Bio
Marcus specialises in cross-border trust and insolvency disputes and has appeared at all levels in the commercial courts of the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and England. He was co-counsel for the successful appellant in Rosewood v. Schmidt (Privy Council), which is one of the leading trusts cases of the last 20 years; and he was sole counsel for the successful appellant in Rubin v. Eurofinance (UK Supreme Court), which is the leading authority on jurisdiction and enforcement in cross-border insolvency.
Prior to joining Appleby, in January 2025, Marcus was in practice for 17 years in a leading commercial chancery chambers in London and, before that, he headed up his chambers’ Geneva office for 6 years, having previously spent 5 years at one of Switzerland’s most prestigious law firms. In Switzerland he worked with high net worth clients whom he advised on both the establishment and operation of international estate planning structures and represented them in trust and estate litigation.
Marcus has also acted in cases involving litigation in, among other places, the USA (Texas, New York, Washington DC, Massachusetts), Switzerland, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Anguilla, St. Vincent, Cyprus, Ukraine, Russia, Liechtenstein, Gibraltar, the DIFC, and France. He has appeared in various arbitrations, both ad hoc and institutional, the latter including the ICC, the LCIA and CAS. In addition, he acted for HMRC — the UK tax authority — in the negotiation and settlement of a tax information exchange agreement with Liechtenstein.
Bio
Marcus specialises in cross-border trust and insolvency disputes and has appeared at all levels in the commercial courts of the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and England. He was co-counsel for the successful appellant in Rosewood v. Schmidt (Privy Council), which is one of the leading trusts cases of the last 20 years; and he was sole counsel for the successful appellant in Rubin v. Eurofinance (UK Supreme Court), which is the leading authority on jurisdiction and enforcement in cross-border insolvency.
Prior to joining Appleby, in January 2025, Marcus was in practice for 17 years in a leading commercial chancery chambers in London and, before that, he headed up his chambers’ Geneva office for 6 years, having previously spent 5 years at one of Switzerland’s most prestigious law firms. In Switzerland he worked with high net worth clients whom he advised on both the establishment and operation of international estate planning structures and represented them in trust and estate litigation.
Marcus has also acted in cases involving litigation in, among other places, the USA (Texas, New York, Washington DC, Massachusetts), Switzerland, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Anguilla, St. Vincent, Cyprus, Ukraine, Russia, Liechtenstein, Gibraltar, the DIFC, and France. He has appeared in various arbitrations, both ad hoc and institutional, the latter including the ICC, the LCIA and CAS. In addition, he acted for HMRC — the UK tax authority — in the negotiation and settlement of a tax information exchange agreement with Liechtenstein.
Work Highlights
Trust Litigation
Vadim Schmidt v. Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709, [2003] 2 WLR 1442, [2003] 3 All ER 76, [2003] Pens LR 145, [2003] WTLR 565, (2002-03) 5 ITELR 715, (2003) 100(22) LSG 31, [2003] 3 WLUK 807, Times, March 29, 2003 (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe): Marcus acted for the successful appellant in this landmark case in the law of trusts. He was led by Alan Steinfeld QC. It was held that the right to seek disclosure of trust documents was an aspect of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise and, if necessary, to intervene in the administration of trusts, and did not depend on the right or claim of a beneficiary to a proprietary interest in the trust property.
In re a Scottish Estate (Chancery Division, E&W): Marcus acted for Scottish executors in proceedings the High Court in England who claimed that the deceased’s former Swiss lawyer was holding valuable assets on trust for the estate either because (i) he had unduly influenced his principal to execute a deed gift of very valuable undeclared investments in his favor; or (ii) in the alternative, for setting the deed of gift up as authentic, when in reality it was a sham made to deceive Swiss banks into misidentifying the lawyer as the UBO to avoid having to report the assets to the Swiss central authority for tax information exchange with the UK. The matter was settled after negotiations with the defendant and HMRC.
