Skip to the bundle
Ashgrove Kell Discuss a matter

DisputesTransactionsInvestigations Edition 2026 30 lawyers9 partners

When the company itself1 is what is in dispute.

Discuss a matter Read the matters

Conflict check within 24 hours. Strictly confidential.

Exhibit A
A brass banker’s lamp lit on a dark desk, its light pooling on the polished top while the rest of the room falls away into shadow.
After hours. A desk on the second floor, the last lamp still on. Most of what decides a matter is written after the building has emptied.
  1. 1.1

    Judgement over headcount. Thirty lawyers, chosen for the matters where one decision decides the rest.

  2. 1.2

    Senior lawyers do the work. The partner you meet drafts the argument. Nothing is handed down a pyramid.

  3. 1.3

    We say no when we should. Including to you, early, when the better answer is to settle.

§ 2 What we do

Three practices, and nothing beside them. Each exists because a client needed it in the same week as another.2

§ 2.1 Disputes

  1. Shareholder and founder disputes52 matters

    Removals, deadlocks, unfair-prejudice claims and the valuation fights that end them. see § 3.1

  2. Arbitration41 matters

    Commercial and investment-treaty disputes, seated wherever the contract says, run by the partner who drafted the pleadings. see § 3.5

  3. Contract and warranty claims19 matters

    The claims a sale agreement was written to prevent, brought or resisted after completion. see § 3.5

Fought on the documents first. Most are won before anyone reaches a hearing room.

§ 2.2 Transactions

  1. Contested M&A18 matters

    Hostile and contested offers, for targets and for bidders, including the litigation that follows a deal that nearly closed. see § 3.2

  2. Board advisory in crisis23 matters

    Directors facing a vote, a whistleblower or a creditor, advised on their duties before the decision, not after it. see § 3.1 § 3.2

  3. Buy-outs and exits under pressure14 matters

    The negotiated way out of a dispute: drag rights, valuation mechanisms, and the drafting that stops it happening twice. see § 3.1

Only the contested ones. A deal everyone agrees on does not need us.

§ 2.3 Investigations

  1. Regulatory investigations34 matters

    Firms and individuals under investigation, from the first information request to the final notice or a contested hearing. see § 3.3

  2. Internal investigations21 matters

    Board-commissioned reviews run so that the findings survive the scrutiny that follows them. see § 3.3

  3. Fraud and asset recovery27 matters

    Freezing orders, disclosure orders and tracing across borders, usually within days of the money moving. see § 3.4

From the first information request. The first fortnight sets the shape of the next two years.

Matters opened, last three years249

§ 3 Matters

Five matters, anonymised. Each began with the other side’s best sentence.3

A panelled boardroom after dark: one long polished table, rows of high-backed carved chairs, a chandelier lit above and tall sash windows glowing pale at the far end.
Exhibit B
The room where it is decided. Not a courtroom. The long room on the first floor, where a board sits down the night before the vote.
  1. 3.1

    A founder against her own board

    Time to outcome 11 weeks
    Acting
    For the founder and redacted for confidentiality shareholder of a payments company operating in redacted for confidentiality . Board of redacted for confidentiality .
    Their position
    Struck through: The Founder was validly removed as a director, and her shares must now be transferred at nominal value.
    The decisive call
    We left the removal alone and read the board minutes instead. The resolution relied on a notice period the articles did not provide for.
    Outcome
    Removal reversed by agreement. Every share retained.
  2. 3.2

    A contested offer for a listed manufacturer

    Time to outcome 19 weeks
    Acting
    For the independent directors of redacted for confidentiality , a manufacturer listed on redacted for confidentiality . Offer valued at redacted for confidentiality .
    Their position
    Struck through: The independent directors have no proper basis to reject an offer at a nine per cent premium.
    The decisive call
    We asked to see the bidder’s financing on day two. It assumed the target’s own cash would pay for the target.
    Outcome
    Offer withdrawn. A rival offer completed at a thirty-four per cent premium.
  3. 3.3

