Stephen Robins KC

Significant cases include:

• Re Thames Water Utilities Holdings [2025] EWHC 338 (Ch), advising the supporting bank group in respect of the restructuring plan under Part 26A
• HSBC Innovation Bank v Stenn International [2024] EWHC 3468 (Ch), urgent administration application in respect of fintech start up suspected of money-laundering
• Re Bedzhamov [2021] EWHC 2281 (Ch) (Snowden J), [2023] Ch 45 (Court of Appeal), [2025] AC 812 (Supreme Court), recognition and assistance at common law; immovables rule
• Re Sova Capital [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch), [2023] Bus LR 779, [2024] 1 All ER (Comm) 69, administrators’ application for approval of an unsecured credit bid transaction; pari passu principle; distributions in specie
• Re Hawkwing [2023] EWHC 407 (Ch), [2023] BCC 556, successful contested administration application in respect of AIM listed plc
• Re Bulb Energy [2022] EWHC 3105 (Ch), principles applicable to energy transfer schemes in energy supply company administrations under the Energy Act 2011
• Re Changtel Solutions UK [2022] EWHC 694 (Ch), [2023] BCC 143,  void transactions under s.127 IA 1986; limitation period; validation; change of position defence
• Re Corbin & King Holdings; Minor Hotel Group v Dymant [2022] EWHC 340 (Ch), [2023] 1 All ER (Comm) 51, application to terminate moratorium under Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986
• Re Hurricane Energy [2021] EWHC 1418 (Ch), [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch), ‘no worse off’ test in cram-down application to sanction a restructuring plan under Part 26A
• Smile Telecoms Holdings [2021] EWHC 685 (Ch), impact of conditions to effectiveness on sanction of restructuring plan under Part 26A
• Re African Minerals [2020] EWHC 1702 (Ch), [2020] EWHC 2782 (Ch), scheme to resolve outstanding issues in administration by assigning claims to a creditor recovery vehicle 
• Re Wolf International Ltd [2021] 1 WLUK 104, retrospective appointment of administrators
• ASA Resource Group plc [2020] BCC 730, administrators’ powers; unfair prejudice; delegation of duties to sole director
• Re London Oil & Gas [2019] EWHC 3675 (Ch), protocol for handling of privileged information by administrators
• Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners [2019] EWHC 2932 (Ch), whether obligation to top up rent deposit could fall within Lundy Granite principle
• Re Noble Group [2019] Bus LR 947, [2019] BCC 349, scheme of arrangement in respect of debts of a major global commodities trading group incorporated in Bermuda
• Re Total Site Projects [2019] EWHC 586 (Ch), disputed winding-up petition based on VAT assessment disallowing input tax on grounds of missing trader fraud; Kittel test
• Candey v Crumpler [2019] Bus LR 1901, [2020] Bus LR 1452 (CA), [2023] 1 WLR 342 (SC), scope of CVA recoverability exemption in insolvency proceedings; existence/extent of solicitor’s lien
• Re Peak Hotels & Resorts [2019] Bus LR 1758, [2019] EWHC 3558 (Ch), valuation of services supplied within the meaning of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986
• Crumpler v Candey [2019] 1 WLR 2145, status of monies paid into Court
• SHB Realisations (formerly BHS) [2018] Bus LR 1173, validity, status and ranking of termination sums payable to landlords under CVA in respect of BHS leasehold properties
• Re Peak Hotels & Resorts [2017] Bus LR 1765, characterisation of charge as fixed or floating; scope of charge; relief under section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986
• Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“Waterfall I”) [2016] Ch 50 (CA), [2017] 2 WLR 1497 (SC), subordination agreement; currency conversion claims; contributories’ liability
• Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“Waterfall II, Part A”) [2016] Bus LR 17, [2018] Bus LR 508 (CA), issues relating to statutory interest under Rule 2.88
• Re 19 Entertainment [2017] BCC 347, recognition under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 and relief in the form of the administration moratorium under Schedule B1
• Re Metinvest BV [2016] IL Pr 19, [2016] EWHC 372 (Ch), [2016] EWHC 1531 (Ch), [2016] EWHC 1868 (Ch), successive schemes of arrangement to restructure US$1.125 billion of notes issued by Ukrainian mining and steel company