Eurofinance v. Rubin [2012] UKSC 46, [2013] 1 AC 236: This case stemmed from an English law trust in financial crisis. Marcus appeared on an application to the English High Court and obtained an order appointing IPs as receivers to take the trust into Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in New York. This was highly unusual, because in England a trust cannot be wound up for insolvency whereas this is legislated for in the US Bankruptcy Code. The trust had been set up as an adjunct to a promotional program to which merchants in the USA could enter. Participating merchants could offer customers the chance to reclaim the price of their purchase upon production of a voucher by taking specified steps within a window that opened and closed 3 years after the date of purchase. For each item sold the merchants would contribute a fraction of the sales price to the trust. The contributions were meant to be sufficient in aggregate to satisfy all likely successful voucher redemptions. The financial gearing was predicated on most consumers forgetting about or failing to satisfy the requirements for redemption. When the program operators were sued by the AG of Missouri they had to reveal in open court exactly how consumers could redeem their vouchers. This meant there would very probably now be so many successful claims that the trust fund would be too small to satisfy them all and the trust was effectively insolvent.
Re Omar Family Trust (Ground Court, Cayman Islands): Marcus acted in this matter in which an order was obtained, with the cooperation of the trustees, replacing the directors of companies underlying the trust. This was done to enable orders to be obtained by the companies in Texas to gain access to the records of a Houston company managing valuable commercial real estate. As a result of these actions, the matter was settled on terms that led to a settlement unwinding the trust in the claimants’ favor.
Ann Maxine Patton v. Alvarez Jimenez de Pass (Bahamas Supreme Court unreported): Marcus acted (in support of Bahamas counsel) for the successful plaintiff who sought and obtained an order for the removal of the trustee and protector of a Bahamas law trust and the appointment of replacements. This case was a milestone in a campaign of international litigation in which the plaintiff is seeking to recover her deceased husband’s assets for his estate, and other trust assets, out of the hands of his trustees who have diverted them to their own use and benefit.
In re a Trust (unreported, BVI High Court): Appearing on a construction summons which the court determined whether or not a condition subsequent had been fulfilled releasing the trustees from liability to indemnify third parties (and from an obligation to retain a portion of trust property to fortify the indemnity). This was one of several applications in which Marcus appeared in the work-out of a complex agreement made many years previously to settle a multi-party dispute about the terms of dissolution of a partnership with international assets.
Labrouche v. Frey [2012] EWCA Civ 881, [2012] 1 WLR 1360, [2012] 7 WLUK 4, (2012) 162 N.L.J.934: Marcus acted for the claimant in this breach of trust claim. The claim was that the founder’s rights of a Liechtenstein Anstalt were held on the trusts of an English law will trust. The defendant contended that the claim could or should have been brought in earlier proceedings in Zurich. The first judge who heard the application dismissed it, but his ruling was overturned on appeal because he had refused to hear oral argument on behalf of the applicants and found against them on a reading of the papers. The matter was remitted to the Chancery Division for rehearing where it came on for 5 days the following year with the result that the strike out was dismissed. See also the Labrouche v. Frey [2016] EWHC 268 (Ch) judgment after trial on the substantive issues over 6 weeks in which Marcus also appeared.
Marlwood Commercial Inc v. Kozeny [2007] EWHC 950 (Comm): This was an application for an order freezing trust assets under the Chabra jurisdiction (TSB Private Bank International SA v. Chabra [1992] 2 All ER 245) ancillary to a claim that Mr Kozeny had defrauded a group of investors in a project to acquire a substantial shareholding position if and in the event that Azerbaijan should privatize all or part of its oil business. The jurisdiction was invoked on the basis that there was reason to suppose that Mr Kozeny had substantive control over trust property.
Frabran Holdings v. Daventree Trustees (Grand Court, Cayman Islands): Appearing for the applicant who sought and obtained orders for (i) local recognition of the receiver of a trust fund of a unit trust who had been appointed by the Cyprus court, and (ii) a proprietary freezing injunction over trust assets held by or to the order of the defendants. The freezing order was subsequently challenged, but upheld (unrep, FSD 112 of 2023 (RPJ), 17 January 2024).
