In Vidatel v. PT Ventures, Mercury and Geni case (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 9 November 2022, No 21-17203), the French Supreme Court upheld the 2021 decision of the Paris Court of Appeal (26 January 2021, n°19/10666), rejecting Vidatel Ltd’s (Vidatel) request to set aside the 2019 ICC award rendered in favour of PT Ventures SGPS (PTV).  This case provides interesting further guidance on how the French courts may approach the principle of equality and how it can interact with the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Continue reading

Delhi High Court sets aside billion dollar ICC award on grounds of “patent illegality and fraud”

The Delhi High Court (the “Court“) in a recent decision, has set aside a 2015 arbitral award of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC“) which had directed Antrix Corporation Limited (“Antrix“) to pay damages of over US$ 560 million plus interest to Devas Multimedia Private Limited (“Devas“) (the “ICC Award“). This is the latest development in a series of disputes that first arose more than a decade ago, as a result of Antrix’s premature termination of a leasing agreement with Devas. In its decision, the Court has held that the ICC Award, now worth in excess of US$ 1 billion with interest, suffered from “patent illegalities and fraud” and was accordingly in conflict with the “public policy of India“, such that it was liable to be set aside under India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act“).


In 2005, Antrix, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation, a State-owned body, and Devas, signed an agreement for the lease of S-band electromagnetic spectrum capacity provided by two orbiting Indian satellites (the “Contract“). However, in 2011, Antrix annulled the Contract on grounds of force majeure, alleging that India’s Cabinet Committee on Security (the “CCS“) had decided to deny Andrix orbital slots in S-band spectrum as there had “been an increased demand for allocation of spectrum for national needs“, including for “defence, para-military forces, railways and other public utility services”. Antrix claimed that this decision amounted to a force majeure event, which allowed Antrix to terminate the Contract.

Devas did not accept the termination and instead, initiated ICC proceedings against Antrix for repudiatory breach. On 14 September 2015, an Indian-seated ICC tribunal (“Tribunal“) rendered the ICC Award, which upheld Devas’ claims, finding that: (i) the CCS decision did not qualify as a force majeure event as the termination was a result of Antrix’s own actions, (ii) Antrix could not rely on a contractual limitation of liability clause and was liable for liquidated damages, and (iii) Antrix had wrongfully repudiated the Contract, and was liable to pay Devas approximately US$ 562.5 million plus interest as damages. In response, Antrix filed to set aside the ICC Award at the seat in Delhi under s34 of the Act.


Patent illegality

The Court noted that in finding that Antrix could not rely on the limitation of liability clause under the Contract, the Tribunal did not consider the pre-contractual negotiations between the parties. By disregarding pre-contractual negotiations on the basis of the IBA Rules on Taking of Evidence (“IBA Rules“), the Tribunal committed a “patent illegality” as the IBA Rules were only applicable with the consent of both parties, which was absent in this case.

The Court then considered the substance of the pre-contractual negotiations and held that these made clear that the only consequence of the termination of the Contract would be the refund of the upfront capacity reservation fees paid by Devas, and Devas would not be entitled to the larger liquidated damages claim. The Court held that the findings of the Tribunal, which ignored such evidence were a “complete perversity”.

Further, the Court noted that the Tribunal committed a “patent illegality” by being “self-contradictory” and finding Antrix liable for wrongful termination of the Contract, despite recognising elsewhere in the ICC Award that the CCS decision to annul the Contract was “an act of governmental authority acting in sovereign capacity” within the scope of the force majeure clause. The Court emphasised that Antrix could not be held liable for any breach of the Contract as it was “prevented from performing its obligations on account of factors beyond its control“.

Winding-up of Devas and evidence of fraud in the set aside proceedings

Since the ICC Award was rendered in 2015, Devas has attempted to enforce the ICC Award against Antrix. In parallel, Antrix sought the winding up of Devas before India’s National Company Law Tribunal (the “NCLT“), alleging that Devas “was formed for a fraudulent and unlawful purpose and its affairs had been conducted in a fraudulent manner“. In May 2021, the NCLT allowed the winding up of Devas, which was also subsequently upheld on appeal by the National Company Law Appellant Tribunal and the Supreme Court of India (the “Winding-up Proceedings“).

