Tetyana has been practicing law since 2006 (first, as a solicitor) and has a broad commercial and public law practice. She has appeared as sole advocate in multiple High Court trials and arbitrations as well as in appellate proceedings. As a native Russian and Ukrainian speaker, Tetyana is often involved in CIS disputes and is able to provide quick advice without the need for translations.
Tetyana was recognised as one of the ten “Stars at the Bar 2016” by Legal Week, where one solicitor labelled her as a “very efficient and very able lawyer”, saying that “her knowledge of Russian language was a great plus, and actually an important factor in instructing her. Her ability to read and comprehend Russian documents and to communicate with Russian witnesses was very much valued”. Of particular note is her skill in handling expert witnesses, working intensively with her client’s witnesses on one case, and ably demolishing the case of her opponent’s: one lawyer noted her good ability in understanding complex and technical matters, saying her “cross-examination of the opposing party’s expert was very confident”.
In 2015, Tetyana was appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel.
From 2017, Tetyana has been recommended by The Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners, reflecting her previous experience as a solicitor at Slaughter & May and as a Judicial Assistant in the UK Supreme Court.
“She has the most incredible work ethic and a phenomenal ability to absorb detail and assimilate facts.” “She is an invaluable presence on any case; she is hard-working, diligent, completely on top of documentation and has an excellent grasp of the crucial details of the case.” – (Chambers & Partners, 2017)
‘Particularly adept at absorbing huge amounts of detail’ – (The Legal 500, 2017)
“Exceptionally bright and driven.” “A former solicitor who knows what it is like to be in the trenches. She also brings intellectual rigour.” – (Chambers & Partners, 2018)
“Very clever, very capable and a very pleasant person to work with.”– (Chambers & Partners, 2019)
“She both defends and prosecutes SDT and FRC cases.” – (Legal 500, 2019)
“Stunningly intelligent and very disciplined.” – (Legal 500, 2019)
“A hard-working barrister who makes herself available.” – (Chambers & Partners, 2019)
Selected recent cases
International commercial arbitration
- ICC arbitration – successfully acting for one of the largest Russian banks in a mis-selling dispute brought by a high net worth individual, which involved issues of breach of contract, tort and breach of fiduciary duties.
- LCIA arbitration – acting (as part of a team led by David Foxton QC) in a high profile dispute between Mr Pinchuk and Mssr Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky concerning the ownership of a Ukrainian iron ore mining business. The case raised a multitude of legal issues ranging from company law to contractual interpretation, trusts and civil fraud.
- LCIA arbitration – acting in an arbitration arising out of a shareholder dispute concerning the ownership of a Russian mine.
- Union Marine Classification Services v The Government of Comoros – acting in an ad hoc arbitration raising issues of shipping law as well as interpretation of the arbitration agreement.
- LCIA arbitration – acting for the trustee defending a breach of contract claim on behalf of a consultant who previously worked for the trustee and bringing a counter-claim worth over €1 million.
- BPP Holdings Limited (and others) v HMRC – acting for HMRC in an ongoing contractual dispute concerning the issue of whether a settlement agreement is void for unilateral mistake.
- Bhardwaj v RBS  EWHC 340 – successfully acting for RBS in a 3 day County Court trial and the appeal to the High Court (Chancery Division) raising issues of contractual interpretation and certainty of a settlement agreement, as well as issues of property law and the agreement’s compliance with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
- Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v Zhunus  1 CLC 451 (led by Michael Brindle QC) – appearing in the Court of Appeal successfully resisting an application to discharge a freezing injunction obtained by a group of Kazakh companies against its former director and chief executive officer who were accused of conspiring in a complex USD 150 million fraud. The case raised difficult jurisdictional, legal and factual issues, including contribution as between two co-defendants, one of whom had settled with the claimant. In a ground-breaking decision the court held that freezing order could be granted in aid of a contribution notice.
- JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev  EWHC 4336 (led by Francis Tregear QC) – acting for Mr Pugachev on an application to dismiss a world-wide freezing injunction obtained by a Russian bank and a Russian state organisation responsible for conducting liquidations of credit institutions. Involved complicated issues of Russian as well as English law.
Banking and finance
- ICC arbitration – acting for a Russian Bank in an arbitration concerning the mis-selling of certain derivatives, involving issues of causation of loss in an unstable financial market as well as cross-examination of experts on complex issues of valuation of derivatives and causation of loss.
- Monks v National Westminster Bank plc  EWHC 2310 (Ch) – acting for the NatWest bank in a 4 day High Court trial arising out of a mortgage contracts disputes raising issues of banking law and practice as well as interpretation and bank’s compliance with its duties to consumers under the FCA Code of Conduct.
- Solomon v Barclays Bank plc  EWHC 1495 (Fam) (judgment delivered in private and not published) – successfully acting for Barclays Bank in a 5-day High Court trial concerning the allegedly forged transfer of property secured to the Bank. The case raised issues of trusts and property law, as well as banking law and practice.
- Patel v National Westminster Bank  EWCA Civ 332 – acted as sole counsel for the Bank in High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings relating to non-payment of a Kenyan cheque, raising issues of conflict of laws in the context of claims on a foreign cheque and liability for loss of chance.
- Patel v Vaid – acted (led Paul Sinclair QC) for the defendants in a seven day Chancery Court trial (settled on the fifth day of hearing) raising issues of principal’s liability for agent’s deceit, unlawful means conspiracy, Quistclose trusts, knowing receipt and restitution of payments induced by fraud or mistake.
- AHAB v Al Sanea – (led by Marcus Smith QC and Bridget Lucas QC) acted in civil fraud proceedings in the Cayman Islands raising complicated issues of tracing of assets through bank accounts.