• Re PGL Realisations; Laverty v British Gas Trading [2015] Bus LR 17, whether post-administration charges for gas and electricity are provable debts or administration expenses
• Re Angel Group [2015] EWHC 3624 (Ch), appointment of liquidators; discharge of administrators
• Re Brilliant Independent Media Specialists [2015] BCC 113, administrators’ remuneration
• Singularis Holdings v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2015] 2 WLR 971 (PC), common law judicial assistance in cross-border insolvencies; availability and scope of common law power
• PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Company [2014] 1 WLR 4482 (PC), jurisdiction of Bermuda to wind up foreign company; standing of former auditor to challenge winding-up
• Re Pan Ocean Co; Fibria Celulose v Pan Ocean Co [2014] Bus LR 1041, scope of “appropriate relief” under Article 21 of Schedule 1 to the CBIR; exercise of discretion to grant relief
• Re Westmoreland Estates; McKellar v Griffin [2014] BPIR 1516, centre of main interests; invalid appointment of administrators; circumstances in which court will grant declaration
• Re Nortel GmbH, Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe); Bloom v Pensions Regulator [2014] AC 209 (SC), FSD/CN regime under Pensions Act 2004; whether liabilities under FSD/CN regime were provable debts or administration expenses
• Re Tambrook Jersey [2014] Ch 252 (CA), letter of request under section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986; jurisdiction to make administration order in respect of Jersey incorporated company
• Re ARM Asset Backed Securities (No 2) [2014] 2 BCLC 364, effect of stay under section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 on proceedings by Public Prosecutor in Luxembourg
• Re ARM Asset Backed Securities [2014] BCC 252, appointment of provisional liquidators in respect of Luxembourg incorporated issuer of notes; location of centre of main interests
• Re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander [2014] 1 BCLC 13, interpretation of Credit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding-up) Regulations 2004; extra-territoriality of administration moratorium; provability of foreign law avoidance claims
• Rubin & v Eurofinance; New Cap Reinsurance Corporation v Grant [2013] 1 AC 236 (SC), enforcement of foreign insolvency judgments at common law and under statute
• Picard v Primeo Fund 2013 (1) CILR 164, 2014 (1) CILR 379 (Cayman Islands Court of Appeal), application of statutory transaction avoidance provisions for the benefit of a foreign insolvency office-holder; assistance under sections 241 and 242 of the Cayman Companies Law
• Re Ovenden Colbert Printers; Hunt v Hosking [2013] 2 BCLC 388, [2014] 1 BCLC 291 (CA), meaning of section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986; statutory requirement for a ‘transaction’
• Re UK Housing Alliance (North West); Mackay v Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander [2013] BCC 752, administration expenses; adoption of contracts; liabilities under ‘sale and lease-back’ scheme
• Heritable Bank v Landsbanki Islands [2013] 1 WLR 725 (SC), application of Credit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding-up) Regulations 2004 and Directive 2001/24/EC to cross-claims
• Re La Senza; Uniserve v Croxen [2013] BCC 825, application for delivery up under section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986; moratorium under para 43 of Schedule B1
• Leisure (Norwich) II v Luminar Lava Ignite [2012] 4 All ER 894, [2013] 3 WLR 1132, administrators’ liability to pay pre-administration rents as expenses of the company’s administration
• Re Atlas Bulk Shipping; Larsen v Navios International [2012] 1 BCLC 151, relief under Article 21(1)(g) of Schedule 1 to the CBIR 2006 in the form of an order preventing the defendant from relying on non-mutual set-off and a post-bankruptcy assignment by way of defence
• Re Armada Shipping; Cosco Bulk Carrier Co v Armada Shipping [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 481, scope of stay under Article 20 of Schedule 1 to the CBIR; basis on which stay will be lifted
• Re Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities; Picard v FIM Advisers [2011] 1 BCLC 129, application under Article 21(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the CBIR 2006 for the production of documents