In the set aside proceedings, Antrix moved to amend its application and incorporate subsequent evidence against Devas from the Winding-up Proceedings. Devas objected, on the ground that the amendment application was inadmissible as it was filed after the expiry of the statutory period for filing objections under s34 of the Act. The Court rejected Devas’ objections and held that the Winding-up Proceedings operated as res judicata and “the court [was] bound to take notice of the same“, without the need to amend the applications under s34 of the Act.

The Court further affirmed the Supreme Court’s view, and held that “if the seeds of the commercial relationship between Antrix and Devas were a product of fraud perpetrated by Devas”, then “every part of the plant that grew out of those seeds, such as the Agreement, the disputes, arbitral awards etc., are all infected with the poison of fraud”, and “a product of fraud is in conflict with the public policy of any country including India“.

Legal threshold for judicial interference with arbitral awards under the Act

In its decision, the Court highlighted the legal standard for setting aside arbitral awards under the Act and noted that there were “limited” grounds for a successful set aside. While awards may be set aside if there is a patent illegality, this should be “illegality which goes to the root of the matter”, and an “erroneous application of law” could not give rise to a set aside decision. Likewise, a “contravention of law not linked to public policy or public interest is beyond the scope of the expression “patent illegality””.

The Court affirmed, as other recent decisions from Indian courts have, that it is impermissible for Courts to “reappreciate evidence to conclude that the award suffers from patent illegality appearing on the face of the award“. This is because Courts do not sit in appeal against the arbitral award. However, if an arbitrator (i) takes a view which is not even a possible one, (ii) interprets a contractual clause in such a manner which no fair-minded or reasonable person would, (iii) commits an error of jurisdiction by going beyond the scope of the contract and dealing with matters not allotted to them, or (iv) bases their conclusions on no evidence or by ignoring vital evidence, the award so rendered would be “perverse” and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.

The Court held that the Tribunal in this case had committed a patent illegality as it (i) incorrectly excluded the pre-contractual negotiations between the parties, (ii) rendered contradictory findings on the applicability of the force majeure clause, and (iii) the finding of fraud in the Winding-up Proceedings established that the ICC Award “conflict[s] with the most basic notions of justice“, and “thus antithetical to the fundamental policy of Indian law“. For all these reasons, the Court allowed the s34 application and set aside the ICC Award.


This decision provides insight on the interpretation of “patent illegality” as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award under s34 of the Act. It is a reminder that although Indian courts will not sit in appeal against an arbitral award, an award may be set aside if the award itself or the underlying transaction is tainted by fraud or is contrary to the public policy of India.

While the Court’s decision is a significant win for Antrix, the Indian State-owned body, this is far from the end of the road in this matter for the Indian State. The cancellation of the Contract gave rise to two bilateral investment treaty (“BIT“) arbitrations initiated by Devas’ shareholders – CC/Devas v India under the India-Mauritius BIT, and Deutsche Telekom v India under the India-Germany BIT. These disputes were both decided in favour of the investors, with India being directed to pay the claimants substantial damages as compensation (for discussion of these arbitrations and India’s failed attempts to set aside these awards at their respective seats, see our blogs here and here).

More recently in February 2022, following the Winding up Proceedings, Devas’ shareholders have initiated a third BIT claim against India under the India-Mauritius BIT, alleging that the country has made an “audacious scheme” to prevent payment and enforcement of the ICC Award, including through alleged “manufactured fraud allegations“. It remains to be seen how India will respond to this BIT arbitration, and what the ultimate outcome may be.

For more information, please contact Andrew Cannon, Partner, Arushie Marwah, Associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Andrew Cannon
Andrew Cannon
+44 7809 200 303
Arushie Marwah
Arushie Marwah
+44 07704 544549


For the third consecutive year (see our previous updates here and here), we analyse publicly available institutional arbitration caseload statistics of various arbitral institutions around the world to understand the trend of Malaysian participation and usage of institutional arbitration. Our analysis of the numbers confirms a general preference by Malaysian parties for arbitrations conducted by the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). This indicates that institutional arbitration has room for growth as the preferred form of dispute resolution among Malaysian parties for their domestic and international disputes.

