Ian
Clarke KC

Ian has extensive arbitration experience as an advocate, sole arbitrator and as a member of a panel of arbitrators.

A very significant proportion of these arbitrations have been seated in jurisdictions other than England and Wales and have variously been conducted under the rules of the CIArb, the ICC, the LCIA and UNCITRAL, with which Ian is familiar.

The subject matter of these arbitrations has comprised construction-related disputes under JCT contracts and commercial arbitrations, the subject matter of which has included:

• the dissolution of partnerships, the validity of dissolution notices and status of the exiting partner (good leaver/bad leaver) and the impact on and calculation of the exiting partner’s entitlement
• company shareholder disputes and the scope, meaning and effect of a shareholder agreement and the calculation of an out-going shareholder’s profit entitlement and share value
• breach of joint venture agreements and whether and to what extent one of the joint venturers’ actions had been in good faith and/or in compliance with the obligations imposed under the JVA in connection with the development and construction of a petro-chemical development in Saudi Arabia
• the nature of the obligations assumed under a personal guarantee in connection with an infrastructure project in West Africa and whether and to what extent the US $90 million claimed was due, the arbitration requiring the determination of the impact and effect of a partial settlement agreement and a local court judgement
• a tenant’s liability for rent in Qatar by reason of the impact of the blockade and/or Covid and the extent to which the Qatari Civil Code and/or the provisions of the lease itself afforded the tenant relief
• the construction of leasehold obligations across a portfolio of poultry farms and whether and to what extent a substantial number of biomass heating systems (179) were in proper working order, properly maintained and otherwise deficient in design and/or installation
• whether and to what extent a contract for the sale of land overseas had been validly determined, the issues concerning whether the underlying contract was subject to an overarching duty of good faith and whether and to what extent COVID and/or the vendor’s conduct had occasioned or permitted the purchaser an extension of time for completion.

As an advocate, Ian brings the exacting qualities of analysis, advocacy and tactical appreciation for which he is known and commended within the litigation sphere.

When sitting as an arbitrator, Ian uses his extensive experience as a commercial dispute resolver, a part-time judge (for nearly 20 years) and as an arbitrator to resolve contested issues of fact as well as disputes between experts efficiently and fairly. He is a robust and thorough arbitrator, with a forensic eye for detail. At the outset, he aims to engage with the parties to identify appropriate and effective directions within a reasonable timetable, so as to provide an expeditious resolution of the reference, whether by a final hearing or the determination of preliminary matters. He makes his awards promptly and succinctly.

Ian is a fellow of the Chartered Institute and on the panel of arbitrators for the LCIA and the Qatar International Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration (QICCA).

The core areas of Ian’s practice (injunctive and tracing remedies, breaches of fiduciary and other duties in relation to commercial ventures, companies, partnerships and trusts, real property and equity) are frequently engaged in the context of claims arising in civil fraud and for the purposes of recovering assets and advancing proprietary claims at all stages of the litigation process. Ian is frequently instructed both in the context of investigating an alleged fraud and thereafter, whether that involves interlocutory relief or conducting lengthy and complex trials. Ian’s experience in connection with civil fraud and rectification of the register at HM Land Registry is considered under the heading “Real Property” below.

Recent and on-going instructions include:

• In re X Limited

Ian’s high profile clients invested very significantly in a complex corporate structure to develop an industrial project. The investment to capitalise the project was made partly by borrowing from certain group entities, which facilities were made available to the lender by a complex series of ‘daylight’ loans such that the borrowed and contributed investment was both illusory and insufficient. The premises for the investment was therefore dishonest and the case is being defended accordingly.

• Haniwells v Sabeh

The Defendant transferred £1.5 million from Ian’s client’s bank allegedly in satisfaction of obligations under an oral agreement following the sale of a property portfolio; the matter is currently closely fought in terms of disclosure and the provision of information required/necessary under the terms of the injunction. The case is brought in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; the dispute is likely to require careful and exacting cross examination against minimal documentation. Matters are complicated by the transfer of the money into a variety of Middle Eastern jurisdictions and the Defendants’ residence in Jordan.