Major cases include:

• Caterpillar Financial Services Asia & Ors v Camellia (Guernsey) Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1503 (Ch), freezing injunction under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982
• Sanman Property Management v Ginda & Anor [2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch), application for permission to bring proceedings for contempt of court
• London Capital & Finance v Thomson & Ors [2024] EWHC 2894 (Ch), judgment following a four-month trial of fraud claims in £237 million “mini-bond” investment fraud
• Salinas & Anor v Astor Asset Management 3 & Ors [2024] EWHC 2522 (Comm), full and frank disclosure; injunctions in US$400 million stock-backed lending fraud case
• London Capital & Finance & Anor v Thomson & Ors [2024] EWHC 1684 (Ch), application to vary proprietary freezing injunction to pay legal expenses
• London Capital & Finance v Thomson [2023] 10 WLUK 134, relief from sanction
• AB v CD [2023] EWHC 2419 (Ch), proprietary injunction; legal expenses exception
• AB v CD [2023] EWHC 2353 (Ch), proprietary injunction; legal expenses exception
• XX v YY [2021] EWHC 3014 (Ch), application to discharge a freezing order following partial discontinuance; continuation of freezing order on Chabra grounds
• AA v BB [2020] EWHC 2463 (Ch), [2021] EWCA Civ 1017, [2021] Lloyd’s Rep FC 387, impact of a restraint order under POCA on the risk of dissipation in the context of a worldwide freezing order
• AA v BB [2021] EWHC 1833 (Ch), meaning and effect of ‘reasonable legal expenses’ exception in standard freezing order wording
• AA v BB [2020] EWHC 2490 (Ch), whether necessary to show change of circumstances to re-apply for discharge of worldwide freezing order
• The World LLC v Dalal [2019] EWHC 2993 (Comm), the duty of full and frank disclosure and allegations of non-disclosure in the context of a freezing order
• Republic of Angola v Perfectbit [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 363, challenge to jurisdiction and application to set aside freezing order in respect of US$540 million fraud on Angola
• Palmer v Tsai [2017] EWHC 2710 (Ch), refusal of relief from sanctions in £24 million fraudulent trading claim arising from MTIC fraud
• Palmer v Tsai [2017] EWHC 1860 (Ch), committal to prison for 18 months for breach of asset disclosure order and passport order in a freezing injunction; MTIC fraud
• Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2016] EWHC 3727 (Comm), strike out of claim alleging conspiracy and malicious prosecution
• Re Atrium Training Services; Smailes v McNally (No 4) [2015] EWHC 1755 (Ch), refusal of relief from sanction resulting in strike out of £50 million fraudulent trading claim
• Re Atrium Training Services; Smailes v McNally (No 3) [2013] EWHC 2882 (Ch), [2014] EWCA Civ 1296, liquidators’ disclosure in fraudulent trading claim; liquidators’ compliance with unless order; test for non-compliance
• Rangers Football Club v Collyer Bristow [2012] EWHC 1427 (Ch), claim for damages for dishonest conspiracy in the fraudulent takeover of a football club
• Re Atrium Training Services; Smailes v McNally (No 2) [2013] 5 Costs LO 707, disclosure in fraudulent trading proceedings; liquidators’ non-compliance with court orders
• Re Atrium Training Services; Smailes v McNally (No 1) [2012] EWHC 3793 (Ch), standard disclosure in fraudulent trading proceedings; costs

Major cases include:

• Brooke Homes (Bicester) v Portfolio Property Partners & Ors [2025] EWHC 1305 (Ch), equitable accounting between mortgagees; collateral advantages; surcharge for wilful default; causation in the wilful default context; expenses chargeable by mortgagees under indemnity clauses in security documentation
• Fortenova Grupa DD v LLC Shushary Holding [2023] EWHC 1165 (Ch), payment into court to redeem loan notes which could not be paid due to sanctions
• Fortenova Grupa DD v LLC Shushary Holding [2023] EWHC 970 (Ch), adjournment application
• Fortenova Grupa DD v LLC Shushary Holding [2023] EWHC 796 (Ch), expedited trial
• ABT Auto Investments v Aapico Investment [2022] 6 WLUK 141, Financial Collateral Arrangements (No 2) Regulations 2003; principles applicable to very late amendments
• Saret Holdings Corp v HSBC Bank [2022] WL 00769322, application to strike out a claim by a purported assignee in reliance on a non-assignment clause
• Deutsche Trustee Co Ltd v Duchess VI CLO BV [2019] EWHC 778 (Ch) 28, [2020] EWCA Civ 521, entitlement of collateral manager to incentive collateral management fee
• Beveridge v Quinlan [2019] EWHC 424 (Ch), [2019] EWHC 1411 (Ch), specific performance of further assurance clause in context of receivership/security enforcement
• Deutsche Trustee Co Ltd v Bangkok Land (Cayman Islands) Ltd [2018] EWHC 2052 (Comm), [2019] EWHC 657 (Comm), claim by bond trustee against issuer and guarantor
• Deutsche Trustee Co Ltd v Duchess VI CLO BV [2018] EWHC 3891 (Ch), joinder of representative party; anonymisation of proceedings
• Citicorp Trustee Company v Al-Sanea [2017] EWHC 2845 (Comm), claim for US$650 million due under head lease and sub-lease in Islamic finance sukuk transaction
• Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v Camden Market Holdings [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 781; strike out of damages claim alleging breach of an implied term in a £195m facilities agreement
• Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“Waterfall II, Part C”) [2017] Bus LR 1475; construction of ISDA Master Agreements, identification of ‘cost of funding’
• BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services v LBG Capital No 1 [2015] 2 BCLC 261, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 851 (CA), [2017] 1 All ER 497 (SC); whether Lloyds Bank was entitled to redeem £3.3 billion of enhanced capital notes early at par; principles of construction of trust deed
• Credit Suisse Asset Management v Titan Europe 2006-1 plc [2016] EWHC 969 (Ch), [2016] EWCA Civ 1293, rights of Class X notes in Lehman Bros originated commercial mortgage-backed securitisation
• Hayfin Opal Luxco 3 S.A.R.L v Windermere VII CMBS plc [2016] EWHC 782 (Ch), rights of Class X notes in Credit Suisse originated commercial mortgage-backed securitisation
• LBI v Stanford [2014] EWHC 3921 (Ch), claim by bank against borrower for €21 million and counterclaim for misrepresentation and breach of contract; issues of Luxembourg law
• Day v Tiuta International [2014] EWHC 4583 (Ch), [2014] EWCA Civ 1246, equitable set-off of unliquidated cross-claim against mortgage debt; equitable subrogation
• Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 1076 (CA), ISDA 1992 Master Agreement; effect of section 2(a)(iii); definition of “Loss”
• Anthracite Rated Investments (Jersey) v Lehman Brothers Finance [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 538, approach to construction of ISDA 1992 Master Agreement
• Britannia Bulk v Pioneer Navigation [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 84, approach to construction of ISDA 1992 Master Agreement and the definition of “Loss”

Cases include:

• Midland Premier Properties & Anor v Doal & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 117, interpretation of unless orders; circumstances in which debarring orders may be made
• Nova Leipzig v Gravity Fitness [2025] EWHC 1262 (Comm), [2025] ILPr 34, forum non conveniens stay; case management stay
• Candy Ventures Sarl v Aaqua BV [2022] EWHC 2442 (Comm), discharge of freezing order on basis of material non-disclosure; enquiry into damages under cross-undertaking
• LCIA Arbitration [2022], successful claim under a loan agreement defended on basis of an alleged collateral oral agreement and a conspiracy counterclaim
• PJSC Uralkali v Rowley [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch), two-week trial of negligence claim against former administrators of Force India Formula One team
• Magdeev v Tsvetkov [2020] EWHC 887 (Comm), three-week Commercial Court trial involving issues of foreign illegality and conspiracy
• Magdeev v Tsvetkov [2019] EWHC 3843 (Comm), scope of arbitration agreement
• Fraser Turner v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2018] EWHC 1743 (Ch), [2019] PNLR 33, striking out of claim for conspiracy/breach of duty
• Slade & Co v Abbhi [2019] 1 Costs LR 137, [2019] 2 CLC 949, litigation funding agreement; whether guarantee; whether compliant with Solicitors Act 1974
• Portland Stone Firms v Barclays Bank [2018] EWHC 2341 (QB), strike out of conspiracy and misrepresentation claims; limitation of actions
• Two Right Feet v National Westminster Bank [2017] EWHC 1745 (Ch), indemnity costs following discontinuance of a claim for £20 million
• PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Company [2017] 1 WLR 953, cross-undertaking as to damages, costs of compliance
• Co-operative Bank v Hayes Freehold [2016] EWHC 2068 (Ch), implied terms
• LBI hf v Millen [2016] EWHC 2132 (Ch), pleadings; requirements of CPR 16.5
• Exsus Travel v Turner [2015] CP Rep 7, principles of equitable accounting
• OJSC VTB Bank v Parline (No 2) [2014] EWHC 1045 (Comm), preliminary issues of Russian law
• Khan v Khan [2013] EWHC 4065 (Ch), [2014] EWCA Civ 1077, construction of consent order
• OJSC VTB Bank v Parline [2013] EWHC 3538 (Comm), jurisdiction; forum conveniens
• Employers’ Liability Policy Trigger Litigation; BAI (Run-Off) v Durham [2009] 2 All ER 26, [2011] 1 All ER 605 (CA), [2012] 1 WLR 867 (SC), policy coverage in mesothelioma cases
• FKI Engineering v Stribog [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 524; [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 906, jurisdiction in private international law; meaning and scope of Article 28 of the Brussels Regulation

Cases include:

• Re Coinomi; Ntzegkoutanis v Kimionis [2022] EWHC 3178 (Ch), [2023] BCC 447, [2023] EWCA Civ 1480, [2024] Bus LR 339; dividing line between unfair prejudice petitions and derivative actions; strike out of disguised derivative action in unfair prejudice petition
• DE Shaw Oculus Portfolios v Orient-Express Hotels [2010] Bda LR 32, unfair prejudice petition in respect of a circular corporate structure
• Wallach v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2007] 1 BCLC 208
• It’s a Wrap (UK) v Gula [2006] 2 BCLC 634

Other cases include:

• Pagden v Fry (Costs) [2024] 9 WLUK 544
• Pagden v Fry [2024] EWHC 2657 (Ch)
• Makki v Bank of Beirut [2022] BPIR 1227
• Lemos v Church Bay Trust Co [2021] BPIR 830
• Re Maud [2020] BPIR 903
• Re Peak Hotels and Resorts [2020] EWHC 1365 (Ch)
• Deutsche Trustee Co Ltd v Duchess VI CLO BV [2019] EWHC 964 (Ch)
• R (Bhandal) v HMRC [2017] 3 Costs LR 449
• LBI v Stanford (No 8) [2015] EWHC 3131 (Ch)
• LBI v Stanford (No 7) [2015] EWHC 3130 (Ch)
• Re Homedon [2015] EWHC 1614 (Ch)
• LBI v Stanford (No 5) [2014] EWHC 3385 (Ch)
• LBI v Stanford (No 4) [2014] EWHC 3273 (Ch)
• LBI v Stanford (No 3) [2014] EWHC 2732 (Ch)
• LBI v Stanford (No 2) [2014] EWHC 2916 (Ch)
• Exsus Travel v Turner [2014] EWCA Civ 698
• Re PGL Realisations; Laverty v British Gas Trading [2014] EWHC 2443 (Ch)
• Re C (A Bankrupt) [2013] BVIHC 0080/2013
• LBI v Stanford(No 1) [2013] EWHC 2535 (Ch)
• Re Bezier Acquisitions [2012] BCC 219
• Bush v Bank Mandiri(Europe) [2011] BPIR 19
• R (Unison) v Monitor [2010] PTSR 1827
• Re Transfield ER Cape [2010] EWHC 2851 (Ch)
• Re Pan Oceanic Maritime [2010] EWHC 1734 (Ch)
• Britannia Bulk v Pioneer Freight Futures [2009] EWHC 3268 (Comm)
• Law Society of England & Wales v Shah [2009] Ch 223
• Dean & Dean v Angel Airlines [2009] Lloyd’s Rep PN 119
• Blyth-Whitelock v de Meyer [2009] EWHC 2839 (Ch)
• D/S Norden v Samsun Logix Corporation [2009] BPIR 1367
• Re Samsun Logix Corporation [2009] BPIR 1502
• Re Heart Hospital [2009] BPIR 1538
• ED&F Man (Sugar) v Lendoudis [2008] 1 All ER 952
• TS&S Global v Fithian-Franks [2008] 1 BCLC 277
• Kanda v City & County Properties [2008] BPIR 106
• AWB Geneva v North America Steamships [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 315 (CA)
• AWB Geneva v North America Steamships [2007] 1 CLC 749
• Caterpillar Financial Services v Goldcrest Plant & Groundworks [2007] EWCA Civ 272
• Re Needwood Managed Services [2007] EWHC 3519 (Ch)
• Stojevic v Komercni Banka [2007] BPIR 141
• Re Canty (A Bankrupt) [2007] BPIR 299 (CA)
• Re T&N (No 3) [2007] 1 All ER 851
• Re T&N [2006] 3 All ER 697
• Re Daewoo Motor Co [2006] BPIR 415
• Re HIH Casualty & General Insurance [2006] 2 All ER 671
• Re A Company (No 3520 of 2005) [2005] All ER (D) 87 (Jul)
• Re Pan Interiors [2005] All ER (D) 176 (Jul)
• Society of Lloyd’s v Surman [2005] 2 CLC 1119
• Society of Lloyd’s v Longtin [2005] 2 CLC 774
• Re Harkess-Ord [2004] EWHC 674 (Ch)
• Rosenfeld v Ransley [2004] EWHC 2962 (Ch)

Chambers & Partners:

Recommended in: (i) Restructuring & Insolvency; (ii) Civil Fraud

“He is not only a brilliant technical lawyer but is the definition of user-friendly, commercial, sensible and pragmatic”

“He is simply excellent at distilling down complex information into simple wording for all to understand, and he has made a real name for himself as a superb advocate”

“He displays excellent drafting, robust oral advocacy and gives sound advice with a rapid turnaround”

“He is incredibly versatile and an expert in insolvency, finance and fraud litigation. He is responsive, commercial and a great tactician”

“He is superbly commercial and user-friendly as well as being a great lawyer”

“He is razor-sharp and gets straight to the nub of the issue”

“His response to questions under pressure is calm, informative and knowledgeable”

“Stephen has a sharp intellect and produces the highest-quality written work. He is a forceful advocate”

“Stephen has the ability of explaining complex things in a simple manner and is amazing at being able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the case”

“He is a robust advocate who is very forthright and packs a punch in the courtroom”

“He is absolutely excellent – very clever and user-friendly. He has excellent judgement and his oral advocacy is very impressive”