Continue reading


On 18 May 2021, the Russian Ministry of Justice granted the status of “Permanent Arbitration Institution” (“PAI”) to the ICC International Court of Arbitration (the “ICC”) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”).

This is a major development for users of international arbitration in Russia who will now have access to three of the “top-five most preferred arbitral institutions” in the world, according to the respondents of the 2021 International Arbitration Survey prepared by Queen Mary University of London. Following their successful registration in Russia, the ICC and the SIAC, have joined the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) (and the Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC)), which secured similar licenses from the Russian Ministry of Justice in 2019.

Continue reading


Most arbitration institutions that have released their statistics for 2020 have reported increased caseloads and/or claim amounts, despite the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic impacting in person hearings.  The strong demand for arbitration services and the fact that most arbitration institutions were able to move quickly to virtual hearings and avoid costly delays to proceedings establish arbitration as a resilient and reliable choice for commercial dispute resolution.  In this blog post we review both interim and full caseload statistics so far released for 2020.


The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre broke a number of its own records this year.  With 318 cases, HKIAC received its highest number of new arbitration filings in over a decade.  The total amount in arbitration disputes handled by HKIAC was HK$68.8 billion (approximately US$8.8 billion).  Again, this is a record high since 2011.

203 of the arbitrations filed were administered by HKIAC (under rules such as the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the HKIAC Electronic Transaction Arbitration Rules), representing a 20% year-on-year increase.  The amount in dispute for administered cases was HK$51.3 billion (approximately US$6.6 billion).

There was a small reduction in the proportion of new arbitration filings that were “international” (defined as at least one party not being from Hong Kong).  The proportion of all arbitration cases that were international also recorded a small drop.  The vast majority of cases (99.4%) chose Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration.  Hong Kong law was also the most commonly selected governing law for disputed contracts handled by HKIAC.

In 2020, HKIAC processed 22 applications under the Hong Kong-Mainland China Interim Relief Arrangement (Arrangement), which came into force in October 2019.  The total value of the evidence, assets or conduct sought to be preserved amounted to ¥6.4 billion (approximately US$988 million), of which ¥4.4 billion (approximately US$683.3 million) were successfully preserved.  This is an encouraging number, as it shows in the early days of the Arrangement that there is a realistic chance that assets and evidence sought to be preserved would likely be ordered to be preserved.

Fourteen emergency arbitrator applications were submitted to HKIAC in 2020. This is a large number, particularly given that only twenty-seven emergency arbitrator applications in total had been filed with HKIAC before 2020.  While it appears that 11 of the 14 applications were made in related arbitrations (which likely refer to a series of arbitrations arising from a related set of contracts or arise from the same or similar set of facts), there were still more applications than in past years.  Only three emergency arbitrator applications were filed in 2018, while none were filed in 2019.

The HKIAC granted 24 applications for expedited procedure in 2020, from a total of 28 applications.

There was a clear pivot to virtual hearings in 2020: 80 out of 117 hearings hosted by HKIAC in 2020 were fully or partially virtual, doubtless as a result of the pandemic.  Only 37 hearings were in-person, hosted at the HKIAC’s Hong Kong premises.

Fifty-two HKIAC arbitrations were concluded by Final Award in 2020, while four reached party settlement.

Finally, HKIAC released statistics on diversity of arbitrator appointments.  Of the 149 arbitrator appointments by HKIAC in 2020, 34 were of female arbitrators.  This continues an upward trend from 17.6% in 2018, to 20.5% in 2019 and 22.8% in 2020.


The Singapore International Arbitration Centre is expected to report its full case load information later this year, but it has already announced that it had crossed the 1000-case threshold with 1005 new cases in 2020 as of 30 October 2020.  This is another record year for SIAC, breaking the previous record caseload it had reported in 2019.


The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission also saw growth in its caseload in 2020.  A total of 3615 ongoing cases were registered by CIETAC, representing an 8.5% year-on-year growth.

CIETAC reported that it handled disputes amounting in total to ¥112.130 billion (approximately US$17.3 billion).