Insolvency
Eurofinance v. Rubin [2012] UKSC 46, [2013] 1 AC 236, [2012] 3 WLR 1019, [2013] 1 All ER 521, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 513, [2013] Bus LR 1, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 615, [2013] BCC 1, [2012] 2 BCLC 682, [2012] BPIR 1204, [2013] 1 AC 236 : [2012] 10 WLUK 740, Times, November 9, 2012 (Lord Walker JSC, Lord Mance JSC, Lord Clarke JSC, Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Collins JSC): Marcus appeared as sole counsel for the successful appellant in this conjoined appeal, having also appeared at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. The case resolved a much-debated question in cross-border insolvency, namely whether or not the English common law rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments should be relaxed in the case of judgments made in foreign insolvency proceedings. The appellant persuaded the Court to hold that the rule should not be relaxed. In the Court of Appeal the case was reported as Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895. [2011] Ch 133, [2011] 2 WLR 121; [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 287, [2011] Bus LR 84, [2010] 7 WLUK 967, [2011] BCC 649, [2011] BCLC 473, [2011] BPIR 1110, (2010) 160 NLJ 1192, Times, Oct 5, 2010. At first instance the case was reported as Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2009] EWCH 2129 (Ch), [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 81, [2009] 7 WLUK 859, [2009] BPIR 1478.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund v. PT Bakrie Investindo [2011] EWHC 256 (Comm), LTL 21/2/2011, [2011] Bus LR 970, [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 385, [2011] 2 BCLC 275, [2011] BPIR 644, [2011] 1 WLR 2038 2038: Marcus appeared for the successful claimant. The High Court held that the discharge of the defendant’s obligation as guarantor as a matter of Indonesian law was of no effect in English law, which was the governing law of the guarantee. The guarantee in question had been given to secure a corporate bond issuer’s liabilities, and it was governed by English law. The case reaffirmed the well-established principle stated in Antony Gibbs Sons v. La Societe Industrielle et Commerciale des Metaux [1980] 25 QBD 399 that the judgment of a foreign court, in a foreign insolvency proceeding, will not, in and of itself, be held by an English court to abrogate a contractual obligation arising under English law.
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) [2008] EWHC 2869 (Ch), [2008] WLUK 598, [2009] BCC 632, [2009] 1 BCLC 161 [2009] Bus LR D28: Marcus acted for Lehman’s clients who had a portfolio of bonds held on the terms of a prime brokerage account but against which they had not drawn down credit. The bank had exercised its right to use the bonds and variously loaned them to third parties, or as collateral for the general debts of the bank. The case involved careful analysis of the nature of property in a fund, specifically a fund constituted on the complex terms of a prime brokerage account, where the bank is trustee, mortgagee, pledgee and user for of a fund in credit. At this stage of the case the issue was whether there were grounds for the court’s jurisdiction to intervene in the administration and it was held there were not. The applicants were, nevertheless, in a position that differentiated them from other creditors, in that they were secured creditors on the term of their prime brokerage agreement with the bank, which was eventually recognized when Briggs J approved the administrator’s plan of distribution.
Vendort Traders Inc v. Evrostroy Grupp LLC [2016] UKPC 15 LTL 14/6/2016 (Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge): This was an appeal from the British Virgin Islands Court of Appeal. The Court upheld a ruling that the statutory demand should not be set aside where new evidence was not potentially decisive of whether a party was liable to pay the balance of an agreed purchase price under a share purchase agreement. In addition, an arbitration award upon which the statutory demand was based gave rise to an enforceable debt and did not require an order under the Arbitration Ordinance 1976 (British Virgin Islands) s.28 for its enforcement. Marcus also appeared in this case at first instance and in the BVI’s court of appeal.
Commercial litigation
PJSC Tatneft v. Gennady Bogolyubov & others [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm), [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm): Marcus appeared in this very substantial (42 day) online fraud trial for one of 4 the successful defendants who, it was alleged, had unlawfully diverted to their own use monies paid by a Ukrainian refinery for oil delivered to it by a Russian oil company. The trial included cross examination of multiple witnesses in Ukrainian and Russian through simultaneous interpreters online. Issues included English conflicts of law in relation to the application in domestic law of foreign limitation periods.
PJSE Tatneft v. Gennady Bogolyubov & others [2020] EWHC 2437, [2021] 1 WLR 1403: This was a subsidiary judgment in the aforementioned case. The court confirmed that legal advice privilege had been extended to all foreign lawyers without regard to national standards or regulations governing them.
Al Sadik v. Investcorp Bank [2018] UKPC 15, LTL 19/6/2018, [2018] 6 WLUK 316 (Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Briggs): The Privy Council construed a share purchase agreement entered into between an investor and his investment manager as authorising leveraged investments in a hedge fund. It also concluded that the courts below had been entitled to regard the transfer of funds to a separate special purpose vehicle as an administrative, rather than an investment, step. Marcus also appeared in this case at trial in the Cayman Islands and in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal.
A v B [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm) [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm), [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 633 | [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 358, [2007] 1 WLUK 417, [2007] 2 C.L.C., 203, [2007] Bus. L.R. D59: Where proceedings were brought in the English courts in breach of an arbitration agreement the costs of obtaining a stay of those proceedings and of setting aside service out of the jurisdiction should normally be awarded on an indemnity basis. This is a landmark authority for the principle that indemnity costs follow where a claimant has brought proceedings contrary to an agreement consigning the resolution of a dispute either to a particular jurisdiction or to alternative dispute resolution such as arbitration.
United Capital Corporation v. Bender (CA) 2006 JLR 269: Marcus acted for hedge fund managers (in support of Baker & Partners) defending a claim brought by a third party that he was entitled to a share of the considerable profits generated from the trade. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction on grounds of forum non conveniens.
Arbitration
In re an LCIA Arbitration: Marcus appeared for the claimant company suing a software supplier for breach of contract.
In re an LCIA Arbitration: Marcus appeared for the claimant suing on a debt and overcame an attempt to argue that the claim was out of time in that, it was alleged, the requirements for acknowledgment of debt in s.6(3) of Limitation Act 1980 had not been satisfied. The case involved allegations of forgery and fraud. The case arose in the context of a wide-ranging dispute between parties as to the ownership and control of valuable agribusiness in Ukraine.
Examples of ICC Arbitrations: (1) Concerning a dispute about a joint venture to distribute specialised equipment to oil companies in the UAE; (2) concerning a dispute about the delivery of cargoes from Libya to Turkey; (3) concerning a dispute about the delivery of a cargo of scrap metal from Ukraine to Italy.
Trust Litigation
Vadim Schmidt v. Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709, [2003] 2 WLR 1442, [2003] 3 All ER 76, [2003] Pens LR 145, [2003] WTLR 565, (2002-03) 5 ITELR 715, (2003) 100(22) LSG 31, [2003] 3 WLUK 807, Times, March 29, 2003 (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe): Marcus acted for the successful appellant in this landmark case in the law of trusts. He was led by Alan Steinfeld QC. It was held that the right to seek disclosure of trust documents was an aspect of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise and, if necessary, to intervene in the administration of trusts, and did not depend on the right or claim of a beneficiary to a proprietary interest in the trust property.
In re a Scottish Estate (Chancery Division, E&W): Marcus acted for Scottish executors in proceedings the High Court in England who claimed that the deceased’s former Swiss lawyer was holding valuable assets on trust for the estate either because (i) he had unduly influenced his principal to execute a deed gift of very valuable undeclared investments in his favor; or (ii) in the alternative, for setting the deed of gift up as authentic, when in reality it was a sham made to deceive Swiss banks into misidentifying the lawyer as the UBO to avoid having to report the assets to the Swiss central authority for tax information exchange with the UK. The matter was settled after negotiations with the defendant and HMRC.
Eurofinance v. Rubin [2012] UKSC 46, [2013] 1 AC 236: This case stemmed from an English law trust in financial crisis. Marcus appeared on an application to the English High Court and obtained an order appointing IPs as receivers to take the trust into Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in New York. This was highly unusual, because in England a trust cannot be wound up for insolvency whereas this is legislated for in the US Bankruptcy Code. The trust had been set up as an adjunct to a promotional program to which merchants in the USA could enter. Participating merchants could offer customers the chance to reclaim the price of their purchase upon production of a voucher by taking specified steps within a window that opened and closed 3 years after the date of purchase. For each item sold the merchants would contribute a fraction of the sales price to the trust. The contributions were meant to be sufficient in aggregate to satisfy all likely successful voucher redemptions. The financial gearing was predicated on most consumers forgetting about or failing to satisfy the requirements for redemption. When the program operators were sued by the AG of Missouri they had to reveal in open court exactly how consumers could redeem their vouchers. This meant there would very probably now be so many successful claims that the trust fund would be too small to satisfy them all and the trust was effectively insolvent.
Re Omar Family Trust (Ground Court, Cayman Islands): Marcus acted in this matter in which an order was obtained, with the cooperation of the trustees, replacing the directors of companies underlying the trust. This was done to enable orders to be obtained by the companies in Texas to gain access to the records of a Houston company managing valuable commercial real estate. As a result of these actions, the matter was settled on terms that led to a settlement unwinding the trust in the claimants’ favor.
Ann Maxine Patton v. Alvarez Jimenez de Pass (Bahamas Supreme Court unreported): Marcus acted (in support of Bahamas counsel) for the successful plaintiff who sought and obtained an order for the removal of the trustee and protector of a Bahamas law trust and the appointment of replacements. This case was a milestone in a campaign of international litigation in which the plaintiff is seeking to recover her deceased husband’s assets for his estate, and other trust assets, out of the hands of his trustees who have diverted them to their own use and benefit.
In re a Trust (unreported, BVI High Court): Appearing on a construction summons which the court determined whether or not a condition subsequent had been fulfilled releasing the trustees from liability to indemnify third parties (and from an obligation to retain a portion of trust property to fortify the indemnity). This was one of several applications in which Marcus appeared in the work-out of a complex agreement made many years previously to settle a multi-party dispute about the terms of dissolution of a partnership with international assets.
Labrouche v. Frey [2012] EWCA Civ 881, [2012] 1 WLR 1360, [2012] 7 WLUK 4, (2012) 162 N.L.J.934: Marcus acted for the claimant in this breach of trust claim. The claim was that the founder’s rights of a Liechtenstein Anstalt were held on the trusts of an English law will trust. The defendant contended that the claim could or should have been brought in earlier proceedings in Zurich. The first judge who heard the application dismissed it, but his ruling was overturned on appeal because he had refused to hear oral argument on behalf of the applicants and found against them on a reading of the papers. The matter was remitted to the Chancery Division for rehearing where it came on for 5 days the following year with the result that the strike out was dismissed. See also the Labrouche v. Frey [2016] EWHC 268 (Ch) judgment after trial on the substantive issues over 6 weeks in which Marcus also appeared.
Marlwood Commercial Inc v. Kozeny [2007] EWHC 950 (Comm): This was an application for an order freezing trust assets under the Chabra jurisdiction (TSB Private Bank International SA v. Chabra [1992] 2 All ER 245) ancillary to a claim that Mr Kozeny had defrauded a group of investors in a project to acquire a substantial shareholding position if and in the event that Azerbaijan should privatize all or part of its oil business. The jurisdiction was invoked on the basis that there was reason to suppose that Mr Kozeny had substantive control over trust property.
Frabran Holdings v. Daventree Trustees (Grand Court, Cayman Islands): Appearing for the applicant who sought and obtained orders for (i) local recognition of the receiver of a trust fund of a unit trust who had been appointed by the Cyprus court, and (ii) a proprietary freezing injunction over trust assets held by or to the order of the defendants. The freezing order was subsequently challenged, but upheld (unrep, FSD 112 of 2023 (RPJ), 17 January 2024).