    An investigation into a lender’s affordability checks

    Time to outcome 14 months
    Acting
    For redacted for confidentiality , a consumer lender with redacted for confidentiality customers, and two of its former directors.
    Their position
    Struck through: The firm’s affordability checks were systemically deficient across all products for five years.
    The decisive call
    We rebuilt the sample. The four hundred files reviewed came from one product’s worst year; a random sample told a different story.
    Outcome
    Findings narrowed to one product and eight months. Proposed penalty reduced by 82 per cent.
  4. 3.4

    A recovery claim for a family office

    Time to outcome 9 months
    Acting
    For a family office in redacted for confidentiality , against a former adviser who moved redacted for confidentiality through redacted for confidentiality jurisdictions.
    Their position
    Struck through: The Defendant holds no assets, directly or beneficially, outside this jurisdiction.
    The decisive call
    We applied without notice at four on a Friday afternoon, because three transfers were due to settle on Monday morning.
    Outcome
    Worldwide freezing order granted in nine days. Seventy-one per cent of the sum recovered.
  5. 3.5

    An arbitration over a failed supply contract

    Time to outcome 22 months
    Acting
    For the buyer, redacted for confidentiality , against a supplier of redacted for confidentiality . Seat: redacted for confidentiality .
    Their position
    Struck through: Any liability is capped at the contract price under clause 14.2.
    The decisive call
    We argued one sentence for six months: the carve-out for wilful default had been left in the other side’s own template.
    Outcome
    Cap held not to apply to wilful default. Award of 3.1 times the contract price.
Exhibit C
Stacks of bound case papers tied with string, lit from above and falling away into shadow at the edges.
One matter, three years. Every bundle tied, indexed and read by the partner who argued it.

§ 4 The partners

Thirty lawyers, nine of them partners. Every matter is led by one of these nine, from the first meeting to the last hearing.4

The ratio

lawyers
30
partners
9
associates to each partner
2.3

Ruth Achterberg

Senior partner · Regulatory investigations

Admitted 199828 years in practice

Known for

  • A lender’s penalty cut by 82 per cent
  • Two directors cleared after a five-year review
  • The first interview, every time

In their words “Regulators respond to evidence, never to volume.”

Exhibit D
A hand in shadow holding a fountain pen to a blank page, the nib catching the light.
The partner drafts the argument. The hand on the first draft is the voice at the hearing.

  1. Marcus Delane

    Board advisory in crisis Admitted 2001 Known for Boards facing a removal vote

    Admitted 200125 years in practice

    Known for

    • Boards facing a removal vote
    • Whistleblower reports to the chair
    • Minutes written for the exhibit bundle

    In their words “The minutes you write tonight are tomorrow’s exhibit.”

  2. Imogen Varr

    Shareholder and founder disputes Admitted 2003 Known for A founder’s removal reversed in eleven weeks

    Admitted 200323 years in practice

    Known for

    • A founder’s removal reversed in eleven weeks
    • Deadlocked fifty-fifty companies
    • Valuation fights

    In their words “Most fights about control are about a document nobody read twice.”

  3. Owen Strathearn

    Internal investigations Admitted 2004 Known for Board-commissioned reviews

    Admitted 200422 years in practice

    Known for

    • Board-commissioned reviews
    • Findings that survived a regulator’s reading
    • Interviews of senior management

    In their words “An investigation is only as good as the question it was asked.”

  4. Saoirse Lund

    Arbitration Admitted 2005 Known for An award at 3.1 times the contract price

    Admitted 200521 years in practice

    Known for

    • An award at 3.1 times the contract price
    • Treaty claims
    • Cross-examination of experts

    In their words “Tribunals reward the party that made their award easy to write.”

  5. Theo Calloway

    Contested M&A Admitted 2006 Known for A hostile offer withdrawn

    Admitted 200620 years in practice

    Known for

    • A hostile offer withdrawn
    • Independent committees
    • Timetable fights

    In their words “A bid is a timetable. Whoever owns the timetable owns the bid.”

