XXIV Old Buildings - Leading Commercial / Chancery Barristers
+44 (0)20 7691 2424
francis.tregear@xxiv.co.uk
Contact Clerks
Add to portfolio
Download CV (PDF)
Download vCard

Francis is a high-regarded and very experienced silk who is “a fountain of knowledgeand “a pleasure to work with, he’s charming, unflappable under pressure, good with clients and someone who has the ear of the court.” A specialist chancery commercial barrister, Francis’ experience spans all commercial litigation, including banking and finance, company, insolvency and civil fraud as well as complex international trust disputes.

“Francis is renowned for possessing a formidable intellect and has a really good way of putting across complicated arguments in simple terms”. He is valued by clients for his comprehensive and detailed understanding of the commercial issues and realities of a case. He is very good at identifying the issues that really matter and finding the quickest and most effective path to the best result. He is acknowledged as an extremely effective advocate both in court and on paper. This has made him a popular choice for all types of business disputes and civil fraud claims involving complex issues of fact, law and forensic accountancy; Francis is very thorough and gets the result required.”

A very significant proportion of his work is international in nature, and he has a sterling reputation for his international expertise. The international character of his practice involves not only appearing in jurisdictions outside England & Wales but also conducting proceedings in England & Wales alongside proceedings in other jurisdictions and providing expert evidence in foreign courts. He has acted and advised in many offshore jurisdictions including the Cayman Islands, BVI, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Guernsey, Gibraltar, Cyprus and the Isle of Man. He is called to the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean. He has also conducted proceedings in England & Wales alongside proceedings in the Russian Federation, Nigeria and Switzerland.  His pre-eminence in multi-jurisdictional disputes involves him in overall strategy decisions, interim remedies including freezing injunctions, conflicts of law, asset tracing and recovery. He has also provided expert evidence of English law for proceedings in the United States and arbitration proceedings. In 2022, instructed by Togut & Segal LLP in New York, he gave expert evidence for the successful party and was cross examined in the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York in an aircraft mortgage case.

Read more

Notable cases include;

  • Belco v The Regulatory Authority of Bermuda [2024] SC (Bda) 5 Civ (Supreme Court of Bermuda)
  • St John Trust Company (PVT) Limited v Medlands & Others (Bermuda) (2021) CA (Bda) 20 Civ
  • In the matter of Avivo Group (FSD 145 of 2022 (RPJ)), Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, Financial Services Division
  • Chiang Chen Industrial Charitable Foundation (Bahamas) 2022
  • The Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan and others [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm) [2022] EWCA Civ 29
  • Target Rich International v Forex Capital Markets Limited [2020] EWHC 1544 (Comm)
  • JSC Aeroflot Russian Airlines v Berezovsky and others [2012] EWHC 1610 (Ch) [2013] EWCA Civ 784
  • Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2014] EWHC 4336 (Ch) [2015] EWCA Civ 139
  • Herald Fund SPC, Pearson (as additional liquidator of Herald Fund v Primeo Fund (on appeal from Cayman Islands CA) in the Privy Council [2017] UKPC 19 and [2020] UKPC 3
  • BTU Power Co, Almazeedi v Penner and another liquidators of BTU Power Co (on appeal from Cayman Islands CA) to the Privy Council [2018] UKPC 3
  • Janus Capital Management v Safeguard World International [2016] EWHC 1355 (Ch)
  • North Shore Ventures v Anstead Holdings & Or [2012] EWCA Civ 11,[2010] EWCA Civ 1634,[2011] EWCA Civ 230 (case involving Berezovsky-related companies)
  • Force India Formula One Team v Etihad [2010] EWCA Civ 1051
  • Van der Garde v Force India [2010] EWHC 2373
  • Spreadex v Sekhon [2009] 1 BCLC 102
  • Byblos International Fund LLC v IFX Markets [2009] EWHC 346 (QB)
  • Camerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse [2011] EWHC 479 (Comm)
  • Torre Asset Funding v Royal Bank of Scotland [2013] EWHC 2670 (Ch)
  • Igiehon v Okunbo and others
  • Valiance Fund v Cheyne New Europe Fund (Cayman)
  • P Trust (Bermuda) 2023
  • Lemos v Coutts Cayman (Cayman Islands case)
  • Bank of Butterfield Bermuda (Bermuda)

Expertise

Francis is frequently involved as advocate on arbitrations administered by arbitral institutions including the ICC and contractual and ad hoc contractual agreements. Arbitration work is by its nature confidential, but the following details give an indication of the types of arbitration in which he is involved:

  • Acting in an arbitration for a prominent celebrity being sued for c.£7m for litigation funding monies allegedly owed (Seat London, English Law).
  • LCIA governed arbitration for defendants to a complex, contractual dispute said to be worth over USD$60 million. The claims involve allegations of breach of contract and raise complex legal questions concerning relational contracts, repudiation, rectification and frustration.
  • ICC arbitration between major telecommunication multi-national and US equity fund: The claim related to a guarantee liability in relation to the construction and fitting out of an office development in Moscow (Seat London, Russian law).
  • Arbitration for the Coal Authority: (Seat London, English law) A substantial arbitration which related to the compensation obligations in respect of land with development potential which had been the subject of opencast mining and post-opencast restoration.
  • Various arbitrations for British Coal: (Seats London, English law) including a dispute as to the valuation formula in an overage The case involves a complicated series of issues relating to the calculation of open market value.
  • Arbitration concerning major housing developer: (Seat London, English law). The dispute concerned the degree to which the developer had to inform a seller about the advisability of the seller securing a right of way over the land being sold.

