Andrew de Mestre KC

A significant part of Andrew’s caseload is commercial litigation and advice. Among his current instructions or recent instructions are:

• Acting for Banca Generali SpA, an Italian private bank, in connection with four securitisations of export finance related assets worth over €300 million. Andrew has appeared as lead advocate in two successful Part 8 proceedings brought by Banca Generali (i) to obtain detailed information about the nature of the assets held within the securitisations: Banca Generali SpA v CFE (Suisse) SA & Anor [2022] EWHC 1450 and (ii) to replace an important agent within the securitisation structure: Banca Generali SpA v Sovereign Credit Opportunities SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 1732 and 2073 (Ch), upheld on appeal at [2024] EWCA Civ 886.
• Acting for Barclays Bank Plc against Fresh Thinking Group Limited & Ors in high value conspiracy and unjust enrichment proceedings against a corporate group and its shareholders and directors. Andrew obtained without notice worldwide freezing orders against the defendants in 2022 and acts in both the proceedings (which will come to trial in 2025) and contempt proceedings against certain of the individual defendants (which were tried in the summer of 2024).
• Acting for Serco Group Plc in defending proceedings brought by investors under FSMA s.90A and Sch. 10 alleging that misleading statements were made in or material was dishonestly omitted from the Plc’s published information. The proceedings settled during the trial in the summer of 2024.
• Acting for a major Middle Eastern bank in arbitral proceedings concerning the issue of letters of credit for up to $50 million. The evidential hearing took place in November 2023.
• Defending a leading provider of foreign exchange and seller of bank notes in proceedings brought against it. The proceedings concerned, amongst other things, the extent of the Quincecare duty and its application outside of a banker/customer relationship.

Other notable instructions include:

• Travelport Ltd & Ors v WEX Inc [2020] EWHC 2670: Acting (with Richard Hill KC, Sa’ad Hossein KC, Lara Hassell-Hart and others) for the eNett claimants in the expedited trial of preliminary issues in proceedings concerning the interpretation of a complex material adverse change clause in the purchase for $1.7 billion of two related travel payments companies. The preliminary issues were tried over 7 days in September 2020, some 4 months after the claims were issued. The proceedings settled in December 2020 before any appeal or further proceedings were heard.
• Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2019] UKSC 50 on appeal from [2018] 1 WLR 2777 (CA) and [2017] EWHC 257 (Rose J): Acting (with Robert Miles QC (now Miles J) at first instance and in the Court of Appeal; and with Jonathan Crow KC in the Supreme Court) for the successful claimant, a Cayman company, in proceedings to recover US$204 million which was wrongly paid away by the defendant, a Japanese broker. The case raised complex issues concerning the application of a bank or broker’s duty to take care when making a payment on behalf of a client and dishonest assistance. It also considered the law relating to attribution and illegality which have developed rapidly over recent years and was one of the first cases to apply the test for illegality developed by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza. The proceedings, which were transferred to the Financial List, were tried before Rose J over 4 weeks in November – December 2016. Judgment was given in the claimant’s favour for some $152 million plus interest in February 2017 and was upheld by the Court of Appeal in February 2018 and the Supreme Court in October 2019.
• Liquidators of Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA v Apax Partners LLP & Ors: Acting (with Robert Miles QC (now Miles J)) for the Apax Respondents in a claim by the liquidators of Hellas II seeking recovery of sums approaching €1 billion. The proceedings concerned a €multi-billion refinancing of the Hellas telecommunications group in December 2006. The proceedings contained allegations that the refinancing was a transaction defrauding creditors under s.423 of the Insolvency Act. After 4 days (of what was listed to be a 6 week trial), the Claimants abandoned the proceedings and, as a result, were ordered to pay indemnity costs: [2018] EWHC 2732 (Ch).
• Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA (negligence misstatement proceedings) [2018] UKSC 43, [2018] 1 WLR 4041 upholding [2016] EWCA Civ 457, [2016] 1 WLR 3169 on appeal from [2014] EWHC 2613 (QB), [2015] LLR 171: Acting for an Italian bank in proceedings concerning a reference alleged to have been given by the Bank to a gaming club in London. The proceedings concerned, amongst other things, the existence and scope of a bank’s duty of care to an undisclosed principal where the reference was provided to an agent, causation and quantum of loss. The bank established in the Court of Appeal that it owed no duty to the club as undisclosed principal and this was upheld by the Supreme Court in July 2018.
• Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA (deceit proceedings) [2020] EWHC 784; [2019] EWHC 778. Andrew acted (as lead advocate) in a second set of proceedings arising out of the reference referred to above, this time alleging that the reference had been given deceitfully. The trial of these proceedings (including evidence via video link from Italy) took place remotely in March 2020 in what was one of the first remote High Court trials necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. The case settled before judgment.