• In Re Y Limited

Ian’s client is the insolvent proprietor of a substantial property (a hotel), in which multiple claimants assert an interest having acquired a leasehold interest in certain rooms.  It is common ground that there has been a fraud; the question is its attribution to Ian’s client and, separately, whether any proprietary interest can be established (as the claimants assert) in the property

For some more recent reported decisions, see:

Bahia v Sidhu [2022] EWHC 875

Ian represented the estate of the deceased partner in a series of inquiries designed to establish the partners’ respective receipts of rent from a portfolio of properties in west London. The case involved extensive disputes of fact and allegations of forgery and dishonesty.

Ahuja Investments Limited v Victorygame Limited  [2021] EWHC 2382

Following the sale of a property for c. £18m, Ian’s client was sued for fraudulent misrepresentation by which it was said he had induced the sale and was accordingly liable for damages of approximately £7m. After a three week trial and notwithstanding that the vendor was found to have made certain representations dishonestly, the Court concluded (following Ian’s cross examination of the Claimant through an interpreter) that the purchaser had not relied upon the representations and accordingly dismissed the claim with indemnity costs.

Ian practice covers the full breadth of commercial disputes, often concerning complex and interlinked agreements, joint venture arrangements and funding arrangements. Breach of warranty claims, disputes concerning construction, the rectification of agreements and the tenacious pursuit of claim for damages are the hallmarks of Ian’s practice.

Recent and on-going instructions include:

• Re An arbitration

Ian’s client is an established funder in the gaming market who is engaged in a dispute with a developer concerning the technical adequacy of the design and development of a gaming product. The immediate dispute concerned the potential impact of the presentation of a winding up petition (subsequently dismissed) upon the funder’s rights under a complex, interlocking series of funding agreements not all of which are drafted consistently. Issues arising include which rights survive any automatic termination by virtue of the presentation of the petition. The matter has given rise to the initiation referral to arbitration of one aspect of the dispute under the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce rules

• Ultramarine v Sunsail (Antigua)

Instructed on behalf of the Defendant in a commercial dispute in Antigua, this matter is pending in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court to which Ian has temporarily been called. The current focus is upon defeating a long-standing application alleging contempt of court by a director of one of the companies concerned.

• Re F Limited

Ian’s client is pursuing recovery under a series of promissory notes governed by Cypriot or Israeli law and is met by a claim of substantive invalidity under the applicable law together with a counterclaim for commission said due and capable of set off under Israeli law in relation to a substantial property/commercial development in Tel Aviv.

Ian regularly advises and appears in relation to disputes concerning companies, partnerships (including limited liability partnerships) and joint ventures. These disputes encompass shareholders’ disputes, breaches of fiduciary duty by directors, breaches of partners’ duties of good faith and disputes in relation to the winding up of partnerships’ affairs. Often these disputes are in the context of insolvency or potential insolvency.

Recent and on-going instructions include:

• Re K Company

Ian is instructed to advise in relation to substantial unlawful distributions made to a de facto director and shareholder in a company associated with a large-scale and publicly reported fraud. The director is now overseas. The liquidator has instructed Ian in connection with the pursuit of the monies paid away and for interim relief.

• Haniwells v Sabeh

The Defendant transferred £1.5 million from Ian’s client’s bank allegedly in satisfaction of obligations under an oral agreement following the sale of a property portfolio; the matter is currently closely fought in terms of disclosure and the provision of information required/necessary under the terms of the injunction. The case is brought in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; the dispute is likely to require careful and exacting cross examination against minimal documentation. Matters are complicated by the transfer of the money into a variety of Middle Eastern jurisdictions and the Defendants’ residence in Jordan.

• In Re Y Limited

Ian’s client is the insolvent proprietor of a substantial property (a hotel), in which multiple claimants assert an interest having acquired a leasehold interest in certain rooms.  It is common ground that there has been a fraud; the question is its attribution to Ian’s client and, separately, whether any proprietary interest can be established (as the claimants assert) in the property

For a recent reported decision, see:

Bahia v Sidhu [2022] EWHC 875

Ian represented the estate of the deceased partner in a series of inquiries designed to establish the partners’ respective receipts of rent from a portfolio of properties in west London. The case involved extensive disputes of fact and allegations of forgery and dishonesty.

Ian has appeared in for many cases arising out of the liquidations of companies, receiverships, administration and bankruptcies. Regularly instructed by insolvency practitioners and creditors as well as defendant directors, Ian has been instructed in high-profile insolvencies, bringing or defending claims for dishonesty breaches of duty, transactions at an undervalue and preferences as well as statutory claims under the Insolvency Act 1986, ss. 213, 214 and 423.

Recent and on-going instructions include:

• Liberty Commodities Limited

Ian was instructed in relation to the winding up petition pursued by commercial landlords against a tenant company, part of Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance group of companies the circumstances where with all of which have been part of on-going press speculation for a period of time. The case involved a careful analysis of the interplay between landlord and tenant and insolvency procedure and the commercial desirability of the settlement in circumstances where carriage of the petition was likely to be (and, indeed, was) substituted to another, substantial creditor upon settlement with Ian’s client.

• Re K Company

Ian is instructed to advise in relation to substantial unlawful distributions made to a de facto director and shareholder in a company associated with a large-scale and publicly reported fraud. The director is now overseas. The liquidator has instructed Ian in connection with the pursuit of the monies paid away and for interim relief.

• In Re Y Limited

Ian’s client is the insolvent proprietor of a substantial property (a hotel), in which multiple claimants assert an interest having acquired a leasehold interest in certain rooms.  It is common ground that there has been a fraud; the question is its attribution to Ian’s client and, separately, whether any proprietary interest can be established (as the claimants assert) in the property.

Ian is an accredited mediator and is instructed regularly as such and, as an advocate, to represent his clients in mediations.

As an advocate, Ian recognises and embraces the opportunity that mediation in ADR presents to address both the immediate dispute and, where possible, the broader and commercial narrative and recognises that mediation, in particular, represents an opportunity to achieve an outcome which may be more closely attuned to his client’s objectives and can address matters beyond those simply engaged in the litigation itself. It is particularly in this forum that his practical and commercial approach to his client’s interests can assist in fashioning a resolution to the dispute. Many of Ian’s cases resolve themselves by settlement through formal ADR and mediation processes or simply by negotiations between the parties’ respective legal teams.

As a mediator, Ian has many years’ experience, having been instructed on numerous occasions to mediate commercial disputes, company, partnership and insolvency matters as well as disputes and litigation concerning boundaries and the use and ownership of land. His approach as a mediator is business-like, pragmatic and “hands-on”, underpinned by careful and diligent reading of the case documents and an appreciation of the broader commercial interests at play.

Accordingly, Ian has a wealth of experience which can be brought to bear in this sphere of dispute resolution.

During the immediate years following the 2008 property collapse, Ian was heavily involved on behalf of institutional lenders in pursuing claims arising from solicitors and surveyors’ negligence in connection with secured lending (building upon his experience in similar circumstances in the mid-1990s). That experience and Ian’s areas of practice in relation to commercial, company and partnership matters as well as real property are reflected strongly in his professional negligence practice, which focuses particularly upon the advice and conduct of barristers, solicitors (particularly in the conveyancing sphere), surveyors and accountants. Given that many of these matters settle following mediation or ad hoc arbitration rather than proceeding to trial, it is not possible to give client details in most instances. Ian is a member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association.

Recent and on-going instructions include:

• Re A Will

A poorly drafted trust deed caused the estate represented by Ian to face a very substantial seven-figure additional tax charge; Ian has been instructed to advise on rectification of the trust deed and in connection with the related professional negligence claim against the professionals concerned.

Ian’s practice encompasses all aspects of real property law. He thus advises frequently on disputed titles, beneficial ownership, covenants, easements, boundaries and mortgages (as well as mortgage receivership) and subrogation. In addition, Ian has a particular specialism in matters pertaining to registered title, particularly rectification and indemnity claims. Ian is a member of the Property Bar Association.

Ian was one of the 4 original appointees to the post of Deputy Adjudicator to HM Land Registry under the Land Registration Act 2002 in July 2004 and has sat in that jurisdiction and its successor jurisdiction since his initial appointment, hearing cases involving allegations of fraud, challenged priority, beneficial ownership and boundary disputes.

In addition, Ian has – since 2000 – been the co-editor of Cousins on the Law of Mortgages (now in its 4^th edition (2017) and is also published two books on the Land Registration Act 2002 (the initial commentary provided to subscribers of Ruoff & Roper on Registered Conveyancing and Wolstenholme & Cherry’s, Annotated Land Registration Act 2002.

Recent and on-going instructions include:

• In re: IT Infrastructure

Ian’s client has entered into a series of facilitiation agreements, easements for a term and lease arrangements concerning fibre optics cables and in so doing, a key charging schedule was deleted such that it seeks rectification to avoid a £35m loss.

• Haynes v Hamersley Investment Anstalt

Ian represents a Lichtenstein anstalt which is the registered proprietor of a 11 million property in which the partner of a discretionary beneficiary resides and in which she says she has a beneficial interest and over the title of which she holds (as a matter of fact) charging orders in relation to such interest (if any) as the discretionary beneficiary may have in the property. Now proceeding in the BPTC, this case will examine the nature of the discretionary beneficiary’s interest under a trust, the extent to which any asset has been charged under the Charging Orders Act 1979 as well as the (more conventional) claim to a beneficial interest pursuant to a constructive trust

• In Re Y Limited

Ian’s client is the insolvent proprietor of a substantial property (a hotel), in which multiple claimants assert an interest having acquired a leasehold interest in certain rooms.  It is common ground that there has been a fraud; the question is its attribution to Ian’s client and, separately, whether any proprietary interest can be established (as the claimants assert) in the property.

Ian advises and frequently appears in matters relating to the existence, interpretation, management and dissolution of trusts, the grant and revocation of probate and letters of administration, the construction and rectification of wills, the devolution of estates and the duties owed/breached by personal representatives and trustees as well as in matters concerning their removal and appointment. His practice also embraces Court of Protection matters as the cases identified below indicate. This aspect of his practice involves Ian’s instruction and appearance in overseas jurisdictions – principally BVI, Bermuda and Gibraltar. Ian is a member of STEP.

Recent and on-going instructions include

• Re a family trust

Ian represented a large established family trust with significant agricultural and commercial interests, together with some 30 – 40 sub trusts with varying beneficiary composition. A 2019 agreement concluded for the separation of family interests was not implemented and litigation commenced for the specific performance of that agreement or damages of £32 million in lieu

• Haynes v Hamersley Investment Anstalt

Ian represents a Lichtenstein anstalt which is the registered proprietor of a 11 million property in which the partner of a discretionary beneficiary resides and in which she says she has a beneficial interest and over the title of which she holds (as a matter of fact) charging orders in relation to such interest (if any) as the discretionary beneficiary may have in the property. Now proceeding in the BPTC, this case will examine the nature of the discretionary beneficiary’s interest under a trust, the extent to which any asset has been charged under the Charging Orders Act 1979 as well as the (more conventional) claim to a beneficial interest pursuant to a constructive trust.

• In re a Guernsey fiduciary

Ian represented an internationally-known, long established professional fiduciary against which a beneficiary’s alleged joint venture partner claims a substantial seven figure sum on the basis of breach of contract/constructive trust. The case gave rise to questions of the beneficiary’s authority, whether equity would impose fiduciary duties in the context of the commercial relationship, the scope of any fiduciary duties imposed and whether section 42 of the Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007 provides a defence in English proceedings. Following a successful application for reverse summary judgment, the claim collapsed mid-hearing resulting in a highly favourable settlement.

For a recent reported decision, see:

• Re WCC Henchley Trust [2024] EWHC 607 (Ch)

Following a long-running dispute over family trusts, Ian’s client’s account of his trusteeship between 1972 and 1993 was established and approved by the Court on the trustee’s application for approval (in the absence of any claim being brought by the beneficiaries).

The following represent a snapshot of cases in which Ian has been instructed in 2024:      

• Re An arbitration

Ian’s client is an established funder in the gaming market who is engaged in a dispute with a developer concerning the technical adequacy of the design and development of a gaming product. The immediate dispute concerned the potential impact of the presentation of a winding up petition (subsequently dismissed) upon the funder’s rights under a complex, interlocking series of funding agreements not all of which are drafted consistently. Issues arising include which rights survive any automatic termination by virtue of the presentation of the petition. The matter has given rise to the initiation referral to arbitration of one aspect of the dispute under the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce rules

• Re a family trust

Ian represented a large established family trust with significant agricultural and commercial interests, together with some 30 – 40 sub trusts with varying beneficiary composition. A 2019 agreement concluded for the separation of family interests was not implemented and litigation commenced for the specific performance of that agreement or damages of £32 million in lieu

• Haynes v Hamersley Investment Anstalt

Ian represents a Lichtenstein anstalt which is the registered proprietor of a 11 million property in which the partner of a discretionary beneficiary resides and in which she says she has a beneficial interest and over the title of which she holds (as a matter of fact) charging orders in relation to such interest (if any) as the discretionary beneficiary may have in the property. Now proceeding in the BPTC, this case will examine the nature of the discretionary beneficiary’s interest under a trust, the extent to which any asset has been charged under the Charging Orders Act 1979 as well as the (more conventional) claim to a beneficial interest pursuant to a constructive trust.