There was growth not only in the number of cases handled by CIETAC, but also in terms of its international caseload.  In 2020, 739 cases were categorised as “foreign-related cases”, compared to 617 in 2019.  67 of these were cases where both parties were considered “foreign”, which was a record high for CIETAC.  CIETAC made 5213 arbitrator appointments in 2020.

As part of its response to the pandemic, CIETAC also established new virtual hearing centres, handling 819 virtual hearings.  This was an increase of 628 cases that were heard virtually.


Like HKIAC, the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration also announced record demand for its arbitration services last year.

ICC reported 946 new arbitration cases in 2020, the highest since 2016.  The majority of the new cases (929 cases) adopted the ICC Rules of Arbitration, while the remaining 17 (which were ad hoc cases) were filed under the ICC Appointing Authority Rules.


The London Court of International Arbitration also reported a record breaking 444 cases referred to the institution in 2020, which broke the record caseload LCIA had reported in 2019 by an increase of about 10%.  These results were published on an interim basis and further statistics are expected to be released later this year.


The Vienna International Arbitral Centre received 40 new cases in 2020, with the majority of cases involving an Austrian party.  The total amount of disputes handled by VIAC by the end of 2020 was €428 million (approximately US$518 million).

Compared to 2019, where VIAC saw 45 new cases, there was a small drop in the number of new cases received.  However, looking at the statistics for VIAC over the past few years, the number of new cases each year has generally ranged from 40 to 60 cases, so the small drop is likely part of a normal fluctuation over a longer period.

While the number of new cases did not grow, on the diversity front, more than 30% of arbitrators nominated or appointed in VIAC cases were female arbitrators.  This is the highest that VIAC has seen in recent years, and is a highlight for the institution.


The statistics from the Danish Institute of Arbitration indicate that it is primarily focused on domestic arbitrations, but about one-fifth of its cases were international in nature.  At 28 cases in 2020, DIA’s international caseload was approximately the same as during  the past five years, which ranged from 27 to 33 cases.


The Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution reported 83 new arbitration cases in 2020, with 61 being international.  While the number of new cases was not the highest that SCAI has received, it continues an average growth trend over the past decade.


The American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution reported that it handled 9538 cases in 2020, worth approximately US$18 billion.  This is a slight drop from 9737 cases in 2019, but – notably – an increase in claim amount when compared to the US$15 billion in claims in 2019.  AAA-ICDR also saw an increase from 94 filings for emergency arbitration in 2019 to 111 filings in 2020.

The largest claims, in aggregate, were from the technology sector (US$1.4 billion) followed by financial services, telecommunications and energy (in that order).  This is in contrast to the largest claims in 2019 coming from life sciences (USD 1 billion) followed by construction, real estate and technology.

In terms of changes in caseload by sector, cases related to the cannabis industry saw a 100% increase, the largest rise of any sector (the same industry saw a 225% increase in 2019, which was also the largest sector rise in 2019).

On the diversity front, AAA-ICDR reported 33% of appointments as “diverse appointments” (which refers to gender and ethnic diversity).


A majority of arbitration institutions globally reported growth in case load and/or claim amounts in 2020, many of them even breaking their previous records.  This goes to show that arbitration remains a robust dispute resolution mechanism, which has proven its ability to adapt to the highly challenging circumstances of the past year.

It was also a clear side effect of the pandemic that there was a significant shift to virtual hearings.  While users have been slowly moving towards virtual hearings for a number of years, it appears that 2020 will be recognised as the year in which virtual hearings went mainstream, allowing arbitral institutions all over the world to continue to serve the needs of their users.

Simon Chapman
Simon Chapman
+852 21014217
Rebecca Warder
Rebecca Warder
Professional Support Lawyer
+44 20 7466 3418
Jacob Sin
Jacob Sin
+852 21014230

2019 caseload statistics show continued demand for arbitration by Malaysian parties

Last year, we examined the caseload statistics of various arbitral institutions with the aim of providing an empirical perspective on the participation of Malaysian parties in institutional arbitration over recent years. This was done by reference to published caseload statistics of various arbitral institutions across the globe starting from a mean year of 2015 and ending in 2018. This year, we continue to trace the trend of Malaysian involvement and usage of arbitration based on published statistics of these major arbitral institutions.

