Charles Samek QC

Charles has a substantial reputation in field of commercial fraud. 

For many years he was involved on virtually a daily basis in the high-profile Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms litigation, which spawned three leading Court of Appeal decisions and numerous High Court judgments covering the key matters arising in fraud cases: practice and procedure in relation to worldwide freezing orders (WFOs) including seeking permission to enforce WFOs and obtaining WFOs against third parties; legal professional privilege; use of unlawfully obtained materials; private international law jurisdiction disputes; contempt; the remedies for deceit, conspiracy, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance.    Charles’s current instructions include acting for an ex-CFO of a Saudi Arabian oil concern who is alleged to have received secret commissions in Switzerland.

Recent reported or leading cases include: Belletti v Morici [2010] 1 AER (Comm) 412 (Flaux J) (s.25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982; whether worldwide freezing order should be made against respondents non-resident in England and with no assets in England in support of Italian substantive fraud proceedings)

Shetty v Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Co Ltd [2011] EWHC (Ch) 1460, [2011] AER(D) 195 (C Pymont QC) (whether permission should be given to join company as a defendant to an action under CPR 19.2 even though claimant made no claim against it, in order for it to be able to pursue third party fraud proceedings against non-domiciled persons; whether Art 6.2 of Council Regulation 44/2001 applicable) (likely to be reported in AER)

Governor & Company of theBank of Ireland v Bailey [2011] 5^th July 2011 (Eady J) (freezing order discontinued on return date on grounds that claimant was unable to show solid evidence of a risk of dissipation of assets; Charles acted for successful defendant)

Many of Charles’ cases involve intellectual property (“IP”) issues including passing off; infringement of copyright; infringement of database right; patent infringement.  Charles is happy to work as part of a commercial / IP team.

Recently he was instructed in a $1/4 billion claim involving allegations of infringement of copyright and database right in relation to a Russian social networking website: i-CD (UK) Ltd v Popkov [2009] EWHC (Ch).  Whilst expert IP counsel was also instructed, Charles was lead counsel for the trial and on top of the IP issues.

Similarly in a leading patent licence case, Charles was retained as part of an IP team, and led at the trial: see J R French Ltd v Redbus LMDS [2006] FSR 13.

Charles is currently instructed in a dispute between an English investor and a Dutch liquidator in relation to a dispute concerning flat-screen TV intellectual property.  Charles is acting for the investor and proceedings have been issued in the Commercial Court.  A jurisdictional challenge by the liquidator will be heard in October 2011. Charles is instructed with Tim Bamford at Withers LLP and is leading Charlotte Davies.

Charles is often instructed in entertainment and media cases, both as an advocate in Court and in an advisory capacity.

He has acted for or in relation to pop groups ( TA Music / t.A.T.u.); dance troupes (ex-Fuel Girls); literary and theatrical agents (United Agents); television (Channel 4) and film production companies (“The Persuaders”).

Advisory work includes advising in relation to licence agreements for musico-dramatic live stage rights (“The Commitments”) and for musical back catalogues.

One of his media cases is a leading case in the private international law sphere: Crucial Music Corporation v Klondyke Management AG [2008] 1 AER Comm 642.

Charles deals with employment disputes of a commercial hue, namely (i) high value breach of contract claims and(ii) commercial claims which may arise out of an existing or previous employment relationship.  He also acts on injunction applications regarding the enforcement of restrictive covenants, garden leave and confidential information provisions, and applications for freezing and search orders.

He has also been instructed in complex “team move” cases involving currency dealers, aviation insurance brokers and computer game designers and programmers.  Most recently (2008-2009) he was instructed in a £1/4 billion pound High Court claim arising out of the employment of a Russian computer programmer by the company which owns and operates 192.com.

Charles is frequently instructed in employment cases not only because of his general experience and expertise in the field but also because he brings a commercial perspective to the table: essential for the development and pursuit of a successful litigation strategy to win: see the Commercial tab under Charles’ website entry.

His commercial experience enables him to understand the business needs of the client, and the pressures and constraints within which clients often have to operate.

Charles acts for both (ex)employers and (ex)employees. 

Charles has substantial experience of company and shareholder disputes, including derivative actions and minority shareholder protection. Recently he was instructed by BDO for an expert opinion in relation to the valuation of the sale of a business.

He has also acted in several franchising cases both for the franchisor and the franchisee.

As is typical for a commercial litigator, many of Charles’ cases involve bankruptcy or insolvency issues.

The high-profile Dadourian litigation gave rise to the issue of the locus standi of a bankrupt to make applications and pursue an appeal.  Charles successfully argued that the bankrupt (Simms) had no such locus standi.  The case is reported in the leading bankruptcy and insolvency case reports at Dadourian Group Inc v Simms and others [2008] BPIR 508.

Currently he is instructed on behalf of Icelandic investors seeking redress in relation to investments made through the failed Icelandic bank Kaupthing.  Having successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of one of the investors, Charles is now pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to the proper interpretation and application of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as set out in the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 in relation to obtaining a costs order against an Isle of Man liquidator.  Permission to appeal to Charles’ client to appeal was granted by Mummery LJ and the appeal will be held in due course: Isis Investments Ltd (in liquidation in the Isle of Man) v Kaupthing Bank hf, Adalsteinsson and others [2010] EWHC (Ch).

See also Kellar v BBR Graphics Engineering (Yorkshire) Ltd [2002] BPIR 544, a leading case on the correct legal test to be applied on an application to set aside a statutory demand.