A number of Andrew’s recent instructions in the field of commercial litigation involve international arbitral proceedings and are described more fully in the International Arbitration section below.

Andrew has extensive experience in commercial/chancery litigation and advice including fraud and asset recovery, and the use of trusts in commercial transactions. Among his current instructions are:

• Acting for Barclays Bank Plc in high value asset recovery proceedings as described in the commercial dispute resolution section above.
• Acting for the liquidators of a group of Cypriot companies in proceedings to recover €500 million+ from the companies’ directors and corporate service providers.
• Acting for the trustees of a family trust in a successful application to obtain information about the underlying operations of trust assets including private equity investments: Shure & Anor v Capvest Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 507.
• Madison Pacific Trust Ltd v SquareTwo Capital Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2605: Advising and acting (as lead advocate) for a corporate trust company in proceedings seeking the approval by the Court of momentous decisions made by the trustee to deal with the existence of a significant body of unknown holders of bearer bonds. The Court accepted Andrew’s submissions as to the proper interpretation of the trust deeds and approved the decisions of the trustee.
• Global Energy Horizons Corporation v Gray [2020] EWCA Civ 1668 and [2021] EWHC on appeal from [2015] EWHC 2232: Acting (as lead advocate in the Court of Appeal and with Orlando Fraser QC and James Knott at first instance) for the claimant in relation to an account of profits ordered to be provided by a defendant for his breach of fiduciary duty in respect of an opportunity to develop technology for the enhanced extraction of oil and gas. The proceedings initially came to trial over 5 weeks in April-May 2015 during which Andrew cross-examined the defendant’s expert witnesses and made closing submissions on issues of valuation. Judgment was given by Asplin J in the claimant’s favour in July 2015: Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2015] EWHC 2232. An appeal was subsequently heard over 6 days in June 2020 at which the defendant sought to mount a wholesale attack on the judgment of Asplin J. This was rejected in a lengthy judgment from the Court of Appeal in December 2020 in favour of Andrew’s client. In the course of the proceedings at first instance Andrew made a successful application for third party disclosure and the production of information as to the whereabouts of certain trust assets which raised novel issues as to the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction: Global Energy Horizons Corporation v. Andrey Yakunin and Venture Investment & Yield Management LLP [2014] EWHC 2925 (Ch) (Mr Justice Sales).

Other notable instructions include:

• Acting for the successful claimant in Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2019] UKSC 50 and [2018] EWCA Civ 84, [2018] 1 WLR 2777 upholding [2017] EWHC 257, [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 445 described in the commercial dispute resolution section above.
• Acting for one of the groups of Respondents in Liquidators of Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA v Apax Partners LLP & Ors described in the commercial dispute resolution section above.
• Acting for a major Gibraltar provider of trust and fiduciary services in connection with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, misrepresentation arising from the sale and purchase of valuable contemporary artworks.

In addition, a number of Andrew’s recent instructions concern the construction and effect of securitisation documents and the contractual documentation for other substantial capital market transactions, many of which are being resolved in the Chancery Division. These cases, which generally involve trust structures often raise issues concerning the inter-relationship between general principles of trust law and detailed contractual provisions. They are described more fully in the Commercial Dispute Resolution and Banking & Finance sections above and below.

Andrew’s practice has, from the outset, involved a substantial amount of insolvency related work and he has extensive experience of advising and acting in litigation for both officeholders and defendants including in proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986. His current and recent instructions include:

• Advising and acting as lead advocate for the Gas & Electricity Markets Authority in relation to insolvency issues arising from the administration or liquidation of multiple failed energy suppliers. In October 2022, the High Court heard officer-holder applications for directions over 5 days to determine the extent to which the Authority and Suppliers of Last Resort appointed by the Authority had claims which could be proved in the supplier insolvencies. Andrew’s submissions as to the provability of substantial renewables obligations owed by the failed suppliers and credit balances assumed by the SoLRs were accepted by the Court: Croxen & Ors v GEMA & Ors [2022] EWHC 2826 (Ch).
• Andrew had previously acted for the Authority on an urgent application to place Bulb Energy – the largest energy supplier to fail with more than 1.6 million domestic customers – into an energy special administration. This was the first occasion on which this sector-specific insolvency procedure had been used: Re Bulb Energy Ltd [2021] EWHC 3735.
• Acting (with Robert Miles QC) for the Apax Respondents in The Liquidators of Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA v Apax Partners LLP & Ors, a claim by the liquidators of Hellas II seeking recovery of sums approaching €1 billion. The proceedings concerned a €multi-billion refinancing of the Hellas telecommunications group in December 2006. The Respondents successfully resisted the liquidators’ attempt to stay the proceedings in July 2016 and, following the addition of a further 30+ defendants, the proceedings came to trial in February 2018. After 4 days (of what was listed to be a 6 week trial), the Claimants abandoned the proceedings and, as a result, were ordered to pay indemnity costs: [2018] EWHC 2732 (Ch).
• Acting for a firm of London solicitors in respect of the validity and extent of a charge taken to secure payment of their fees. The case determined that monies held in Court could be validly charged and that such a charge would bite on such monies when paid back to subsequent office holders: Re Peak Hotels and Resorts Ltd; Crumpler v Candey LLP [2017] EWHC 1511. This decision was upheld on appeal in 2018: [2018] EWCA Civ 2256.

Other notable instructions include:

• Acting for many years for the Court-appointed receivers in two very substantial pieces of Commercial Court litigation: (a) the multi-billion Dollar claims by JSC BTA Bank against its former chairman, Mukhtar Ablyazov (JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov), and many others; and (b) the claims arising from a fraudulent shipping scheme in Latvia (Antonio Gramsci Shipping).
• Advising a group of fund shareholders in relation to a proposed scheme of arrangement intended to compromise claims being brought by those shareholders against the fund administrator.
• Acting for a group on Cypriot companies in liquidation in claims against their directors and corporate service providers for sums paid away in breach of duty.
• Acting for a creditor of Lehman Brothers International Europe in relation to the scheme of arrangements proposed by the administrators of LBIE in 2018, and subsequent process for the determination of claims to interest in 2018/19.
• Acting for Stanford International Bank (on the instructions of its Joint Liquidators) in respect of a substantial claim against one of SIB’s correspondent banks, HSBC Plc.
• Advising the Receivers of The Gherkin in relation to the recent sale of the iconic London building in late 2014.
• Acting for the liquidators of a Cayman Island investment fund in relation to claims against its former directors and investment manager.
• Acting for the former administrators and provisional liquidators of MK Airlines Limited, a failed cargo airline which had been through numerous different insolvency procedures: MK Airlines Limited [2012] EWHC 1018, [2012] 3 All ER 781, [2013] 1 BCLC 9.
• Acting for a liquidator in substantial proceedings against the former administrators of an automotive supply company for breach of duty.
• Acting for the claimants in the insolvency aspects of Commercial Court proceedings arising from various failed tax mitigation schemes
• Long-running instructions in BCCI-related litigation, Morris v Bank of America, between 2000 and 2003. These proceedings concerned serious allegations of fraud made against a major US bank.

Andrew’s company law experience includes advising on issues relating to directors’ duties, shareholders’ agreements, and financial assistance in the purchase of shares, and drafting petitions under s.994 of the Companies Act 2006 (and the equivalent provisions in Hong Kong) and the just and equitable jurisdiction of the Court (both in England and the Bahamas), and acting for and against directors in relation to breaches of duty and disqualification proceedings.

Notable instructions include:

• Advising a BVI group of companies as to the extent to which an exceptionally large arbitral award can enforced against shares in the group companies. The issues raised by the case include the nature of the relationship between the different shareholders, and the scope and content of the duties of the directors where a dispute exists about the entitlement to shares.
• Acting for Serco Group Plc in defending proceedings brought by investors under FSMA s.90A and Sch. 10. One of the most significant issues in the proceedings concerned the circumstances in which a person may be considered to be a de facto director of a company.
• Acting for a European Bank in multi-jurisdictional proceedings (including in the BVI and Europe). The issues included the availability of derivative, trust derivative and representative actions to bring claims against the directors of subsidiary companies for the benefit of creditors.
• Acting as lead advocate for Shaftesbury Plc in a dispute with one of its shareholders relating to an issue of shares in December 2017 and the purpose for which that issue took place. An application by the shareholder for pre-action disclosure was rejected in 2018: PEL (UK) Ltd v Shaftesbury Plc [2018] EWHC 1661. The substantive proceedings commenced in 2019 and settled in 2021.
• Acting (with Robert Miles KC) in an LCIA Arbitration raising complex issues as to the interrelationship between the provisions of a shareholders’ agreement, the duties of directors and rules relating to the listing on a major international stock exchange.
• Acting for the target company in a substantial contested takeover of a property catastrophe insurer in Bermuda. The proceedings included one of the first times in which a Court had to give consideration to a hostile scheme of arrangement.

Andrew is a contributor to the sections in OUP’s Annotated Companies Acts on meetings and on company secretaries, and to Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law (on the subject of reflective loss).

A considerable number of Andrew’s cases involve banking or finance-related issues and, in particular, the construction and effect of securitisation documents and other substantial capital market transactions, and the application of trust law principles to commercial transactions and relationships. He is currently acting on behalf of Banca Generali SpA in connection with four related export finance asset securitisations worth over €300 million (as described in the Commercial litigation section above); on behalf of Barclays Bank in high value conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims; on behalf of a Middle Eastern bank in an ICC arbitration relating to the issue of letters of credit worth up to $50 million; and on behalf of Madison Pacific Trust Company in connection with historic issues of bearer bonds by an insolvent Australian corporate group.

Notable instructions include:

• Acting for a major European bank in claims against it arising from the fraudulent extraction of customer funds by third parties impersonating the customer.
• Travelport Ltd & Ors v WEX Inc [2020] EWHC 2670: the leading case on the interpretation of material adverse change clauses in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic as described further in the commercial dispute resolution section above.
• Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA (negligence misstatement proceedings) [2018] UKSC 43, [2018] 1 WLR 4041 upholding [2016] EWCA Civ 457, [2016] 1 WLR 3169 on appeal from [2014] EWHC 2613 (QB), [2015] LLR 171: Acting for the successful Italian bank in proceedings concerning a reference alleged to have been given by the Bank to a gaming club in London as described further in the commercial dispute resolution section above.
• Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA (deceit proceedings) [2020] EWHC 784; [2019] EWHC 778. Acted (as lead advocate) in a second set of proceedings arising out of the reference referred to above, this time alleging that the reference had been given deceitfully as described further in the commercial dispute resolution section above.
• Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2019] UKSC 50 and [2018] EWCA Civ 84, [2018] 1 WLR 2777 upholding [2017] EWHC 257, [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 445: Acting for the successful claimant to recover $150 million + interest as described further in the commercial dispute resolution section above.
• Deutsche Trustee Co Ltd v Duchess VI CLO BV & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 521 on appeal from [2019] EWHC 778 (Ch): Andrew acted (with David Wolfson KC) for the successful Class F Noteholders in these proceedings which concerned the entitlement of the Collateral Manager to an Incentive Fee on the optional redemption of the Notes. At first instance the Chancellor held that no such fee is payable and the Class F Noteholders were entitled to the remaining funds in the transaction. This judgment was upheld on appeal.
• Credit Suisse Asset Management v Titan Europe 2006-1 Plc & Ors; v Titan Europe 2006-2 Plc & Ors; v Cornerstone Titan 2007-1 Plc & Ors; v Titan Europe 2007-2 Plc & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 1293 on appeal from [2016] EWHC 969: Andrew acted (with Robert Miles QC (now Miles J) at first instance and Jeremy Goldring KC in the Court of Appeal) for Elavon Financial Services, the Cash Manager, in these five sets of proceedings which concerned the interest entitlement of the holders of the Class X Note. The Cash Manager’s arguments on behalf of junior noteholders at the two hearings were accepted both at first instance and on appeal. The proceedings had an impact on over €3 billion + of Notes and were of material interest both to the CMBS market generally and particularly to the holders of other Class X Notes in different structures.
• Various other securitisation disputes including the following which resulted in judgments: BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v LBG Capital NO.1 Plc [2016] UKSC 29; BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Taberna Europe CDO I Plc [2016] EWHC 781; and Hayfin Opal Luxco 3 SARL v Windermere VII CMBS Plc [2016] EWHC 782.
• In the matter of Novo Banco and the ISDA Credit Derivatives Decisions Committee: Andrew acted (with Robert Miles QC (now Miles J)) for the successful “No” camp in relation to the question of whether a Government Intervention Credit Event has taken place in respect of a Portuguese bank, Novo Banco. This issue was determined by an External Review under the ISDA Rules, the first time that such a process had ever been invoked in relation to a Credit Event in Western Europe. The review considered the GI Credit Event, a concept only added to the ISDA Rules following the banking crisis in Europe in 2008-2013. The result affected more than €420 million of credit default swap transactions which had Novo Banco as a Reference Entity.
• Knighthead Master Fund LP & Ors v Bank of New York Mellon [2015] EWHC 270 (Ch) and [2014] EWHC 3662 (Ch): Acting for the Trustee of Euro-denominated bonds issued by the Republic of Argentina in proceedings concerning whether orders and other declaratory relief should be ordered against the Trustee in respect of an interest payment made to it of some €225 million.
• Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v Carey Value Added SL [2013] EWHC 1039 (Comm), [2013] Bus LR D45: Acting (with Lord Grabiner KC, Manus McMullen KC and Douglas Paine) for the lender in lengthy Commercial Court proceedings concerning whether or not the borrower was in default under the terms of the loan agreement entitling the lender to demand repayment of outstanding sums and to refuse to lend further sums. In particular the Court had to consider the proper construction of a “material adverse change” clause in the financing documentation. The lender successfully established a range of defaults by the borrower after a 9-week trial in which Andrew cross-examined factual and expert witnesses and made closing submissions on issues of quantum.

As described in the Commercial Litigation and Chancery/Commercial sections above, a considerable number of Andrew’s instructions in these fields involve issues of fraud and asset recovery. These include claims for conspiracy and unjust enrichment (see Barclays Bank Plc v Fresh Thinking Group Ltd & Others), fraudulent misrepresentation (see Playboy v BNL), dishonesty by directors and others in a fiduciary position, assistance in such dishonesty (see Singularis and Stanford International Bank) and the misappropriation and subsequent concealment of assets (GEHC v Gray).

As described above Andrew was recently instructed by a listed PLC in substantial proceedings brought by investors under FSMA which came to trial in June 2024. He has previously been instructed by the Jersey Financial Services Commission in long-running proceedings relating to three substantial Eastern European property investment schemes. Andrew has also appeared in proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunals of the SFA (as it them was) and the ICAEW. He has advised on various aspects of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the London Stock Exchange Listing Rules and the Broker Membership Rules of the Cayman Islands Stock Exchange.

Andrew’s caseload includes a substantial international element. The cases described elsewhere in this CV include proceedings in Hong Kong, Jersey, the Cayman Islands, the BVI, Bermuda and the Bahamas in relation to which Andrew has given advice and drafted documentation. Andrew has also appeared in arbitral proceedings in Switzerland and at a 3-day hearing for the taking of evidence in Geneva for use in High Court proceedings.

Modern litigation requires legal advisors to understand and to use to a client’s best advantage a range of dispute resolution techniques before and during proceedings. Andrew is familiar with and has participated in a range of such techniques including meditation, structured negotiation and more informal discussions.  He has recently participated in a mediation which resulted in the settlement of claims against a Jersey family trust; and in a structured negotiation which settled commercial loan proceedings at an early stage.

Andrew’s practice increasingly involves the resolution of commercial disputes by way of international arbitration.  He is currently acting on arbitrations under the rules of the LCIA and the ICC.

Other instructions include:

• Acting as lead advocate for a Russian bank in multiple LCIA arbitration proceedings relating to loans in excess of $300 million made to an Armenian copper producer.
• Acting (with John Brisby KC) for Ukrainian oligarch in LCIA arbitration proceedings relating to $300million+ personal claim under joint venture agreements.
• Acting as sole advocate for a Cypriot bank in 2014 in an LCIA arbitration and in a separate Commercial court claim to recover substantial sums owing under a number of repo transactions. The arbitral proceedings settled after 4 days of the evidential hearing during which Andrew made opening submissions and cross-examined the Respondent’s factual and expert witnesses.
• Acting (with Robert Miles QC (now Miles J)) for one of the defendants to a $1 billion claim brought by way of LCIA arbitration in London. The claim related to the aluminium industry and was identified by Global Arbitration Review as one of the top 5 largest arbitrations on foot in 2014.

• Banca Generali SpA v Sovereign Credit Opportunities SA & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 886 upholding the decisions in [2023] EWHC 1732 and 2073 (Ch) – contractual interpretation in the context of an asset securitisation.
• Shure & Anor v Capvest Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 507: availability of information to trustees of a family trust.
• Madison Pacific Trust Ltd v SquareTwo Capital Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2605 (Ch) – Court approval of a corporate trustee’s momentous decisions; contractual interpretation.
• Croxen & Ors v Gas and Electricity Markets Authority & Ors [2022] EWHC 2826 (Ch) – statutory interpretation, unjust enrichment.
• Banca Generali SpA v CFE (Suisse) SA & Anor [2022] EWHC 1450 – contractual interpretation; provision of information to investors.
• Re Bulb Energy Ltd [2021] EWHC 3775 – energy special administration.
• Global Energy Horizons Corporation v Gray [2020] EWCA Civ 1668 and [2021] EWCA Civ 123 both on appeal from [2015] EWHC 2232 – scope of the account due from a defaulting fiduciary; abuse of process; adducing new evidence in the Court of Appeal; costs.
• Travelport & Ors v WEX Inc [2020] EWHC 2670 – contractual interpretation, material adverse effect and the pandemic.
• Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Plc [2020] EWHC 2232 – strike-out; dishonest assistance; banker’s Quincecare duty.
• Deutsche Trustee Co Ltd v Duchess VI CLO BV & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 521 on appeal from [2019] EWHC 778 (Ch) – contractual interpretation.
• Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA (deceit claim) [2020] EWHC 748; [2019] EWHC 303; [2018] EWCA Civ 2025 – various issues including amendment, late amendment and abuse of process.
• Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, [2019] 3 WLR 997 on appeal from [2018] EWC Civ 84, [2018] 1 WLR 2777 on appeal from [2017] EWHC 257, [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 445 – duty of care owed by a bank to its customer; attribution; and illegality.
• Winterbrook Global Opportunities Fund v NB Finance & Ors [2019] EWHC 737 (Ch) – summary judgment.
• Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA (negligence claim) [2018] UKSC 43, [2018] 1WLR 4041 on appeal from [2016] EWCA Civ 457, [2016] 1 WLR 3169 on appeal from [2014] EWHC 2613 (QB), [2015] LLR 171 – bank references; duty of care; agency/undisclosed principal; causation; and quantum of loss.
• Hosking v Apax Partners LLP & Ors [2018] EWHC 2732 (Ch) – indemnity costs on discontinuance.
• Crumpler v Candey [2018] EWCA Civ 2256, [2019] BPIR 49; [2017] EWHC 1511 – status of money in court; effect of pre-liquidation charge.
• PEL (UK) Ltd v Shaftesbury Plc [2018] EWHC 1661 – pre-action disclosure.
• Credit Suisse Asset Management LLC v Titan Europe 2006-1 Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 1293 on appeal from [2016] EWHC 969 – contractual interpretation.
• BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v LBG Capital No.1 Plc [2016] UKSC 29; [2017] 1 All ER 497 – contractual interpretation.
• Hayfin Opal Luxco 3 SARL v Windermere VII CMBS Plc [2016] EWHC 782 – contractual interpretation.
• BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Service Ltd v Taberna Europe CDO I Plc [2016] EWHC 781.
• Knighthead Master Fund LP & Ors v Bank of New York Mellon [2015] EWHC 270 (Ch) and [2014] EWHC 3662 (Ch) – whether orders should be made against the Trustee of sovereign bonds issued by the Republic of Argentina; whether declaratory relief was appropriate and necessary.
• Global Energy Horizons Corporation v Gray [2014] EWHC 2925 (Ch) – disclosure from third parties; trust claims.
• US Bank Trustees Limited v Titan Europe 2007-1 (NHP) Ltd [2014] EWHC 1189 (Ch) – interpretation of contractual documents relating to the securitisation of a large portfolio of nursing homes.
• Napier Park European Credit Opportunities Fund Ltd v Harbourmaster Pro-rata CLO 2 BV [2014] EWHC 1083 (Ch) – construction of documentation governing collateralised loan obligation structure.
• Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v Carey Value Added SL [2013] EWHC 1732 (Comm), [2013] Costs LR 669 – issue-based costs orders.
• Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v Carey Value Added SL [2013] EWHC 1039 (Comm), [2013] Bus LR D45 – meaning of material adverse change clause; default under loan agreement for hotel construction project; valuation of losses.
• Re MK Airlines Limited [2012] EWHC 1018, [2012] 3 All ER 781, [2013] 1 BCLC 9 – Nature and extent of the Insolvency Act, Schedule B1 paragraph 99 charge; liquidators’ powers and duties; remuneration of officeholders.
• Milsom v Ablyazov [2011] EWHC 1846, (2012) Lloyd’s Rep FC – provision of information, privilege against self-incrimination.
• Milsom v Ablyazov [2011] EWHC 955, (2011) Arb LR 25 – powers of Receivers, arbitration confidentiality).
• Carey Value Added, S.L. v Grupo Urvasco, S.A. [2011] 2 All ER (Comm), [2010] BCLC 352 – summary judgment, construction of deed of indemnity and guarantee.
• Royal & Sun Alliance Plc & Ors v Rolls-Royce Plc [2010] Lloyds Rep IR 637 – jurisdiction.
• Re Oakland Limited [2010] EWHC (Ch) 614 – summary judgment and application for a stay in complex multi-jurisdictional insolvency proceedings.
• Re Automold [2009] EWHC 3709 – approach to a late application to strike-out part of a substantial claim against former administrators for misfeasance.
• Gaetano Limited v Obertor Limited [2009] EWHC 2653 (Ch) – summary judgment, specific performance of joint venture agreement, reflective loss.
• Re Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP [2009] EWHC 1901 (Ch), [2010] 1 BCLC 210 – permission to commence proceedings against an LLP in liquidation.
• Chart-Email Technology Partnership LLP v Vermillion International Investments Ltd [2009] EWHC 388 – locus standi of an alleged contributory to appear on the hearing of petition.

