Here are a few of the cases lawyers from Zaiwalla & Co have been involved in recently. They are not easy nor are they straightforward. But we won. And our clients were delighted (and the bill wasn’t huge either).
Bank Mellat v EU Council (case ref: C-176/13)
Following the landmark decision in its favour from the UK Supreme Court, our client Bank Mellat, Iran’s largest private bank, has recently achieved a second stunning victory in the European Court of Justice, upholding the judgment of the General Court of the European Union that sanctions had been unlawfully imposed on it by the EU in 2010. Bank Mellat has been fighting a legal battle for several years against its inclusion on the EU and UK sanctions lists over alleged links to Tehran’s nuclear missile programme. Zaiwalla & Co continue to act for the bank in a US $ 4 billion damages claim against the UK government in a trial listed in October 2016.
Polonskiy v Alexander Dobrovinsky & Partners LLP and others
The firm acts for the Defendants in a claim brought before the High Court (Chancery Division) by a Russian oligarch for circa US$150 million alleging misrepresentation, deceit and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the sale of a majority interest in a Russian property and real estate business.
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury  EWHC 1258 (Comm), Flaux J,
In a judgment in the Commercial Court, Mr Justice Flaux found for our client Bank Mellat on three preliminary issues relating to Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, the application to certain of the Bank’s claim of the principle of reflective loss, and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR.
Bank Tejarat v Council of the European Union (case ref: T-176/12)
The firm successfully represented the second largest privatized commercial Bank of Iran in challenging the sanctions imposed on it by the Council of the European Union and continues to represent the Bank in challenging the decision of the Council to re-list the Bank in April 2015. Case T 176/12 and Case T-346/15
Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Arip  EWCA Civ 381
In one of the largest worldwide freezing injunction cases in the Commercial Court in 2013, the firm acted for the London-listed claimant Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc in a US $ 150 million claim against two former shareholders. In a judgment in 2014, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected Mr Arip’s appeal seeking to dismiss the £72 million worldwide freezing injunction imposed on him and another shareholder, Baglan Zhunus. The case also involved issues of limitation, reflective loss, and the duty of full and frank disclosure on without notice applications for worldwide freezing injunctions.
PEC Ltd v Asia Golden Rice Co. Ltd  EWHC 1583 (Comm)
In this case concerning a US$ 6.25 million arbitration award the firm acted for a Government of India company, PEC Ltd. The court considered whether an employee of an Indian Government Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) had authority to enter into a contract on behalf of the PSU. The court found that the two individuals did not have actual or apparent authority and that there was no arbitration agreement in existence. The case is referred to in the latest edition of Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency. In an earlier judgment, the court also clarified that under the GAFTA 125 Arbitration Rules a jurisdiction challenge must be made within 28 days of the first tier award irrespective of whether there was an appeal on other matters to the GAFTA Appeal Board.
Erdenet Mining Corporation v Government of Republic of Kazakhstan
An ongoing case, currently with the Court of Appeal on a preliminary point, in which Zaiwalla & Co. act for Erdenet Mining Corporation of Mongolia. Erdenet Mining Corporation is jointly owned by the Mongolian and Russian Governments. It also owns one of the largest mine in the world. Erdenet claims a sum of US$ 68 million from the Government of Kazakhstan. The Claim arises out of failure by Kazakhstan state-owned companies to process and deliver copper cathode to Erdenet pursuant to two contracts and Government of Kazakhstan’s promise to repay the sums owed to Erdenet following the liquidation of Kazakhstan state-owned companies.
Kaneria -v- Kaneria 
In this case in the High Court (Chancery Division), the firm acted for the fifth respondent in successfully resisting a petition for relief under s.994 of the Companies Act 2006 (unfair prejudice). The dispute concerned an alleged agreement in 1992 to transfer to the petitioner 10% of a company owning a 4 star London hotel. After a trial lasting over a period of five weeks, the court found that our client was not subject to an obligation, as a matter of equity, to give effect to an entitlement of the petitioner to receive 10% of her shares in the company. The case also involved issues of trusts, undue influence, mistake and misrepresentation.