Conflict of laws and jurisdiction
- Erdenet v Government of Kazakhstan  EWHC 299 (Comm) (led by Michael Brindle QC) – acting for one of the largest ore mining companies in Asia in a dispute with the Government of Kazakhstan regarding non-payment of a multi-million debt. The case involved the issue of when it would be appropriate to set aside service out of jurisdiction at an interlocutory stage when jurisdiction agreement was contained in an oral contract.
- JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev  EWHC 4336 (led by Francis Tregear QC) – an application to strike out all claims against Mr Pugachev in the English courts for lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdictional issues raised were complicated since different rules applied to different claims brought (including for subsidiary liability, tort and unjust enrichment under Russian law and insolvency law claims under Russian and English law). The Claimants ultimately conceded at the door of the court that all their claims in the English courts ought to be stayed.
- P.F. (International) Limited v FCA – acting for the FCA on an application by the firm to suspend the effect of FCA’s supervisory notice.
- R. (on the application of OJSC Rosneft Oil Co) v HM Treasury  EWHC 4002 – appearing on behalf of the Financial Conduct Authority to resist an urgent application by Rosneft to stay the coming into force of UK secondary legislation implementing EU sanctions on companies providing certain oil exploration services in Russia. Raised the issue of interpretation of the FCA guidance concerning the interpretation of certain terms in the EU regulations imposing sanctions on Russia.
- Bull v Gain Capital Holdings Inc  EWHC 539 (led by Richard Handyside QC) – acting for a US foreign exchange platform in a class action brought by UK investors in a collapsed UK-based investment services company seeking restitution or damages under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Raised complex legal issues of what amounts to a joint venture, when consumer remedies under FSMA become available and whether a restitutionary remedy is available to the consumers.
- Cavendish Moore v FSA – defending a firm in an FSA investigation and, thereafter, High Court proceedings concerning the firm’s participation in an allegedly unlawful collective investment scheme.
- Advising the FCA (led by Richard Coleman QC) on draft proposed regulatory rules and their application.
Competition law and public procurement
- Acted in a number of cases challenging the procurement of pharmaceuticals by the NHS in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Each claim resulted in the NHS abandoning the challenged competition and re-running the process.
Public law and judicial review
- R (on the application of the London Borough of Hillingdon and others) v Secretary of State for Transport (unreported) – acting for Arora Holdings Limited (an interested party) in a one day preliminary hearing in relation to the judicial review of the Airports National Policy Statement which contains the Government’s proposal for the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
- R (Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board  3 WLR 121,  EWCA Civ 421,  HRLR 29,  EWHC 28,  EWHC 3289 (led by Timothy Dutton QC) – acting for the Bar Standards Board in a judicial review challenge of the QASA scheme brought by the Criminal Bar. Appearing at all levels from the Divisional Court to the Supreme Court. The case raised complex EU law and domestic public law issues including independence of advocates and judiciary, proportionality, compliance with the EU provision of services regulations and directives, compliance with Art 6 ECHR right to fair trial.
- R. (on the application of OJSC Rosneft Oil Co) v HM Treasury  EWHC 4002 (Admin) – appearing on behalf of the Financial Conduct Authority to resist an urgent application by Rosneft to stay the coming into force of UK secondary legislation implementing EU sanctions on companies providing certain oil exploration services in Russia. Raised issues of EU law as well as domestic public law.
- SRA v Leigh Day (Case No. 11502-2016) (led by Patricia Robertson QC and Paul Gott QC) – successfully defending Leigh Day and the three individuals involved in the record seven week long trial in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Tetyana’s clients faced a total of 250 separate charges, all arising out of their representation of Iraqi clients alleging to have suffered personal injuries as a result of mistreatment by the British Army. Tetyana advised Leigh Day throughout all stages of the SRA’s investigation and prosecution.
- SRA v Barnett and Swift (Case No. 11249-2014; Barnett v SRA  EWHC 1160 (led by Timothy Dutton QC) – acting for the SRA in a successful prosecution of solicitors for misconduct (including dishonesty) arising out of the collapsed Axiom Legal Financing Fund. Successfully defending the SDT decision on appeal to the High Court.
- ACCA v Ryman – successfully defended the chartered accountant member of ACCA against 7 allegations of professional misconduct (including dishonesty) that were investigated by ACCA over a period of 5 years and arose out of the member’s conduct as a receiver of a law firm.
- Advising a magic circle law firm on its investigation and reporting obligations to the SRA arising out of a high profile judicial criticism of the firm’s handling of litigation.
- SRA v KA (Case No. 11176-2013) – represented the SRA (as sole counsel) in a test case concerning the scope of SRA’s territorial jurisdiction to bring disciplinary proceedings against non-SRA-regulated lawyers practicing in SRA-regulated firms. The SDT agreed with Tetyana’s client that, in light of the purpose of SRA’s regulatory powers, their scope existed to regulating all lawyers within an SRA-regulated entity provided such lawyers were “involved in a legal practice” of a regulated firm.
- LCIA arbitration – acting in shareholder dispute between two Cypriot companies raising issues of minority shareholder rights.
- Advising a company on availability of civil and regulatory actions against its director for breach of directors’ duties.
- BPP Holdings Limited (and others) v HMRC – acting for the HMRC in a costs dispute concerning the issue of whether a settlement agreement is void for unilateral mistake.
- R (Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board  EWCA Civ 421 – appeared (as sole counsel) in the Court of Appeal on the costs application for judicial review which included issues of a protective costs order and a costs cap.
Please click on the Recent Practice tab below for a more detailed overview of Tetyana’s practice in each practice area.