KC (appointed 2019)

Deputy High Court Judge (appointed January 2024)

Member of the Commercial Bar Association and the Chancery Bar Association (of which Andrew is an officer and Chair of the Pro bono sub-committee).

Andrew regularly participates in the Chancery Bar Associations CLIPS scheme (a pro bono scheme for litigants in person in the Chancery Division) and is a case-reviewer for PILARS (a pro bono scheme for insolvency cases).  

• MA (Hons) Magdalene College, Cambridge
• Queen Mother Scholar of Middle Temple

• Contributor to OUP’s Annotated Companies Acts.
• “The rule against reflective loss and large-scale securities frauds” [2012] BJIB&FL, 27(4), p.213- 215

Chambers & Partners most recent edition says:

• “One of the best of the younger generation of KCs.” “He is very good. He has established himself as a solid operator for chancery commercial matters and, in particular, banking and finance-related matters.” (Chancery: Commercial: 2025 Edition)
• “His greatest strength is his ability to absorb information and facts, which saves time and allows forensic points to be taken. He’s also extremely responsive.” “Andrew is a top performer and an absolute pleasure to work with.” (Banking & Finance: 2025 Edition)
• “Andrew is technically excellent and has a great manner when it comes to dealing with clients, which gives a high level of reassurance in terms of delivering the right outcome.” “He is a brilliant lawyer – he’s very practical, a real team player and provides practical advice.” “Andrew is fantastic on his feet and has a calming presence in court.” (Restructuring/Insolvency: 2025 Edition)
• “He is a very clever and measured practitioner.” (Commercial dispute resolution: 2025 Edition)
• “Andrew is a sophisticated and creative legal thinker, who is a pleasure to work with. He can always be relied on to give a carefully judged perspective.” (Company: 2025 Edition)
• “Andrew de Mestre KC is an expert in cases concerning dishonesty, negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation, and is proficient at tracing and recovering misappropriated assets. He approaches fraud as part of a wide-ranging commercial practice that also encompasses such areas as company and insolvency law. “He was very good.” (Fraud: Civil: 2025 Edition)

Legal 500’s most recent edition says:

• “A stand out practitioner” (Insolvency: 2025 Edition)
• “Andrew has an extraordinary intellect, his written work is clear and incisive, and he provides cogent advice” (Company: 2025 Edition)
• “Andrew is very user friendly, has a commanding presence in court and is excellent on his feet. He is also pragmatic and someone who clients instinctively warm to.” (Banking and Finance: 2025 Edition)