TIM PENNY QC
Call: 1988 QC: 2016
+44 (0)20 7306 email@example.com
Tim has been recommended for many years by the legal directories for commercial litigation and commercial chancery litigation. His practice covers both domestic and international disputes, his clients benefiting from his extensive experience in areas such as financial services, shareholder and partnership disputes, intellectual property, IT, sport as well as media and entertainment.
Some of his recent cases and instructions include:
- Scully Royalty v RBI: CICA CoA, 30 December 2021, successfully upholding 1st instance decision to grant a WFO against the 2 Cayman ‘anchor’ defendants, with the CICA CoA imposing a cap of €153 million in place of an unlimited order.
- Wang v Darby  EWHC 3054 (Comm): November 2021: cryptocurrency dispute Involving a WFO and an issue as to whether the cryptoassets in question were held on trust.
- Wang v Darby  EWHC 3125 (Comm) November 2021: cryptocurrency dispute Involving a proprietary injunction and a question whether the defendant should be entitled to use funds caught by the injunction to fund his legal fees.
- Von Der Heydt Invest SA v Mex Clearing Limited & others BVIHC (COM) 2021/0073 and 2020/p215, 19 October 2021, Jack J: judgment upholding and continuing a WFO and dismissing an application to discharge a WFO granted In connection with a claim by third party Noteholders under Luxembourg Loan Notes to set aside a Tomlin Order for fraud and unlawful means conspiracy.
- Domestic & General Insurance PLC v Homeshield Direct Ltd  4 WLUK 278: April 2021: opposition to an application for pre-action disclosure in a matter involving allegations of fraud.
- Raiffeisen International Bank AG v Scully Royalty Ltd, Cayman Grand Court, Parker J, March 2021: successful opposition to jurisdiction applications issued by 2 of the 8 defendants in this long-running asset-stripping dispute in Cayman, acting for the claimant bank.
- Sebastian Holdings (acting by Court appointed receivers) v Sarek Holdings, Vik & others, Supreme Court of the Turks & Caicos islands, 11 February 2021: judgment on consequential issues including the ‘Barrell jurisdiction’ and costs, acting for court-appointed receivers.
- Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Shetty  EWHC 3692 (Comm): December 2020: application for the imposition of a limited confidentiality club on the 1st return date of a $1B WFO relating to the collapse of NMC Health PLC, acting on behalf of the second and third defendants.
- Akhmedova v Akhmedov:  EWHC 3005 (Fam),  EWHC 3006 (Fam), 28 October and 4 November 2020: without notice application for a search order and judgment on the return date in relation to this high value case.
- VTB Bank v Skurikhin  EWCA Civ 1337 (October 2020): Tim acted for the successful respondent in the English Court of Appeal in which the Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Commercial Court ( EWHC 1407 (Comm)) whereby it dismissed the application of a Liechtenstein Foundation to discharge a receivership order obtained by Tim in 2015. Tim has acted in this matter for the claimant, a Russian Bank, since 2012. The case concerns the enforcement of Russian judgments totalling c.£20m against assets in England, Italy and the BVI. The judgment notably applies principles relating to issue estoppel and Henderson v Henderson abuse of the process.
- Sebastian Holdings Inc. (acting by Court appointed receivers) v Sarek Holdings, Vik & others, Supreme Court of the Turks & Caicos islands, 4 September 2020: Tim acts for receivers appointed by the English Commercial Court, who by this judgment obtained recognition of their appointment and powers in the TCI with a view to bringing high value proceedings in the TCI against parties alleged to have acted unlawfully by receiving assets belonging to Sebastian Holdings Inc., which is a judgment debtor of Deutsche Bank in England and Wales.
- Raiffeisen International Bank AG v Scully Royalty Ltd, Cayman Grand Court, Parker J, September 2020: Tim obtained an anti-suit injunction to restrain a defendant in this Cayman litigation from pursuing parallel proceedings in Malta.
- August/September: instructed on a high value Cayman claim concerning alleged dissipation of assets by a group of companies headed by a Cayman topco.
- Raiffeisen International Bank AG v Scully Royalty Ltd, Cayman Grand Court, Parker J, 7 July 2020: Tim acts in this matter for the plaintiff, which claims that it is owed c €100m and that its guarantor was asset-stripped by the defendants. RBI asserts claims pursuant to the Cayman Fraudulent Dispositions Law 1989 (1996 Revision) and in the tort of unlawful means conspiracy. By this Judgment, Parker J held that RBI had established its right to injunctions against the Cayman defendants and to serve other defendants outside the Cayman jurisdiction.
- National Bank Trust v Yurov & Others  EWHC 100 (Comm), 23 January 2020,  EWHC 757 (Comm), 27 February 2020 Lengthy judgment of the Commercial Court Judge, and judgment on consequential issues, following a 9 week Commercial Court trial. Tim represented the 2nd and 5th Defendants in this case in which a Russian Bank claimed damages in the sum of c.US$1 Billion against its former director/shareholders arising out of breaches of duty arising under Russian law.
- VTB Bank v Taurus, Jack J, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, BVI Commercial Court, 23 January 2020: Judgment of the BVI Court on the defendant’s application to discharge an ex parte receivership, arising out of linked proceedings in England and Wales. This ongoing case involves claims by VTB Bank, the judgment creditor, that the judgment debtor is the beneficial owner of certain assets situate in the BVI.
- Akhmedova v Akhmedov  EWHC 1705 (Fam). In this high profile divorce case, Tim successfully applied on notice for freezing order relief to prevent assets being removed from Dubai in support of the applicant’s financial relief award of £500 million in the Family Division. The decision is notable for the finding of a good arguable case that individual directors of the corporate director of the respondent are to be treated as ‘de facto’ directors of the respondent.