  6. Tomasz Ellery

    Fraud and asset recovery Admitted 2008 Known for A worldwide freezing order in nine days

    Admitted 200818 years in practice

    Known for

    • A worldwide freezing order in nine days
    • Tracing through three jurisdictions
    • Friday-afternoon applications

    In their words “In a recovery claim, speed is the legal argument.”

  7. Nadia Ferrand

    Buy-outs and exits under pressure Admitted 2010 Known for Drag and tag rights that held

    Admitted 201016 years in practice

    Known for

    • Drag and tag rights that held
    • Negotiated exits from deadlock
    • Shareholder agreements redrafted after a fight

    In their words “The best settlement is drafted so nobody has to read it again.”

  8. Priya Halden

    Contract and warranty claims Admitted 2011 Known for Warranty claims after completion

    Admitted 201115 years in practice

    Known for

    • Warranty claims after completion
    • Earn-out disputes
    • Disclosure letters read line by line

    In their words “Every warranty is a promise somebody hoped would never be tested.”

§ 5 How we work

Fees, conflicts and the first meeting, drafted the way we would draft them for you: plainly, and before any work is billed.

5.1 Fees

  1. 5.1.1

    Hourly, by seniority. Recorded in six-minute units and itemised monthly. You see who did what, and for how long.

  2. 5.1.2

    Capped, by phase. Each phase has a written ceiling. If we overrun without a change of scope agreed in writing, the overrun is ours.

  3. 5.1.3

    Success-related, where permitted. Part of the fee can depend on the outcome, usually alongside reduced rates, and only where the rules of the forum and the profession allow it. The engagement letter says whether yours does, and the most you could pay.5

5.2 Conflicts

  1. 5.2.1

    Names first, nothing else. Until the check is complete, send us the names of the parties and no detail, so that nothing you disclose could ever prevent us from acting for you.

  2. 5.2.2

    Within 24 hours. We search every party against our records, including former clients and matters we declined.

  3. 5.2.3

    If we cannot act, we say only that. No reasons, no names, nothing that tells you who else has spoken to us.

5.3 The first meeting

  1. 5.3.1

    Sixty minutes, no charge. In confidence, with the partner who would lead the matter, at our office or yours.

  2. 5.3.2

    An engagement letter by day four. Scope, team, fee basis and an estimate, in writing, before any work is billed.

  3. 5.3.3

    A strategy memo by day ten. What we think will happen, what it will cost, and what we would do in your place.

5.4 What we will say no to

  1. 5.4.1

    Any matter where we act, or have acted, for the other side on related facts.

  2. 5.4.2

    A claim we think you should settle. We will say so in the first meeting, and in writing if you prefer.

  3. 5.4.3

    Document review at a scale that needs two hundred people. We will refer it, and supervise it if you ask.

  4. 5.4.4

    Arguments we would not put our own names to before a judge or a tribunal.

Hourly rates, 2026 per hour, excluding VAT
Partners£720–£950
Counsel and senior associates£480–£640
Associates£310–£440
Trainees and paralegals£160–£220
Typical phase ceilings
Conflict check and first meetingNo charge
Strategy memo£18,000–£35,000
Urgent injunction or freezing application£60,000–£140,000
Exhibit E
A closed panelled door in a dark corridor, light from the room beyond showing along its edge and under it across the floor.
The first meeting. The one door still lit at the end of the day. Sixty minutes, no charge, and nobody else in the corridor.

§ 6 Discuss a matter

Tell us who is involved. We will run the conflict check and reply within a working day.6

Confidential · For conflict check only

Cover sheet

To

Ashgrove Kell, Intake

Your name.

For example: founder, general counsel, chair.

Urgency required

Every company and person on the other side, one per line. This is what we check for conflicts.

We call only if you ask us to.

What happened, and what you want to happen. No confidential detail yet.

From enquiry to a partner’s call

  1. Hour 0Received
  2. Within 24 hoursConflict check
  3. The day it clearsA partner calls you