“Stephen has an approachable style, he is good on his feet, and he is technical and proactive in recommending strategies. He is not afraid of complex litigation and is incredibly bright”

“Stephen Robins is very responsive, easy to work with, and successful at supporting his clients towards their desired outcome”

“He is a forensic and hard-working lawyer who really gets stuck into cases. He is good with clients, clear and concise, and in his element in the trickiest of cases”

“Stephen listens to judges, reads the Bench and changes his submission to adapt to the changing environment. He excels in matters where fraud and insolvency meet”

“His insolvency knowledge is spectacular”

“He is really good across the board in terms of general advice, written products, formulating how to pursue an argument and looking at a case in the wider perspective”

“He is the perfect balance of technically on point yet also commercial. He understands the client’s needs and helps to achieve them”

“Stephen is strategically minded, calm and collected. He provides commercial and pragmatic advice”

“Stephen gets right to the heart of issues at the outset and gives pragmatic advice”

“Stephen is a very accomplished advocate”

“He is clever, hard-working and good on his feet”

“Very user-friendly, provides clear and sensible advice, and is available and dedicated. A very, very smart and thoughtful barrister”

“He is really good, can cut through the noise and helps bridge solutions to get matters resolved quickly and pragmatically”

“He’s an extremely good advocate”

“An innovative and brilliant barrister”

“A robust and effective advocate who is deeply impressive in court”

“He has a deeply impressive, encyclopaedic knowledge of insolvency law and he’s also a robust and effective advocate”

“He’s technically excellent, very practical, and deals extremely well with day one insolvency and the wider, bigger picture”

“He is a corporate insolvency supremo – he has a first-class brain and is a great team player”

“He is an exceptional cross-examiner, he is always very well prepared and it’s almost painful to watch the way he can tie defendants up in knots”

“Engaged, extremely responsive and a very reliable advocate,” who “has an enormous capacity to get through complex cases”

“He’s very good to work with”

“Ferociously bright, and someone who drafts brilliantly, turns advice around incredibly quickly and is a pleasure to deal with”

“He has an excellent understanding of complex structured finance mechanics and is quick to come up with innovative solutions to contractual disputes”

“He is very clever, his research is excellent and he thinks of points nobody else has thought of. He is also a robust litigator and very good advocate”

“He is very good on his feet and inspires a lot of client confidence”

“Hugely user-friendly and a great team player. He has a broad legal knowledge”

“Very helpful and very bright”

 “Stephen Robins is an intellectual and legal powerhouse. He is absolutely superb in terms of complex, technical legal problems and really analysing and providing concise, helpful advice”

“Ferociously bright, he drafts brilliantly and he turns advice around incredibly quickly”

“An impressive advocate, who is calm and agile on his feet and can roll with the punches”

“He is engaged, extremely responsive and a very reliable advocate”

“Incredibly hard-working and incredibly prompt. He’s very creative and original in the way he thinks”

“Great to work with”

 “Stephen is a rising star – he’s extremely bright and thorough and has an outstanding knowledge of insolvency law”

“He is very bright, creative and prolific”

“He is very bright, very capable and an excellent draftsman”

“A precise thinker and energetic”

“Stephen has produced some great written work for us and gives practical advice”

“Stephens Robins is very bright, very capable and an excellent draftsman”

“He will really work with the team and has great enthusiasm, incredible energy and real drive” 

“A very popular, aggressive and effective advocate”

“Extremely bright, hard-working and user-friendly junior, with a broad practice”

“He’s technically precise and he has massive energy and commitment – a real fighter and a winner”

“He’s an absolute delight to work with. He’s really responsive, hugely proactive, he writes beautifully and he always produces first-rate opinions”

“He is very quick, very intelligent, and gets to the heart of the matter” 

“He is very good at judging the client’s needs, and is a pleasure to work with”

“He’s really user-friendly and his advocacy is utterly compelling and completely convincing. His legal knowledge is second to none”

“Incredibly successful and incredibly strong”