Insolvency
Eurofinance v. Rubin [2012] UKSC 46, [2013] 1 AC 236, [2012] 3 WLR 1019, [2013] 1 All ER 521, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 513, [2013] Bus LR 1, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 615, [2013] BCC 1, [2012] 2 BCLC 682, [2012] BPIR 1204, [2013] 1 AC 236 : [2012] 10 WLUK 740, Times, November 9, 2012 (Lord Walker JSC, Lord Mance JSC, Lord Clarke JSC, Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Collins JSC): Marcus appeared as sole counsel for the successful appellant in this conjoined appeal, having also appeared at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. The case resolved a much-debated question in cross-border insolvency, namely whether or not the English common law rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments should be relaxed in the case of judgments made in foreign insolvency proceedings. The appellant persuaded the Court to hold that the rule should not be relaxed. In the Court of Appeal the case was reported as Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895. [2011] Ch 133, [2011] 2 WLR 121; [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 287, [2011] Bus LR 84, [2010] 7 WLUK 967, [2011] BCC 649, [2011] BCLC 473, [2011] BPIR 1110, (2010) 160 NLJ 1192, Times, Oct 5, 2010. At first instance the case was reported as Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2009] EWCH 2129 (Ch), [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 81, [2009] 7 WLUK 859, [2009] BPIR 1478.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund v. PT Bakrie Investindo [2011] EWHC 256 (Comm), LTL 21/2/2011, [2011] Bus LR 970, [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 385, [2011] 2 BCLC 275, [2011] BPIR 644, [2011] 1 WLR 2038 2038: Marcus appeared for the successful claimant. The High Court held that the discharge of the defendant’s obligation as guarantor as a matter of Indonesian law was of no effect in English law, which was the governing law of the guarantee. The guarantee in question had been given to secure a corporate bond issuer’s liabilities, and it was governed by English law. The case reaffirmed the well-established principle stated in Antony Gibbs Sons v. La Societe Industrielle et Commerciale des Metaux [1980] 25 QBD 399 that the judgment of a foreign court, in a foreign insolvency proceeding, will not, in and of itself, be held by an English court to abrogate a contractual obligation arising under English law.
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) [2008] EWHC 2869 (Ch), [2008] WLUK 598, [2009] BCC 632, [2009] 1 BCLC 161 [2009] Bus LR D28: Marcus acted for Lehman’s clients who had a portfolio of bonds held on the terms of a prime brokerage account but against which they had not drawn down credit. The bank had exercised its right to use the bonds and variously loaned them to third parties, or as collateral for the general debts of the bank. The case involved careful analysis of the nature of property in a fund, specifically a fund constituted on the complex terms of a prime brokerage account, where the bank is trustee, mortgagee, pledgee and user for of a fund in credit. At this stage of the case the issue was whether there were grounds for the court’s jurisdiction to intervene in the administration and it was held there were not. The applicants were, nevertheless, in a position that differentiated them from other creditors, in that they were secured creditors on the term of their prime brokerage agreement with the bank, which was eventually recognized when Briggs J approved the administrator’s plan of distribution.
Vendort Traders Inc v. Evrostroy Grupp LLC [2016] UKPC 15 LTL 14/6/2016 (Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge): This was an appeal from the British Virgin Islands Court of Appeal. The Court upheld a ruling that the statutory demand should not be set aside where new evidence was not potentially decisive of whether a party was liable to pay the balance of an agreed purchase price under a share purchase agreement. In addition, an arbitration award upon which the statutory demand was based gave rise to an enforceable debt and did not require an order under the Arbitration Ordinance 1976 (British Virgin Islands) s.28 for its enforcement. Marcus also appeared in this case at first instance and in the BVI’s court of appeal.
Commercial litigation
PJSC Tatneft v. Gennady Bogolyubov & others [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm), [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm): Marcus appeared in this very substantial (42 day) online fraud trial for one of 4 the successful defendants who, it was alleged, had unlawfully diverted to their own use monies paid by a Ukrainian refinery for oil delivered to it by a Russian oil company. The trial included cross examination of multiple witnesses in Ukrainian and Russian through simultaneous interpreters online. Issues included English conflicts of law in relation to the application in domestic law of foreign limitation periods.
PJSE Tatneft v. Gennady Bogolyubov & others [2020] EWHC 2437, [2021] 1 WLR 1403: This was a subsidiary judgment in the aforementioned case. The court confirmed that legal advice privilege had been extended to all foreign lawyers without regard to national standards or regulations governing them.
Al Sadik v. Investcorp Bank [2018] UKPC 15, LTL 19/6/2018, [2018] 6 WLUK 316 (Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Briggs): The Privy Council construed a share purchase agreement entered into between an investor and his investment manager as authorising leveraged investments in a hedge fund. It also concluded that the courts below had been entitled to regard the transfer of funds to a separate special purpose vehicle as an administrative, rather than an investment, step. Marcus also appeared in this case at trial in the Cayman Islands and in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal.
