf of the Claimant including freezing injunction prior to the settlement of the case.