The SFO has hired Slaughter and May to act on the defence of two multi-million pound damages claims brought by Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz following the collapse of the investigation into the brothers last year.
The SFO confirmed that Slaughters has been instructed on the case, three months after Vincent Tchenguiz filed a £200m damages claim that is scheduled to be heard next January (4 December 2012). News of the instruction was first reported by the Financial Times.
Meanwhile, it has also emerged that 5 Essex Court’s Jeremy Johnson QC, a public law specialist, has been replaced as lead counsel for the SFO after the regulator decided it needed a commercial silk to lead the case.
Slaughters partner Jonathan Cotton is leading the firm’s team. Counsel for the SFO have not yet been confirmed.
Stephenson Harwood partner Sean Jeffrey is acting for Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees, the trustees of the Tchenguiz Family Trust, which filed the damages claim on Vincent Tchenguiz’s behalf. Jeffrey has instructed Debevoise & Plimpton Europe and Asia litigation chair Peter Goldsmith QC and Fountain Court Chambers’ Bankim Thanki QC and Rosalind Phelps.
BCL Burton Copeland founder Ian Burton and partner Richard Sallybanks have previously been acting for Robert Tchenguiz, instructing Matrix Chambers’ Ken Macdonald QC and Alex Bailin QC together with Cloth Fair Chambers’ Clare Sibson.
The damages claims follow the collapse of the SFO’s investigation into the brothers last year, in connection with the collapse of Icelandic bank Kaupthing (20 June 2012). The SFO was later criticised in a judicial review hearing into the failed investigation (31 July 2012).
Legal fees on the investigation surpassed £1.3m (9 January 2013). A host of high-profile silks and several law firms have been involved in the course of the investigation and subsequent litigation.
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2013 1:41 pm
So, the SFO at the expense of the public purse can run to defending itself with one of the most expensive law firms in the country, with likely a multi-million pound bill at the end of the process and QC's as they choose. Excellent.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2013 2:16 pm
Why haven't they saved some money by getting a legal aid firm to do it at legal aid rates?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2013 3:02 pm
@ previous anonymouses: presumably the SFO thinks that it might be able to escape a potential £300m bill by spending a bit more on a City firm and, one expects, some serious counsel. No use skimping on legal fees if you end up losing the case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2013 5:40 pm
3rd anon the point is about the use of public funds. Apparently your every day defendant only needs someone who is prepared to accept circa £50 per hour (or in the most complex cases) less than £150 per hour to argue with them yet when they are in trouble against a properly resourced defendant the govt will fund them to Slaughter's rates. They ought not to be able to have it both ways.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2013 6:18 pm
Interesting point if the cocktail for success in litigation is simply if you spend more on fees (and we're not talking here about just any "...a City firm...") you improve your chances of success - what does that say about access to justice? I thought the whole point of this case was a serious failure on the part of the SFO to actually think before it did anything....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnTheBaptist | 6-Mar-2013 6:57 pm
I hope the SFO get clobbered and they are taught a lesson. It won't happen though.
As the above anonymous posters have mentioned, they should only be allowed a legal aid funding. I know the chances of this happening are low but I hope the SFO's directors/execs are held personally liable for commissioning any unlawful activities.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment