The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

XXIV Old Buildings

Chambers of Alan Steinfeld QC

24 OLD BUILDINGS, LINCOLN'S INN, LONDON, WC2A 3UP, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7691 2424
Fax:
Fax 0870 460 2178
DX:
307 LONDON CHANCERY LANE
Email:
Web:
www.xxiv.co.uk
Geneva, London

The Chambers

XXIV Old Buildings is a specialist commercial and chancery chambers based in London with an office in Geneva.  The members have an unrivalled reputation for their commercial and chancery work both internationally and domestically.

A leading set in Offshore; Private Client: Trusts and Probate; Commercial Litigation; Banking and Finance; Insolvency; Company and Partnership; Aviation;  Fraud: Civil; Charities; Professional Negligence, their strength and breadth of expertise can be demonstrated by the frequency of their appearance in courts of other jurisdictions, with members called to the Bars of Jersey, the BVI, Bermuda, St Vincents, the Cayman Islands, Dubai (DIFC), and other leading international financial centres such as the ADGM Abu Dhabi and the court in Astana (AIFC) in a judicial capacity. They are recognised as one of the most forward-thinking and innovative sets at the London Bar.

Work Undertaken

The calibre of XXIV Old Buildings‚Äô practice is evidenced by the cases in which members are routinely instructed undertaking litigation, arbitration and the provision of advice across the full range of commercial and chancery work, from UK commercial litigation and insolvency work to truly international litigation and arbitration involving large-scale business disputes, fraud and asset tracing, and cross-border insolvency and restructuring; and to ‚Äėtraditional‚Äô chancery matters such as private family trust and succession disputes. This broad base of expertise is supplemented by members‚Äô specialist experience in fields such as hedge funds/SIVs; financial derivatives (including spread betting/CFDs); and aviation. Members are also highly experienced arbitrators and mediators. Examples of our work are set out below:

Investec Trust v Glenalla Properties Ltd & Others: This claim by the liquidators for more than £180m against the former trustees of a Jersey trust raised complex issues relating to the rights of trust creditors to enforce their claims against trustees and trust assets, conflicts of laws, and unjust enrichment.

Société Générale v Goldas: A successful strike out of claims by the bank to recover gold bullion worth

$480m and an inquiry as to the damage caused by wrongly maintained freezing orders. The bank failed to persuade the court that its defective attempts at service should be treated as valid.

Property Alliance Group v The Royal Bank of Scotland: One of the most advanced LIBOR fixing cases before the English CoA in 2018. The case gave rise to interesting interlocutory decisions relating to disclo- sure and privilege in the context of financial services.

Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited (in liquidation) & Others v Conway & Others: A $2 billion claim arising from a collapsed investment fund incorporated in Guernsey. Judgment handed down in September 2017 dismissed all claims against the defendants. An appeal to the Guernsey Court of Appeal has since been dismissed and It is expected that there will now be an appeal to the Privy Council.

Perry v Lopag Trust Reg and Ors: A multi-jurisdictional dispute involving allegations of malpractice against a major Swiss bank, international litigation to recover assets on behalf of members of the family with proceedings in England, the Cayman Islands, the BVI, Liechtenstein, Curacao and Delaware.

Re X Trusts: One of the largest and most fiercely fought commercial chancery disputes of 2018. Counsel appeared for opposing sides in the Supreme Court of Bermuda in an application by one group of beneficia- ries to remove the trustees of a trust structure said to be worth in the region of £5 billion.

Akhmedova v Akhmedov: High-profile claims to enforce judgment in the sum of £453million (the high- est divorce order made in the Family Division). Enforcement proceedings issued in the DIFC in support of the English order.

  • Practice Management & Chambers Administration: 13

Above material supplied by XXIV Old Buildings (Chambers of Alan Steinfeld QC).

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‚Äėcentre of life test‚Äô in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of¬† ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan ¬† [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the ‚ÄúRegulations‚ÄĚ). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess ¬†Surinder Singh ¬†cases that appear before them.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a¬† sole representative visa ¬†is not ‚Äúa¬† majority shareholder in the overseas business‚ÄĚ.
  • Immigration Skills Charge - A Guide for Employers

    As a Sponsor, you may be required to pay the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) each time you sponsor a migrant in the  Tier 2 General  or  Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Long-term Staff  subcategory.
  • 5 FAQS about paragraph 320(11)

    In applications for entry clearance where the applicant has a negative immigration history in the UK, the application may be refused under the general grounds for refusal, which are found in part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Where an applicant has ¬†‚Äėpreviously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules‚Äô,¬† the application could be refused under paragraph 320(11). In this post we look at five frequently asked questions about paragraph 320(11).¬†
  • Multiple nationality and multiple citizenship (including dual nationality and dual citizenship)

    British nationality law permits multiple nationality and multiple citizenship, including dual nationality and dual citizenship.
  • Applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the Exceptional Talent or Promise Category

    The  Exceptional Talent  and Exceptional Promise categories are for individuals who are recognised leaders or emerging leaders in their field of expertise. There are a number of endorsing bodies for lots of different fields of work, including  artists and musicians ,  architects ,  digital experts ,  scientists  and  academics . While there isn’t an endorsing body for every expert, the growing list means that many individuals could enjoy the flexibility that this category has to offer. 
  • PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS ‚Äď CIVIL AND CRIMINAL

    Syedur Rahmanconsiders the factors that determine when civil proceedings can go ahead before,or at the same time as, criminal proceedings relating to the same circumstances.
  • Rights of appeal after the Immigration Act 2014

    The Immigration Act 2014 (‚Äúthe 2014 Act‚ÄĚ) reduced the circumstances in which the refusal of an immigration application will give rise to a right of appeal.¬†The¬† explanatory notes ¬†to the 2014 Act state that the Act was intended to restructure rights of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. Previously, a right of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal existed against any of the 14 different immigration decisions listed in s.82 of the¬† Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ¬†(‚Äúthe 2002 Act‚ÄĚ). As explained below, whether or not the refusal of an immigration application currently generates a right of appeal depends on the subject matter of the application rather than its categorisation.