Continue reading


Following the release of the ICC’s new 2021 Arbitration Rules in draft on 9 October 2020, Craig Tevendale (Partner and UK Head of International Arbitration), Thierry Tomasi (Partner) and Vanessa Naish (Professional Support Consultant) have recorded a podcast discussing the top 5 changes to be aware of in the new Rules, being:

  • Amendments to the consolidation provision, and to the joinder provision to allow for joinder after the confirmation or appointment of a tribunal in certain limited circumstances;
  • Provision for virtual hearings and a shift away from paper filings;
  • Allowing for the Tribunal to limit changes to party representation where it causes conflicts of interest;
  • A requirement that parties disclose certain third party funding agreements; and
  • ICC Court discretion in “exceptional circumstances” to deviate from party agreement on the method of constitution of the arbitral tribunal and appoint the entire tribunal to avoid unequal treatment.

The podcast can be listened to via SoundCloud, Spotify and iTunes.

Once the 2021 Rules have been confirmed as “final”, Herbert Smith Freehills’ Global Arbitration Team will produce a updated Step by Step Guide to Arbitration under the ICC Rules and an interactive PDF table comparing the Rules of Key Arbitral Institutions and the UNCITRAL Rules. To receive an electronic copy of these documents in due course, please contact and we will be in touch in December.

For more information, please contact Craig Tevendale, Partner, Thierry Tomasi, Partner, Vanessa Naish, Professional Support Consultant, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Craig Tevendale
Craig Tevendale
Head of International Arbitration, London
+44 20 7466 2445

Thierry Tomasi
Thierry Tomasi
+33 1 53 57 70 92

Vanessa Naish
Vanessa Naish
Professional Support Consultant
+44 20 7466 2112


This blog post was originally published on 16 July 2020. This version of the post has been amended to include an updated table of the individual steps taken by different arbitral institutions and organisations as at 02 October 2020 in response to the evolving situation. 

As the Covid-19 pandemic continues, infection rates in many countries are starting to fall, and businesses and governments alike are seeking to establish a “new normal” recognising that the virus will be present in society for some time yet. Other countries still face climbing numbers and a peak yet to come. For all, the prospect of multiple waves of high infection rates throughout the year and beyond remains. As such, we will continue to see an ever shifting patchwork of lockdowns and other government responses internationally.

In our earlier series of blog posts, we highlighted the individual steps taken by different arbitral institutions, organisations and the wider community as an initial crisis response to the pandemic. We produced a table setting out those steps and will continue to monitor and update this information going forward. An updated table, accurate to 02 October 2020, can be found here.

In this blog post, we turn to the future and look at how the arbitration community continues to respond to the challenges of operating internationally, as different countries prepare in different ways to live with the Covid-19 virus in the medium term at least.

A steep learning curve: the initial response

The initial wave of the pandemic created an unprecedented need for arbitral institutions and organisations to adapt at very short notice to new and different ways of working, and offer solutions to parties and practitioners that would enable disputes to continue to be resolved at a time of quarantine, enforced social distancing and fast-changing government guidance from across the globe. What became clear was that there was no “one size fits all” approach to be taken by those institutions or organisations. Some institutions (such as the SCC) already functioned largely online with online filing systems. For other organisations (such as the LMAA) the majority of their cases were resolved “on the papers” rather than in face-to-face hearings. Other institutions (such as the ICC or LCIA) needed to introduce changes in their processes, enabling cases to be filed virtually while their secretariats worked remotely and for parties and tribunals to communicate online.

As the truly global nature of the pandemic unfolded, one of the first questions faced by parties, arbitrators and practitioners was whether merits hearings ought to be held virtually or postponed. While electronic communication and the use of other online tools in an arbitration is nothing new, most arbitrations, until now, involved a face-to-face substantive hearing on the merits. For many, a shift to a fully virtual merits hearing was, at least initially, viewed as a step too far. We saw many arbitration hearings in March and early April being postponed to later in the year. However, with the realisation that this “new normal” might be with us on a global scale for some time came a change in attitude towards virtual hearings.