“A lawyer with fine strategic vision who is reliable in tricky situations”

“Renowned for the brilliant rapport he immediately strikes with clients and his ability to build excellent working relationships”

“Widely considered ‘a star in the making’. He is ‘an efficient worker and a resourceful tactician, who is excellent both on paper and on his feet”. Interviewees also note his ‘warm and cheerful personality’”

Legal 500

Recommended in three practice areas: (i) Insolvency; (ii) Banking & Finance; (iii) Civil Fraud

“Stephen is a fantastic lawyer – he is extremely knowledgeable, user-friendly and also creative. He can think across different areas in order to arrive at solutions for clients”

“Very user-friendly and commercial, Stephen is a great strategist”

“Provides clear advice, client friendly and very enthusiastic”

“Stephen is a high-quality cross-examiner”

“Stephen is incredibly clever and able to absorb huge amounts of information in very short periods and deliver analysis that is pithy, solves problems and is commercially astute. Stephen is a brilliant tactician and excellent on his feet, setting traps for the unwary opponent”

“Stephen is an absolutely excellent barrister.  He is a detailed and creative thinker.  He has particular expertise in insolvency-related issues but is also very adept at interpretation of finance documents more generally.  He is a very impressive advocate – one who quickly gains the trust and confidence of the tribunal”

“Intellectually at top of the game, he is a pleasure to watch on his feet, delivering legal arguments in his quietly unassuming but assured and persuasive manner”

“Stephen is a very skilled and persuasive advocate in court and has excellent drafting skills”

“Excellent and we use him regularly”

“I have instructed him over many years and have never failed to appreciate the quality of his advice, written work and advocacy”

“Prodigiously hard-working and intelligent”

“In a class of his own for cross-examination and is good to deal with”

“If there is an argument that nobody has thought of, or a case that nobody has found, Stephen will unearth them, changing your case for the better”

“Has proved excellent for us”

“First class, he presents powerful arguments on paper and on his feet”

“A very substantial help to us – very hardworking and very responsive”

“He provides a great service and wise counsel”

“Great energy, commitment and imagination”

“He is clever, efficient and gets into the detail”

“He provides sound and sensible advice, and has considerable experience in cross-border insolvencies”

“Most definitely one to watch”

“A force of nature and hugely committed to the cause”

“Whole-heartedly recommended for fraud cases in the insolvency sphere”

“Very bright, massive energy, very committed to his client’s cause”

“Amazingly bright; his capacity for work is awe-inspiring”

“A towering intellect and effective advocate, who is loved by clients”

“Wins clients over very easily as they sense his commitment to the cause and the power of his thinking”

“He is very clear-thinking, knows the relevant law well and applies very sound judgement”

“A really bright thinker, who can turn his hand to almost anything”

“Exceptionally bright and friendly, and great at a wide range of matters”

“Regularly a presence in the biggest cases in the market”

“Phenomenally bright and exceptionally user friendly”

“Stephen Robins is ‘definitely someone you would want on your side”

Lexology Index (formerly known as Who’s Who Legal UK Bar):

“Stephen Robins QC maintains a stellar restructuring and insolvency practice and has considerable experience conducting heavy trials and working on winding-up petitions and CVAs”

“Stephen Robins is a well-regarded barrister with a substantial track record representing administrators and liquidators in high-profile disputes”

“Stephen Robins draws praise for his work on insolvencies in the financial and other sectors, ranging from high-value winding-up proceedings to trustee work”

“Stephen Robins has been involved in many of the major insolvency cases in recent years, through which he has built up ‘vast experience and expertise’ to bring to the industry”

Commercial Bar Association
Chancery Bar Association
Insolvency Lawyers’ Association

Hardwicke Scholarship (Lincoln’s Inn)
CPE Award (Lincoln’s Inn)
Mansfield Scholarship (Lincoln’s Inn)
Fell Exhibition (Christ Church, Oxford University)