A v B [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm) [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm), [2007] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 633 | [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 358, [2007] 1 WLUK 417, [2007] 2 C.L.C., 203, [2007] Bus. L.R. D59: Where proceedings were brought in the English courts in breach of an arbitration agreement the costs of obtaining a stay of those proceedings and of setting aside service out of the jurisdiction should normally be awarded on an indemnity basis. This is a landmark authority for the principle that indemnity costs follow where a claimant has brought proceedings contrary to an agreement consigning the resolution of a dispute either to a particular jurisdiction or to alternative dispute resolution such as arbitration.
United Capital Corporation v. Bender (CA) 2006 JLR 269: Marcus acted for hedge fund managers (in support of Baker & Partners) defending a claim brought by a third party that he was entitled to a share of the considerable profits generated from the trade. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction on grounds of forum non conveniens.
Arbitration
In re an LCIA Arbitration: Marcus appeared for the claimant company suing a software supplier for breach of contract.
In re an LCIA Arbitration: Marcus appeared for the claimant suing on a debt and overcame an attempt to argue that the claim was out of time in that, it was alleged, the requirements for acknowledgment of debt in s.6(3) of Limitation Act 1980 had not been satisfied. The case involved allegations of forgery and fraud. The case arose in the context of a wide-ranging dispute between parties as to the ownership and control of valuable agribusiness in Ukraine.
Examples of ICC Arbitrations: (1) Concerning a dispute about a joint venture to distribute specialised equipment to oil companies in the UAE; (2) concerning a dispute about the delivery of cargoes from Libya to Turkey; (3) concerning a dispute about the delivery of a cargo of scrap metal from Ukraine to Italy.
Recognition
Trusts
“Marcus Staff is a former head of the set’s Geneva office. A man with long experience of handling trusts-related work, he counts a number of key solicitors firms among those that instruct him. He demonstrated his credentials in the trusts sphere by appearing in Schmidt v Rosewood Trustees, the leading trusts case heard in the Privy Council in the last 20 years.” Strengths: “Hugely impressive and a delight to work with.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
Strengths: “A man of remarkable intellect and great breadth of knowledge.” (Chambers & Partners 2022 – UK and Global)
Strengths: “A very clever litigator, who’s thorough and hard-working. He’s thinks very hard about trusts law and writes very well on the subject too.” (Chambers & Partners 2021 – UK and Global)
Chancery: Commercial
“A man with a remarkable intellect and great breadth of knowledge, who is excellent at communication and recognising the interrelation of very complex matters.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
“A very clever guy who uses his intelligence in a practical way.” (2022 – UK and Global)
“He is intelligent, innovative and forceful.” (2021 – UK and Global)
Offshore
“Marcus Staff is particularly active in the Caribbean jurisdictions, having appeared in the Cayman Islands and the BVI. He is frequently instructed in contentious trust disputes, handling such issues as the removal of trustees and tax-related matters. He has also been involved in matters relating to investment funds and civil fraud.” Strengths: “Marcus Staff provided clear and concise advice in technically tricky cases.” “He is knowledgeable, user-friendly and client-focused.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
Strengths: “He has a great international trusts practice.” (Chambers & Partners 2021 – UK and Global)
“Very easy to work with and a proficient communicator, very knowledgeable in the trusts sector.” (Legal 500 2022)
“He is a barrister of the highest calibre. He is incredibly detailed, leaves no stone unturned and user friendly.” (Legal 500 2021)
Banking & Finance
“He is extremely thorough and detailed. He leaves no stone unturned. Especially good on matters connected with Switzerland and Swiss law. A really top senior junior who solicitors look forward to working with again soon.” (Legal 500 2023)
“He is engaged, to the point, highly intelligent, innovative, industrious and a team player.” (Legal 500 2022)
“Has good experience and sufficient flexibility when dealing with difficult clients.” (Legal 500 2021)