The institutional joint statement in April 2020 mirrored the approach of many national courts in encouraging parties to continue with the resolution of disputes, and many arbitral institutions began encouraging arbitrators to adopt virtual hearings wherever possible. As a consequence, many parties with upcoming merits hearings found their arbitrators inclined towards that option.

Where a decision has been taken to hold a hearing virtually, the arbitrators, practitioners and clients involved have been on a steep learning curve. Just as we have all become used to operating through Skype, Teams and Zoom in the workplace, we have adapted to using that same virtual technology (and others) to hold hearings.

There has been a very positive response from a number of practitioners who have participated in virtual hearings, with many surprised at how well they have worked. We have seen the development of guidelines, protocols and procedural orders to govern the efficient and effective running of virtual hearings and to ensure that the hearing remains fair to all.

We have also seen other new ideas and initiatives come from within the community during this challenging time. New websites and initiatives have been launched to help keep practitioners up to date with Covid-19 developments or to facilitate the use of online platforms to enable cases to truly operate virtually.

Responding to an ever-shifting international picture: the need for flexibility

So what does the “new normal” mean going forward?

Commercial arbitration has grown in popularity over the past decades as parties recognise the benefits it brings in cross-border transactions by offering a neutral forum and an adaptable, international, procedure. But the international nature of the parties, practitioners, institutions and arbitrators also means that arbitration must be able to adapt and flex to fit the unique requirements of those international participants, both in terms of their transactions and disputes, but also to the specific implications of the pandemic for each country in which those participants reside.

Clearly, if circumstances require it, all those involved in the process should be able to revert back to “lockdown” ways of working. And if circumstances require it, all the learning of the past months will be able to be put into use in continuing to hold wholly virtual substantive hearings. But what seems more likely is that we will see more flexible and adaptable approaches to respond quickly to the immediate, and often changing, circumstances.

“Hybrid” or “semi-virtual” hearings are likely to be the answer to that need for flexibility. A mixture of virtual and physical attendance will help to mitigate the effects of travel restrictions and local or national lockdowns. They will also enable those involved in hearings (such as the parties and their counsel, the Tribunal and any witnesses or translators that might be involved) to participate to the fullest extent possible. Some participants may meet in a single or in multiple locations, with appropriate social distancing, while others attend virtually. These hybrid hearings can be set up to change format at short notice, enabling those involved to plan for a myriad of different scenarios but ensure that the final hearing remains fair, offering each party the opportunity to put their case.

Impact on the future: a catalyst for change in the post-Covid world?

Many sectors of the economy have proven themselves to be extremely adaptable in the face of the pandemic, and arbitration is no different in that regard. At this stage, however, it is difficult to gauge the longer term impact of Covid-19 on the process and procedure of arbitration globally, particularly if a future vaccine were to reduce or remove the need for social distancing.

However, the longer arbitral participants are required to work in a different way, the more those new ways of working will be seen as the norm. The more positive experiences participants have of virtual or hybrid hearings, the more likely it is that these will remain at least options for future merits hearings. When faced with participants from across the globe, parties may become less comfortable with the expense of holding a face-to-face hearing if they are reassured in the effectiveness of a virtual or hybrid option. Indeed, the dramatic reduction in the carbon footprint of these virtual and hybrid hearings may lead to an environmental “silver-lining” to the pandemic in terms of changes in business practice for many, including in international arbitration.

Most importantly, we have seen innovation and blue sky thinking at its best in the last few months. And that shift in mind-set towards different ways of delivering the product of arbitration effectively and efficiently has been exciting to see and experience. That ability to adapt and change to challenging circumstances is likely to continue, and we will see the longer term impact of that innovation for many years to come.

For more information, please contact Craig Tevendale, Partner, Vanessa Naish, Professional Support Consultant, Charlie Morgan, Senior Associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills Contact.

Craig Tevendale
Craig Tevendale
+44 20 7466 2445

Vanessa Naish
Vanessa Naish
Professional Support Consultant
+44 20 7466 2112

Charlie Morgan
Charlie Morgan
Senior Associate
+44 20 7466 3868