The “very professional” Francis is described as “very strong and very easy to work with from a client perspective’. His work is mostly contentious but does include non-contentious advisory work. Contentious work has included disputes over structured products, contracts for differences, spread bets, options and other derivatives relating to financial, foreign exchange and sporting markets. He also has very considerable experience of work involving capital markets and derivative products.

Notable matters include the following:

  • In the matter of Avivo Group (FSD 145 of 2022 (RPJ)), Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, Financial Services Division: One of the first reported decisions on the test that the court should apply when deciding whether to appoint inspectors to examine into the affairs of a company and report to the Court.
  • Target Rich International Ltd v FXCM Ltd [2020] EWHC 1544 (Comm): Acting for company who provides electronic trading platform in Forex in a claim for multi-million-euro losses following the Swiss Flash Crash. The case involved complex forex trading on a spread betting platform.
  • Torre Asset Funding Limited v RBS [2013] EWHC 2670 (Ch): The Claim arose out of structured lending to a property company and was brought against RBS as the Agent, lender, equity participant and Security Trustee as well as being responsible for creating the structure.
  • Camerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse [2011] EWHC 479 (Comm): The claim arose out of a US$12m 5 hear auto-redemption note issued by Lehmann This case involved a claim of negligent advice provided by Credit Suisse in relation to a structured credit product and the terms of the contract. The claim was for negligent advice provided by Credit Suisse in respect of the Issuer.
  • Spreadex v Sekhon– [2008] EWHC 1136: important case dealing with COBS rules and the scope and effect of section 150 of FSMA The claim raised issues relating to breach by Spreadex of Regulatory obligations and contributory negligence by the spread better.
  • Spreadex Barnes: a £2.4m claim by a spread betting company against a debtor in which there were issues as to the debtor’s liability for an account that was not in his own name.
  • Spreadex v Kemsley: claim by a spread betting company for payment of £6.5m under a number of spread bets. The defendant took numerous points of contractual construction as well as relying on UCTA.
  • Byblos International v IFX Markets Ltd EWHC 346 (QB): Claim by a foreign exchange broker against IFX Markets which the broker alleged had underpaid it in relation to transactions by customers introduced under the brokerage. The claim involved detailed consideration of forex transactions and interpretation of the brokerage contract.
  • Various film financing schemes: Francis has been involved in a number of cases involving group litigation relating to tax-driven film financing schemes that failed to deliver the promised tax The schemes included Evolution, Take and Tower.

Francis has very broad experience relating to the tracing and recovery of assets fraudulently obtained. He has acted for liquidators and individuals seeking to recover assets from directors in a number of different contexts, generally involving fraud. He also acts for defendants and has successfully defended claims of fraud made against clients both on the merits and on the basis of challenges to the court’s jurisdiction.

For example:

  • The Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan and others, [2022] EWCA Civ 29, [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm): A substantial multi-defendant (c 40) fraud claim arising from bribes which were alleged to have been paid by various UK, Swiss and Liechtenstein financial institutions and The claims total US$900,000,000. Francis successfully represented Swiss private bank Banque Mirabaud & Cie SA in the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal.
  • JSC Aeroflot Russian Airlines v Berezovsky & others: In this lengthy piece of litigation Aeroflot alleged that it had been defrauded of over US$200m in overflight payments paid by international Aeroflot alleged that a complex network of companies (the Forus Group) had been formed and used to take control of Aeroflot’s central treasury function and enable overflight payments to be misappropriated through bogus lending. Francis acted for all of the companies which were incorporated in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Cyprus and the BVI and which had been formed by Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov for the legitimate purpose of providing access to western capital markets for a Russian company. Francis successfully challenged the claims against the Swiss and the Cyprus companies on jurisdictional grounds involving an arbitration clause and a choice of forum clause. This involved a successful hearing in the Court Appeal. Aeroflot’s appeal in respect of jurisdiction was dismissed and Forus’s appeal was allowed [2013] EWCA Civ 78. The claims against the Luxembourg and the BVI company proceeded in London. Forensic accountancy evidence analysed by Francis and the legal team with the assistance of forensic accounting experts showed that the claims by Aeroflot were and always had been political and baseless. Aeroflot discontinued its claims on the first day of the trial. Francis’ clients were awarded indemnity costs [2018] EWHC 1735 (Ch). Francis also took steps to ensure that the family of Mr Glushkov (who was murdered shortly before the trial was due to start) were able to obtain a costs order against Aeroflot.
  • JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 139, [2014] EWHC 4336: Francis acted for Sergei Pugachev who was a politically exposed Russian oligarch then living in London (he was known as “Putin’s banker). The state-appointed liquidator of a Russian bank claimed an alleged deficiency of US$2 billion in the liquidation pursuant to Russian insolvency law. The proceedings were commenced in England under section 25 of the CJJA 1982 and freezing orders were obtained. The claim exceeded US$2Bn. Over two years Francis acted in hard-fought proceedings in relation to extensive WFOs obtained by the Claimant A very important point of law as to the scope of a worldwide freezing order in relation to interests under a discretionary trust was considered by the Court of Appeal.
  • MG Fabrications (in Liquidation) v Lloyd’s Register: Francis acted for Lloyds Register in relation to a major (and ambitious) fraudulent trading claim made against Lloyds Register by the liquidators of a ship-building The liquidators alleged that fraudulent certificates had been issued. After a hard-fought pre-trial defence, the claimant liquidators abandoned the claim on the eve of trial.
  • BTA Bank: Francis acted for various BVI companies who were alleged to have been used as conduits to move money stolen from the claimants in connection with the claims against Mr Ablyazov.

“An excellent, inclusive team leader, who is thoughtful and highly strategic Francis has extensive commercial litigation experience domestically and internationally covering a wide range of practice areas including:

  • Fund and banking litigation
  • Company and business disputes
  • Forex and other derivatives
  • Trust disputes
  • Conflicts of law disputes
  • Sports disputes

His notable cases include:

  • Belco v The Regulatory Authority of Bermuda [2024] SC (Bda) 5 Civ (Supreme Court of Bermuda): Acting for the Bermuda Electric Light Company on a Statutory appeal against the regulatory authority which includes novel and technical points.
  • BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP v The Financial Conduct Authority – this case involves advising the liquidators of hedge/investment funds managed by BlueCrest in Cayman on substantial claims relating to allegations of conflicts of interest and conflicts of duty in relation to the management of the funds. Both the SEC in the US and the FCA have imposed sanctions following investigations. Francis’s work has involved close monitoring of proceedings between BlueCrest and the FCA in England and its implications for the liquidators’ claims.
  • Everest Alliance Limited v Petropavlovsk Plc – 2022: Francis acted for activist shareholders and successfully obtained an injunction to prevent a newly appointed board of a publicly listed company from taking control prior to an EGM convened by the client. The case also involved the Takeover Panel.
  • Francis acted in arbitration proceedings for a prominent celebrity being sued for c.£7m by litigation funders for monies allegedly owed following a settlement of claims for fraud against the Royal Bak of Scotland (Seat London, English Law).
  • GLAS SAS (London Branch) v. European Topsoho SARL and Ors (2022): Commercial court claim by a trustee against the issuer of €250m Secured Exchangeable Bonds, claiming breach of a failure to pay on the maturity date. The underlying dispute concerns a battle for the control of a high-brand fashion company listed on Paris Euronext.
  • Igiehon v Okunbo and 29 others 2023: Proceedings in the Chancery Division in which Francis acted for the Claimant who was an executor of the will of her deceased husband who was a Nigerian shipping and energy billionaire. There was a major dispute in Nigeria over control of a large network of trading companies between Francis’s client and the deceased’s family in Nigeria. The Claimant claimed that the English Court had jurisdiction and could grant her relief for breaches of fiduciary duty/undue influence relating to alleged transfers of shares and appoint her as executor to the deceased’s estate. Francis successfully obtained worldwide freezing relief relating to assets of real property and shares worth over US$100m held in Nigeria the UK and Canada following claims of misappropriation. The rapid obtaining of interim relief in the Chancery Division enabled this very complex claim to be settled.
  • Public Institution for Social Services v Al Rajaan and others – [2022] EWCA Civ 29, [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm): A substantial multi-defendant (c 40) fraud claim arising from bribes which are alleged to have been paid by various UK, Swiss and Liechtenstein financial institutions and intermediaries. The claims total US$900,000,000. Francis successfully represented Swiss bank Banque Mirabaud & Cie SA in the Court of Appeal.
  • Moke International Ltd v Ming International Holdings Limited [2019] EWHC 174 (Ch)a claim relating to the purchase of trademark rights in relation to the iconic Moke beach buggy. Francis successfully argued that the English court had jurisdiction and obtained an injunction in London against Monaco lawyers to protect the trademark rights pending their transfer to a subsidiary which was the rightful owner. The case proceeded with a claim for summary judgment against the Monaco lawyers and Francis obtained a declaration that they could not start proceedings or make any further applications without the court’s permission. The case involves issues of Monaco law and a claim against a Hong Kong company.  Francis has also advised on English law aspects of the English judgments for the purposes of further litigation in Monaco.
  • Janus Capital Management v Safeguard World International [2016] EWHC 1355 (Ch) – Francis successfully defended Safeguard World International against overpayment claim. This case raised complex issues of contractual interpretation in the context of forex accounting. Certain issues on which Francis’s clients succeeded turned on Francis’s effective cross examination of the Claimant’s witnesses.
  • North Shore Ventures v Anstead Holdings & Ors – [2012] EWCA Civ 11,[2010] EWCA Civ 1634, [2011] EWCA Civ 230: This was a claim made by a company which had been incorporated by Boris Berezovsky for the purpose of a loan transaction to a Russian The case raised important points in relation to frustration of contracts and the duties of disclosure in guarantee contracts. It also dealt with issues relating to certification of indebtedness in guarantee contracts. These issues were considered by the Court of Appeal and that judgment remains major authority in this area. (Francis wrote an article on a significant new authority which cited North Shore in the Journal of International Banking and Financial Law in October 2018). In the process of execution there was also an important judgment on whether cross-examination of judgment debtors on assets should be heard in private. A further issue arose as to the disclosure obligations of beneficiaries of discretionary trusts which was dealt with by the Court of Appeal.
  • Camerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse– [2011] EWHC 479 (Comm): This case concerned complex structured credit products and the terms of the contracts on the basis of which advice was given by Credit Suisse.
  • JSC Aeroflot Russian Airlines v Berezovsky, Glushkov, Forus Holdings and others (2018): This is dealt with in more detail Aeroflot sued the Forus group of companies for over US$120,000,000 which was allegedly misappropriated in the course of providing finance for Aeroflot. The claims were resisted on the basis that the English Court did not have jurisdiction over some of the defendants which succeeded for some of the defendants. In 2018, when the matter came on for trial in 2018 Aeroflot discontinued its case at trial when the legal team led by Francis was able to show that the entire claim was political and without substance.
  • AMG Global v Africa Resources [2008] EWHC 221 (Ch) [2008] EWCA 1262 and 1278: This was high profile trial between representatives of Mugabe’s regime and a Zimbabwean businessman concerning the rights over bearer share warrants for two English companies which owned very substantial Zimbabwean asbestos The case is important in relation to issues relating to unlawful assistance for purchase of shares under the former s151 Companies Act which was considered by the Court of Appeal on the other side’s unsuccessful appeal.
  • Hedge fund disputes: These are numerous. Francis has acted in contentious and non-contentious clients in relation to hedge funds since the genesis of the financial crisis in 20007 when asset values first started to decline rapidly and funds were faced with increasing levels of redemption and margin calls. The cases that Francis acted on covered all the stages of (i) managing redemptions, (ii) resisting compulsory liquidation and (iii) issues of priority between creditors, shareholders who had completed the redemption process and shareholders. These cases related to many funds including CPIM SCF, Weavering, La Fayette, Bear Stearns, Matador, Torre Asset Funding and Valiance amongst others. He has also been involved in claims against investment managers.
  • Lehman Bros International Europe – [2008] EWHC 269: at the inception of the insolvency process for LBIE Francis acted for equity funds seeking information from the administrators of Lehman Bros which held US$400m of assets as collateral for prime brokerage in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the bank.
  • Film financing scheme disputes: Francis has been involved in a number of claims resulting from supposedly tax efficient film finance schemes such as Evolution, Tower and These are complex group actions involving claims based on breach of trust, breach of contract, misrepresentation, professional negligence, faulty tax advice and execution of schemes, breach of schemes as well as regulatory aspects.
  • Spread Betting Cases: Francis acted for many years for Spreadex a spread betting company which involved various high value cases for a spread betting company called Spreadex including the Sekhon case– the client was held 85% contributorily liable as the decision to keep positions open was driven by him and he was not inexperienced) and its claim against the failed Icelandic bank
  • Formula 1 disputes: Francis has dealt with a number of cases for Jordan Grand Prix and in its subsequent form as Force India. These claims include Jordan’s claim against Heinz Harald Frentzen and against Tiger Telematics. He has also dealt with a number of disputes relating to the Force India Formula 1 team including Force India Formula One v Etihad [2010 CA], Van der Garde v Force India Formula One [2010] EWHC 2373 – an important case on termination by repudiatory breach and remediability of breaches of contract.
  • BTA Bank: Francis acted in relation to claims against various BVI companies which were alleged to have been used as conduits for significant sums of money in connection with BTA’s claim against Mr Ablyazov.
  • Savannah Consulting and Mintley v Mintley Investments Limited 2007-09 Gib LR: This was a derivative claim brought by a minority shareholder for a company in relation to the sale of an asset at an Francis successfully obtained a freezing order in Gibraltar and successfully resisted an attempt to strike out the claim.

Francis is recommended for company disputes  in Legal 500 clients praise him as a “statesman of the company Bar who commands respect from judges.”’ He is instructed on high profile disputes relating to shareholder disputes and share valuations form a major part of his practice. He also has considerable experience of hedge fund related company work.

Francis has in addition been involved in company proceedings in Cyprus and the Channel Islands and a complex restructuring of the assets of various international companies in order to permit distribution through a trust structure in the Cayman Islands.

His involvement in company disputes include:

  • Ponsford & Anor v Sali & Anor [2024] EWHC 2748 (Ch) – The case involved the dissolution of a partnership and disputes over ownership of valuable property portfolio.
  • Everest Alliance v Maslovskiy & Ors (Re Petropavlovsk) (BL-2020-000992): Acting for an activist shareholder, Everest Alliance, in an application for injunctive relief in relation to the composition of the board of a FTSE-listed Russian gold mining company after a contested AGM for the company.
  • Pearson acting as additional Liquidator on behalf of Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation) v Primeo Fund
    [2017] UKPC 19 and [2020] UKPC 3 – Francis acted for the Additional Liquidator of Herald in his appeal before the Privy Council in the long-running dispute between Herald and Primeo (Herald’s largest shareholder) concerning the rectification of Herald’s register of shareholders. The initial stages of the case were heard in the Cayman Islands in the Grand Court and the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal. These cases arose out of the Madoff Ponzi scheme.  This was a very long-running and complex liquidation in Herald Fund was one of the biggest investors in Bernard L Madoff Investment Services BLMIS. It involved complex and novel issues under the Cayman Companies Law as well as significant liaison with lawyers in New York acting in the Madoff bankruptcy. Francis acted for the Additional Liquidators of Herald Fund which was one of the largest Madoff feeder funds. The case raised issues as to the effect of provisions of the Cayman Companies law relating to redemptions and rectification of the share register in the exceptional circumstances of the liquidation of BLMIS in New York. The case involved hearings in the Grand Court and the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal and the Privy Council.
  • Kathrein v Camulos: this case was heard in the Grand Court and in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal and concerned the interpretation of the articles and whether it was open to investors to petition to wind up the fund on the just and equitable basis.
  • North Shore Ventures v Anstead (see above): Although the principal matter in this case related to the disclosure obligations owed by a creditor to a guarantor and frustration it also involved issues relating to bearer shares and new legislation immobilising bearer shares in the BVI.
  • Camber 3 PLC: This was a claim for US$24m. There was alleged breach of collateral management CPIM was said to have bought securities which were not eligible for a particular fund.
  • AMG v Africa Resources Limited (see above): Francis acted for Africa Resources Limited (a BVI company owned by a high-profile Zimbabwean/South African businessman) in a dispute with AMG (which was a nominee for the government of Zimbabwe) as to the rights over bearer share warrants for two English companies which owned very substantial Zimbabwean asbestos The case turned on the true construction of the US$60,000,000 purchase agreement for the bearer shares and related security documentation. The Government of Zimbabwe also unsuccessfully argued that the purchase agreement was void pursuant to section 151 Companies Act 1985 on the grounds of unlawful financial assistance. Evans- Lombe J held that section 151 was not breached because any financial assistance was given by an offshore subsidiary in accordance with local law. This finding was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
  • Davenport v Cream Holdings: Francis acted successfully for an outgoing shareholder in relation to the company’s compulsory share-transfer provisions.
  • Savannah Consulting v Mintley Investments Ltd and others: (see above) A derivative action brought by a shareholder in the Gibraltar courts for Canadian $12.5m.
  • Elliott v Planet Organic [1999] EWHC JO129-13; Woolwich v Twenty Twenty Productions [2003] EWHC JO214-3 – two high profile shareholder disputes in relation to upscale High Street shop Planet Organic and TV production company.

Francis’s practice in relation to hedge funds and structured investment vehicles ensured his involvement in major disputes when the current global financial crisis first arose in 2007 and 2008. This means that he has advised on and been involved in litigation relating to a range of issues which have affected funds and their managers as the crisis has developed and worsened.

In 2007 he was advising funds in relation to the power to manage redemptions generally either consensually by agreed lock-ups and variation of class rights or by suspending redemptions or imposing gates. The objective was to use the articles of association to ensure that a balance was struck between redeeming and non- redeeming investors. This involved advising on restructuring and litigation in the Grand Court in Cayman on the imposition of gates.

After the crisis in 2007 and 2008, Francis became involved in litigation in Cayman relating to the liquidation of Bear Stearns funds and conflicts of interest in service providers to funds.

From 2008 onwards, Francis has been involved in advising funds on questions relating to powers of suspension/gating of redemption, orderly wind-downs and powers to redeem compulsorily during suspension. He has also been involved in litigation relating to the scope of the Court’s power to wind up funds on the just and equitable basis – e.g. Camulos Partners Offshore Ltd (Court of Appeal Cayman 2010) in which he successfully appealed an order and got a winding up petition struck out. The next stage in hedge fund liquidation involved issues of priorities in liquidation between creditor/shareholders and shareholders who had not achieved creditor status because they had not completed the redemption process or had not sought to redeem at all. This culminated in the lengthy Herald litigation in Cayman and the Privy Council which is dealt with in more detail above.

Other cases he has dealt with include:

  • Torre Asset Funding (for citation see above): A hedge fund invested in a property portfolio by way of syndicated RBS had the top US$500m layer which was securitized and protected by a credit default swap. However, RBS also acted in a number of different capacities including as agent for the lenders. It is alleged that RBS should have told other lenders of indications that the underlying borrower was running out of cash and needed restructuring.
  • Valiance (Cayman): A hedge fund (A) invested in another hedge fund (B). The case relates to the terms of the offer memorandum and whether it failed to disclose a structural and serious conflict of The claim relates to the losses caused to (A) by the failure to make proper disclosure of conflict in relation to a key asset held by (B).
  • Camerata Properties: The claim arose out of a US$12m 5 hear auto-redemption note issued by Lehmann Brothers. This case involved a claim of negligent advice provided by Credit Suisse in relation to a structured credit product and the terms of the contract. The claim was for negligent advice provided by Credit Suisse in respect of the Issuer.
  • Matador: This Cayman Islands dispute concerns whether there was a valid gate on redemption as a result of an investor being bound by the articles after being enticed into investing on the basis of some particular

Praised in Legal 500 for his “excellent advice”, Francis has a long-established insolvency practice.

Francis acted in the long-running Herald litigation in Cayman and the Privy Council. Francis acted for the Additional Liquidators of Herald Fund SPC which was one of the largest Madoff feeder funds. The case raised particular issues relating to the priority of redeemers in a fund investing in a Ponzi scheme. It also raised issues relating to the liquidator’s power to rectify the share register where a fund’s NAV has been fraudulently misstated. This was a power which had not previously been considered by the Cayman Islands courts. Francis was involved in this litigation which went to the Privy Council in relation to redeemers for many years until it concluded in 2018.

Other notable cases include:

  • [2022] In the Matter of JPA No 111 Co Ltd Case NO 21-12075-ds: The case involved two Airbus jets which were leased to Vietnam Airlines under instruments governed by English law. They were leased by JPA and JPA’s indebtedness was secured on the terms of a mortgage governed by English law. The pandemic affected the ability of Vietnam Airlines to make lease payments which affected JPA’s ability to service indebtedness incurred to acquire the planes. Fitzwalter, a vulture acquired enough of the secured debt at discounted levels to appoint a new Security Agent which immediately initiated foreclosure proceedings under aircraft mortgage agreements. Francis’s clients commenced insolvency proceedings to freeze the foreclosure proceedings and to assert their right to sell the aircraft which would enable all creditors to be paid not just Fitzwalter. The issue turned on whether, in the circumstances, the debtors had an interest in the jets to enable them to sell them. Francis provided written reports on English law and gave evidence at the substantive hearing which related essentially to JPA’s property right in its equity of redemption. Francis acted as an expert in English law for the successful party (“JPA”) in a dispute heard by Hon. David S Jones a judge in the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.
  • Almaazeedi v BTU Power Company [2018] UKPC 3 – Francis acted for the Joint Official Liquidators of this Cayman His involvement included cross examining a director in the USA, acting in relation to over US$40,000,000 of proofs submitted by various entitles connected with the director and a claim that the orders made in the liquidation should be set aside because of the apparent bias of the Judge hearing the case in Cayman. This issue went to the Privy Council and judgment was handed down in early 2018.
  • Camulos Partners LLP (see above): winding up petition in the Cayman Leading case as to the correct approach to redemption in specie and the limits of just and equitable petitions in Cayman law after the Strategic Turnaround Master Partnership case.
  • Matador: liquidation of a multi-million dollar fund in the Cayman This dispute concerned the validity of a gate imposed on redemptions and whether the gated redeemers could validly seek to wind up the company on the just and equitable ground.
  • Emirates International Investment: A fraud concerning a sovereign investment The central allegation is that consultancy charged to EIIC were fraudulently charged (and paid). The principal legal issue is whether the liquidation of the company which was commenced as a voluntary liquidation by its owners and directors (and which was continued as an insolvent liquidation) should be terminated under BVI insolvency law.
  • Polygon Opportunities Global Fund: Just and equitable winding up petition which was discontinued following a settlement.
  • North Shore Ventures v Anstead Holdings & Ors (see above): law relating to bearer shares, migration from the BVI to Nevis and St Kitt’s and the nature of the dissolution of a Nevis Trust.
  • In re Lehman Brothers (Europe) (in administration) v. Four Private Equity Funds [2008] EWHC 269 (see above).
  • Take film investment scheme: This multi-party litigation has been complicated by the fact that the promoters of the Take scheme (Teather and Greenwood) were owned by Landsbanki whose insolvency delayed claims which had to be met by insurers.

Francis has been called to the bar of the Eastern Caribbean. He has also been admitted to appear in Court in Cayman, the BVI, the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Isle of Man. Clients comment “Francis is a user-friendly silk. He is well-versed in the law and able to relate to clients and instructing lawyers very easily. He is adept at explaining complex legal points in layman’s terms. His advocacy is well-prepared, calm and persuasive.” (Legal 500: The English Bar Offshore).

He has appeared in the courts of the BVI (Court of Appeal), Bermuda (Supreme Court and Court of Appeal), the Bahamas (High Court) as well as in the Privy Council.

Bermuda

  • Re P Trusts: an important trust case in Bermuda considering an opposed application by trustees to bless the trustee’s decision to split the interests held in one trust into separate trusts. This involved contested Public Trustee v Cooper relief which was heard by the Chief Justice of Bermuda.
  • Re B Trusts: a very large-scale trust litigation before the Bermuda Court of Appeal. The trust holds assets worth many billions of dollars. The dispute between the present and a former trustee involved issues of trust law, company law and principles of Natural Justice.
  • Belco v The Regulatory Authority of Bermuda [2024] SC (Bda) 5 Civ (Supreme Court of Bermuda): Acting in litigation against the litigator in respect of the calculation of rates that can be charged under Bermuda’s energy legislation. This case raises novel issues in respect of which there is no Bermuda authority which will involve a very significant issue as to the regulatory model which Bermuda should adopt.

BVI

  • Francis appeared on behalf of Kobre & Kim in Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal successfully discharging a gagging injunction in relation to a judgment given in Norwich Pharmacal proceedings in the BVI in Federal Republic of Nigeria v Nerine Trust Company (BVI). The injunction was made personally against the target company’s lawyers. The proceedings were related to litigation (Federal Republic of Nigeria v P&ID concerning an US$11 billion Nigerian arbitration award which was set aside on the basis that it had been obtained by fraud.
  • Francis has previously appeared on a number of occasions in the Commercial Court and the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.

Bahamas

  • Chiang Chen Industrial Charitable Foundation – Trust matter involving a Chinese settlor of a very wealthy charitable trust which raised complex issues under the terms of the trust arising from an inter-family dispute as to the capacity of the Settlor to appoint trust
  • Francis also acted on behalf of the liquidators of a Brazilian bank against Bahamas-based directors.

Cayman Islands

  • [2025] Francis is advising the liquidators of a number of BlueCrest funds in relation to claims against the Investment Manager (see above for more detail).
  • [2024] Francis is acting for a Cayman incorporated fund based in Hong Kong in relation to a dispute relating to a substantial redemption payment from an account in Silicon Valley Bank which collapsed in 2024
  • Herald Fund SPC: very long-running and complex liquidation in Cayman concerning one of the biggest investors in Bernard L Madoff Investment Services The case involved hearings in the Grand Court and the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal and the Privy Council.
  • Re Avivo Group FSD 145 of 2022: Acting for a Saudi client in an important application for the appointment of Inspectors in relation to a Cayman-incorporated investment fund.
  • Kathrein v Camulos: Cayman Islands Court of Appeal matter concerning the interpretation of the articles and whether it was open to investors to petition to wind up the fund on the just and equitable basis.
  • Almazeedi v BTU Power (in liquidation). Francis acted for the liquidators in relation to litigation in Cayman and the Privy Council relating to a winding up order made in the Grand Court. The case also involved Francis taking a deposition from the company’s director in Boston USA.

Gibraltar

  • Francis acted for one of the beneficiaries in relation to the settlement of trust proceedings in Gibraltar.
  • Mintley v Savannah Holdings Francis acted for a minority shareholder in relation to a shareholder disputed relating to the sale of an asset at an undervalue. Francis successfully obtained a freezing injunction and successfully resisted an application to set the order aside. The case subsequently settled.

Bermuda

  • St John Trust Company (PVT) Limited v Medlands [2022] CA Bda 18 Civ – Francis acted for a discretionary beneficiary of a multi-billion trust. He appeared at the hearing of the appeal which was Further, the Court of Appeal appointed a new trustee on the basis of the argument advanced by Francis on behalf of his client. The appointment of the new trustee was subsequently formalised by the Supreme Court. The appeal involved complex of trust law which were made more complex by reason of the fact that one of the other beneficiaries had been indicted in the US for tax fraud and the US Department of Justice sought to intervene.
  • Re P Trusts [2023] SC (Bda) 31 Civ. 20 April 2023 Francis acted for one of the beneficiaries in a dispute with a trustee which was seeking the Court’s approval for a division of trust assets. The hearing was before Hargun CJ.

Francis has done a considerable amount of work for coal and gypsum mining companies and/or land subject to the grant of mineral rights. Recent cases have involved detailed consideration of mining leases and working rights agreements.

His cases include:

  • Acting for British Coal in relation to the formula contained in a transfer of a strategic development site outside The contract contained an overage clause. The developers failed to develop the land blaming the economic crisis and the question turns on development value and the proper interpretation of the contract.
  • Acting for Persimmon Homes in an Arbitration seeking rectification for unilateral and mutual mistake of a contract for a development site to provide for a right of way to part of the retained land.
  • Acted successfully for the Coal Authority in an arbitration relating to a terminal payment compensation clause following opencast coal operations on land with very valuable development potential.
  • Successfully represented UK Coal in litigation relating to development land swap agreement following opencast coaling operations in which the issues were estoppels, rectification, mutual and unilateral mistake.
  • Advising the Coal Authority in relation to the validity of a restrictive covenant limiting density of development of land for housing under which there were former mine workings.
  • Advising the Coal Authority in relation to liability for damage caused by former mine workings in Wales.
  • Hallam Land Management Ltd v- RJB Mining (UK) Ltd A condition of an option agreement for the acquisition of some 45 acres of developable land that provided that the option was exercisable on the submission of a planning application for development of “the property” was not satisfied where the application as submitted.
  • Advised Manchester City Council in relation to restrictive covenants relating to development land in respect of which there had been historic mining operations.
  • Ponsford & Anor v Sali & Anor [2024] EWHC 2748 (Ch) – The case involved the dissolution of a partnership and disputes over ownership of valuable property portfolio.

Francis is a very experienced chancery practitioner. Recommended by Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 for his traditional chancery practice, his work is largely international in nature.

A large proportion of Francis’ trust work is international and he has experience acting for Cayman, Bahamian and Bermudan trusts. His work as a writer on trusts has been cited by the Chief Justice in the Bermuda Supreme Court – see In the Matter of the C Trust – 2019: No. 053 at [23] to [27].

Francis’ chancery experience includes:

  • Igiehon v Okunbo and 29 others: Francis acted for the widow of a Nigerian billionaire who was also one of his executors in Nigeria. She was in dispute with members of his family who were also executors. The claim related to a large network of trading and asset-holding companies as well as claiming a grant of probate to herself in England rather than in Nigeria. Francis successfully obtained a worldwide freezing order relating to assets of real property and shares worth over US$100m held in Nigeria, the UK and Canada in respect of claims of misappropriation breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, duress and unconscionable bargain. Shortly before trial, the proceedings settled largely as a result of Francis’s success in obtaining early and extensive interim relief.
  • In the matter of The Estate of Kevin Patrick Frain (Aka Kevin Patrick Reeves) [2022] WTLR 1549.
  • Bahamas – CHIANG CHEN INDUSTRIAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION – a dispute in the Bahamas concerning the identity of the protector of a Bahamian trust holding substantial assets in Hong Kong in circumstances where the mental capacity of the settlor and former protector was contested. The case involved issues of whether the proper law of the issues was Hong Kong or Bahamas.
  • In The Matter of The P Trusts [2023] SC (Bda) 31 Civ. 20 April 2023: Litigation in the Supreme Court Bermuda.
  • Bermuda – John Trust Company (PVT) Limited v Medlands – see above.
  • Bermuda Trusts: this involved a large group of high value Bermuda Trusts and important questions relating to appointment of trustees and protectors. The allegation that the trustees and/or protectors were invalidly appointed has led to major problems in the administration and constitution of the Trust and the effectiveness of steps taken within the Trust.
  • Guernsey trust dispute: Francis has been involved in issues relating to whether an employee benefit trust which was capable of being set aside on the basis of mistakes made in its establishment.
  • Film finance tax shelter schemes: Francis is involved for large groups of investors in litigation involving film finance tax shelter schemes in which a critical issue is whether investors’ money was held by the scheme promoters on the basis of a purpose trust giving rise to obligations to account in addition to liability for misstatement and A judgment is awaited in relation to certain preliminary issues in this case.

Company & Partnership

Chambers & Partners

‘Francis is a smooth and calm operator.’ ‘An excellent, inclusive team leader, who is thoughtful and highly strategic.’ (2025)

‘A pleasure to work with, he’s charming, unflappable under pressure, and someone who has the ear of the court.” “A brilliant lawyer.’ (2023)

‘A shrewd operator who is underestimated by the opposition at their peril.’(2022)

‘His ability to forensically analyse complicated matters and to get to the core of the issue is just outstanding. He’s a great advocate who is highly responsive.’ (2021)

Legal 500

‘A statesman of the company Bar who commands respect from judges.’ (2025)

‘Great and clear advocate. Very commercial. Extraordinary mind and very focused.’ (2023)

‘Cool under pressure, exceedingly pleasant to deal with regardless of the demands of the case, thoughtful and measured in his advocacy and highly responsive.’ (2022)

‘His advocacy is superb and his drafting and insight into the intricacies of a case is exceptional.’ (2021)

Chancery: Commercial

Chambers & Partners

‘A pleasure to work with. Francis is charming, unflappable under pressure, and someone who has the ear of the court. He is also very good with clients.’(2025, 2023)

‘Absolutely divine. He is a delight to work with as he is so incredibly user-friendly.’(2022 – UK and Global)

‘His ability to forensically analyse complicated matters and to get to the core of the issue is just outstanding. He is an excellent advocate and very responsive.’ (2021 – UK and Global)

Chancery: Traditional

Chambers & Partners

‘Francis is very thorough and gets the result required.’ ‘Francis is bright, dedicated and versatile, and has a brilliant legal mind. Very easy to work with and very committed to his clients, he provides sophisticated advice on complex points.’  (2025)

‘Francis is great to work with and has a nice calm approach.‘ (2023)

‘Francis is great to work with and has a nice, calm approach.’ ‘Extremely focused, commercial and intelligent.’(2022)

‘His legal work is fantastic and he has this very light touch with clients.’ ‘He’s really nice to work with, he’s charming and he has a nice way about him.‘(2022)

‘Tremendously careful and elegant in court.’ (2021)

Offshore

Chambers & Partners

‘Francis is renowned for possessing a formidable intellect and has a really good way of putting across complicated arguments in simple terms.’ (2025)

‘He’s good on the technical side and he’s someone you like to have as part of your team.’ ‘He is brilliant. He’s very strategic, very calm with excitable clients, measured and a team player.’ (2022 – UK and Global)

‘Insightful, user-friendly and very astute.’ ‘Solid and unflappable.’ (2021 – UK and Global)

Legal 500

‘Francis is a user-friendly silk. He is well-versed in the law and able to relate to clients and instructing lawyers very easily. He is adept at explaining complex legal points in layman’s terms. His advocacy is well-prepared, calm and persuasive.’ (2025, 2024)

‘Francis has a wonderful demeanour and is easy to work with. He is also responsive and a great leader to have on your matters. He is a team player and the clients all like his style and approach.’ (2023)

‘Francis Tregear is well regarded in the traditional chancery space and is a name in the offshore market.’ ‘He is very strong and great to work with.’ (2023)

‘A great intellect and he brings a sense of calm, control and careful thought.’ (2022)

‘He commands respect with his experience and is very impressive in court.’ (2021)

Insolvency

Legal 500

Leading silk. (2025)

‘Very sharp brain, can translate complex issues and theories into easily understandable and digestible for the client. Excellent rapport with judges who respect his straightforward approach.’ (2023)

‘Cool under pressure and his advice and strategy for matters is sound.’ (2022)

‘Excellent value and very user friendly.’ (2021)

Professional Negligence

Legal 500

‘He is experienced in professional negligence disputes.’ (2021)

Banking & Finance

Legal 500

‘Very professional.’  (2025)

‘Very sharp brain, can translate complex issues and theories into easily understandable and digestible for the client. Excellent rapport with judges who respect his straightforward approach.’ (2023)

‘A consummate gentleman; cool under pressure, exceedingly pleasant to deal with regardless of the demands of the case, thoughtful and measured in his advocacy and highly responsive.’ (2022)

‘Always prepared and available, and very impressive ability to deal with and solve complex issues.’ (2021)

Commercial Litigation

Legal 500

‘His advocacy and pleading drafting skills are exceptional.’ (2025)

‘Francis is calm and measured, independent-minded and thoughtful. As an advocate (both orally and in writing), his work is very poised and attractively presented. He has real intellectual fire-power.’ (2023)

‘A consummate gentleman, cool under pressure and exceedingly pleasant to deal with regardless of the demands of the case. Francis is thoughtful and measured in his advocacy and highly responsive.’ (2022)

‘A pleasure to deal with and an excellent advocate.’ (2021)

Private Client: Trusts and Probate

Legal 500

Leading silk. (2025)

‘Francis is an excellent advocate and is highly persuasive in court. His written work is excellent, and his legal opinions carry real weight when a trust application requires such an opinion. He is a very good leader of a team for instructing lawyers, junior counsel and the client.’ (2023)

‘For a senior silk Francis is easy to deal with and is down to earth. His advice and strategy for matters is sound.’ (2022)

‘He commands respect with his experience and was very impressive in court.’ (2021)

Fraud: Civil

Legal 500

Leading silk. (2025)

‘Very user friendly and easy to work with. Excellent practitioner.’ (2023)

‘Clients love him – good common sense while alive to their priorities.’ (2022)

‘Very focused on the strategy, has a clear and reasonable way to explain the choices, and is always available.’ (2021)

 ‘A very smart man and a very effective advocate who is good at dealing with difficult questions’. ‘Extremely hard-working, user-friendly and responsive. He gets to grip with extremely complicated contractual issues and statutory matters of interpretation in a practical and incisive manner.’

+44 (0)20 7691 2424
francis.tregear@xxiv.co.uk
Contact Clerks
Add to portfolio
Download CV (PDF)
Download vCard
  • BA (Cantab) (St John’s College)
  • Recorder (2003)
  • Accredited Mediator
  • ChBA (The Chancery Bar Association) (former member of the Committee)
  • COMBAR ( The Commercial Bar Association)
  • Member of the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • Professional Negligence Bar Association

Business Details


VAT number:
245949228
Registered name:
Francis Benedict William Tregear

Related insights and news

xxiv logo
Read more
leading firm legal 500 Caribbean 2025
Read more
chambers and partners
Read more

View all related insights and news

Portfolio Builder

Select the legal expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)