• Ultramarine v Sunsail (Antigua)

Instructed on behalf of the Defendant in a commercial dispute in Antigua, this matter is pending in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court to which Ian has temporarily been called. The current focus is upon defeating a long-standing application alleging contempt of court by a director of one of the companies concerned.

• Liberty Commodities Limited

Ian was instructed in relation to the winding up petition pursued by commercial landlords against a tenant company, part of Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance group of companies the circumstances where with all of which have been part of on-going press speculation for a period of time. The case involved a careful analysis of the interplay between landlord and tenant and insolvency procedure and the commercial desirability of the settlement in circumstances where carriage of the petition was likely to be (and, indeed, was) substituted to another, substantial creditor upon settlement with Ian’s client.

• Haniwells v Sabeh

The Defendant transferred £1.5 million from Ian’s client’s bank allegedly in satisfaction of obligations under an oral agreement following the sale of a property portfolio; the matter is currently closely fought in terms of disclosure and the provision of information required/necessary under the terms of the injunction. The case is brought in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; the dispute is likely to require careful and exacting cross examination against minimal documentation. Matters are complicated by the transfer of the money into a variety of Middle Eastern jurisdictions and the Defendants’ residence in Jordan.

• Re WCC Henchley Trust [2024] EWHC 607 (Ch)

Following a long-running dispute over family trusts, Ian’s client’s account of his trusteeship between 1972 and 1993 was established and approved by the Court on the trustee’s application for approval (in the absence of any claim being brought by the beneficiaries).

• In re: IT Infrastructure

Ian’s client has entered into a series of facilitiation agreements, easements for a term and lease arrangements concerning fibre optics cables and in so doing, a key charging schedule was deleted such that it seeks rectification to avoid a £35m loss.

• In re a Guernsey fiduciary

Ian represented an internationally-known, long established professional fiduciary against which a beneficiary’s alleged joint venture partner claims a substantial seven figure sum on the basis of breach of contract/constructive trust. The case gave rise to questions of the beneficiary’s authority, whether equity would impose fiduciary duties in the context of the commercial relationship, the scope of any fiduciary duties imposed and whether section 42 of the Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007 provides a defence in English proceedings. Following a successful application for reverse summary judgment, the claim collapsed mid-hearing resulting in a highly favourable settlement.

• Re F Limited

Ian’s client is pursuing recovery under a series of promissory notes governed by Cypriot or Israeli law and is met by a claim of substantive invalidity under the applicable law together with a counterclaim for commission said due and capable of set off under Israeli law in relation to a substantial property/commercial development in Tel Aviv.

•  Re A Will

A poorly drafted trust deed caused the estate represented by Ian to face a very substantial seven-figure additional tax charge; Ian has been instructed to advise on rectification of the trust deed and in connection with the related professional negligence claim against the professionals concerned.

Chambers and Partners 2025 Bar Guide:

• “Ian is a true star when it comes to complex multi-layered matters with multi-jurisdictional elements. He has a deep understanding of commercial issues and spots the winning angle in any dispute.” 
• “He offers clients practical and coherent advice and keeps a keen eye on the best way to provide commercial solutions.” 
• “Ian is very smooth on his feet and gets the judge on side fast. He is excellent with the lay client, as he gives robust advice and is quick to allay fears.” 
• “Ian is dependable and quick to respond.” 
• “Ian is very user-friendly and great on strategy and tactics. He has a reassuring presence and marshals a case well.” 
• “Ian is an excellent and compelling advocate who thinks quickly on his feet when an opponent attempts to take him by surprise.” 
• “Ian navigates complex issues brilliantly and always provides commercial advice in addition to legal, with a view to achieving the client’s goals as quickly and efficiently as possible.” 

Legal 500 2025 Bar Guide:

• ‘Ian is a supreme strategist, a formidable advocate and always puts clients at ease.’ 
• ‘Ian’s ability to grasp complex issues and make them comprehensible to clients is truly exceptional.’