Trusts
“Marcus Staff is a former head of the set’s Geneva office. A man with long experience of handling trusts-related work, he counts a number of key solicitors firms among those that instruct him. He demonstrated his credentials in the trusts sphere by appearing in Schmidt v Rosewood Trustees, the leading trusts case heard in the Privy Council in the last 20 years.” Strengths: “Hugely impressive and a delight to work with.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
Strengths: “A man of remarkable intellect and great breadth of knowledge.” (Chambers & Partners 2022 – UK and Global)
Strengths: “A very clever litigator, who’s thorough and hard-working. He’s thinks very hard about trusts law and writes very well on the subject too.” (Chambers & Partners 2021 – UK and Global)
Chancery: Commercial
“A man with a remarkable intellect and great breadth of knowledge, who is excellent at communication and recognising the interrelation of very complex matters.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
“A very clever guy who uses his intelligence in a practical way.” (2022 – UK and Global)
“He is intelligent, innovative and forceful.” (2021 – UK and Global)
Offshore
“Marcus Staff is particularly active in the Caribbean jurisdictions, having appeared in the Cayman Islands and the BVI. He is frequently instructed in contentious trust disputes, handling such issues as the removal of trustees and tax-related matters. He has also been involved in matters relating to investment funds and civil fraud.” Strengths: “Marcus Staff provided clear and concise advice in technically tricky cases.” “He is knowledgeable, user-friendly and client-focused.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
Strengths: “He has a great international trusts practice.” (Chambers & Partners 2021 – UK and Global)
“Very easy to work with and a proficient communicator, very knowledgeable in the trusts sector.” (Legal 500 2022)
“He is a barrister of the highest calibre. He is incredibly detailed, leaves no stone unturned and user friendly.” (Legal 500 2021)
Banking & Finance
“He is extremely thorough and detailed. He leaves no stone unturned. Especially good on matters connected with Switzerland and Swiss law. A really top senior junior who solicitors look forward to working with again soon.” (Legal 500 2023)
“He is engaged, to the point, highly intelligent, innovative, industrious and a team player.” (Legal 500 2022)
“Has good experience and sufficient flexibility when dealing with difficult clients.” (Legal 500 2021)
Coverage & Insights
- ‘The Arbitration of Trust Disputes’, 7(4) J. Int’l Tr. & Corp. Plan. 203, 207 (1999), (Journal of International Trust & Corporate Planning)
- ‘The Use of Trusts for Corporate Structuring in Common Law Jurisdictions’, ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 384–393 (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (German Journal of Comparative Law) Vol. 117 [2018], No. 3
- ‘Common Law Assistance and Cross-Border Insolvency: From Modified Universalism to Supra-Territoriality’ (2015) 8 Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 3, 3
- ‘Disloyalty in the UK Capital Markets: Investment Intermediaries and Fiduciary Duties’ JIBFL, 2014, 98-101
- ‘The Arbitration of Trust Disputes’, 7(4) J. Int’l Tr. & Corp. Plan. 203, 207 (1999), (Journal of International Trust & Corporate Planning)
- ‘The Use of Trusts for Corporate Structuring in Common Law Jurisdictions’, ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 384–393 (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (German Journal of Comparative Law) Vol. 117 [2018], No. 3
- ‘Common Law Assistance and Cross-Border Insolvency: From Modified Universalism to Supra-Territoriality’ (2015) 8 Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 3, 3
- ‘Disloyalty in the UK Capital Markets: Investment Intermediaries and Fiduciary Duties’ JIBFL, 2014, 98-101
Qualifications & Education
2025 Called to the Bar of the Cayman Islands
2013 Called to the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
1994 Called to the Bar of England & Wales
1993 – 1994 Inns of Court School of Law, Gray’s Inn
Bar Finals
1992 – 1993 Anglia Ruskin University
Common Professional Examination
1987 – 1990 University of York
BA History (Hons)
2025 Called to the Bar of the Cayman Islands
2013 Called to the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
1994 Called to the Bar of England & Wales
1993 – 1994 Inns of Court School of Law, Gray’s Inn
Bar Finals
1992 – 1993 Anglia Ruskin University
Common Professional Examination
1987 – 1990 University of York
BA History (Hons)
