BCLP logo

Georgia Henderson-Cleland

Georgia Henderson-Cleland

Partner

London

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 3714

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Georgia is a Partner in the Business and Commercial Disputes team in BCLP’s London office. Georgia is a general commercial litigator with significant depth of experience, specialising in complex and demanding cases, often with an international element. Georgia is admitted to practise in England and Wales and the British Virgin Islands.

Georgia has a broad practice, spanning all elements of commercial and business disputes with particular focus on civil fraud, M&A and corporate disputes, contentious insolvency, and class actions. She acts for a wide variety of clients, including corporates, high-net-worth individuals, insolvency practitioners and government bodies. Georgia has represented clients in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Georgia has a particular expertise in digital assets and cryptocurrency disputes, and she is recognised by Legal 500 (2026) as BCLP’s “key contact for crypto fraud work” in London.

The Growth of Class Actions: What’s next?

Admissions

  • England and Wales

Related capabilities

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Banking & Finance Disputes

  • Anti-Bribery & Corruption

  • Financial Regulation Compliance & Investigations

  • Investigations

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • ESG Litigation

  • Financial Services

  • Anti-Money Laundering Compliance

Experience

  • Advising Mikail Osmanovich Shishkhanov, a Russian businessman and financier, on his defence against a highly-complex, cross-border, $2bn conspiracy claim issued by PJSC National Bank Trust in the courts of the British Virgin Islands against Mr Shishkhanov and over 30 other defendants.
  • Acting for the Joint Administrators of a high-profile fintech company on claims against it's former directors.
  • Advising an IT services firm on an earnout dispute.
  • Acting for the Asturion Foundation in a dispute between senior members of the Saudi Royal Family (one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2023)
  • Advising a global brokerage firm in two actions against a competitor. The actions related to serious allegations concerning the competitor’s deliberate procurement and misuse of our client’s confidential information. After the first week of a High Court trial we were able to secure settlement for our clients on confidential terms. In the course of the litigation, BCLP secured a pioneering order to enable the use of computer aided review / predictive coding techniques.
  • Acting for a Korean engineering company in the recovery of loans from various Maltese and Turkish shipping companies and a high net worth individual, which involved proceedings in Switzerland, Jersey and the Marshall Islands.
  • Acting for a firm of architects in defending a professional negligence claim.
  • Acting for a Russian bank in bringing an LCIA arbitration claim involving allegations of fraud and corruption.
  • Acting for a Pakistani petroleum company in defending an LCIA arbitration claim.
  • Acting for an energy company in an EU cartel follow-on damages claim.
  • Acting for NatWest defending a £20 million claim for dishonest assistance, conspiracy, deceit, unjust enrichment and negligence arising from the bank’s unwitting involvement in reportedly one of the UK’s biggest Ponzi’s schemes. (Jeremy D Stone Consultants Ltd & anr v National Westminster Bank plc & anr [2013] EWHC 208 (Ch)).

Related insights

View all related insightsIcon: arrow

Insights
Feb 06, 2025

Court of Appeal considers the test for CPR 19.8 representative actions in Prismall v Google

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the case of Prismall v Google UK Ltd and DeepMind Technologies Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1516. Finding for Google, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court’s decision to strike out the claim, and offered some further guidance on the threshold to be met for a claim to proceed as a representative action under CPR 19.8, particularly in relation to claims for the misuse of private information. The Court of Appeal explained that “a representative class claim for misuse of private information is always going to be very difficult to bring”. This is because the circumstances of individual claimants will affect the determination as to whether any particular claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This will in turn affect whether all members of the represented class can meet the required “same interest” test in order to found a representative action under CPR 19.8 (see our previous article).
Insights
Dec 02, 2024

Managing Litigation Risks of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) use in business has proliferated in recent years; risks arising from this therefore must be managed. Whilst the use of AI can drive significant efficiency gains for most businesses, the characteristics of machine learning mean that there is the potential for data protection and discrimination claims to arise (amongst others). We explore some of the potential litigation risks in the UK arising and how these risks can be managed.
Insights
Aug 15, 2024

Navigating representative proceedings in the High Court

With the rise of litigation funding of group actions, there has been an increasing use of representative actions by Claimants in recent years.

Related insights

News
Nov 10, 2025
BCLP Elects 17 New Partners
News
Sep 11, 2025
BCLP advises HELLENiQ Energy on strategic acquisition of Elpeson BV
Insights
Feb 06, 2025
Court of Appeal considers the test for CPR 19.8 representative actions in Prismall v Google
The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the case of Prismall v Google UK Ltd and DeepMind Technologies Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1516. Finding for Google, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court’s decision to strike out the claim, and offered some further guidance on the threshold to be met for a claim to proceed as a representative action under CPR 19.8, particularly in relation to claims for the misuse of private information. The Court of Appeal explained that “a representative class claim for misuse of private information is always going to be very difficult to bring”. This is because the circumstances of individual claimants will affect the determination as to whether any particular claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This will in turn affect whether all members of the represented class can meet the required “same interest” test in order to found a representative action under CPR 19.8 (see our previous article).
Insights
Dec 02, 2024
Managing Litigation Risks of Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) use in business has proliferated in recent years; risks arising from this therefore must be managed. Whilst the use of AI can drive significant efficiency gains for most businesses, the characteristics of machine learning mean that there is the potential for data protection and discrimination claims to arise (amongst others). We explore some of the potential litigation risks in the UK arising and how these risks can be managed.
Insights
Aug 15, 2024
Navigating representative proceedings in the High Court
With the rise of litigation funding of group actions, there has been an increasing use of representative actions by Claimants in recent years.
Insights
Jul 17, 2024
Courts at the Forefront of Innovation
Insights
May 01, 2024
Courts at the forefront of innovation
Insights
Jan 18, 2024
Activist investors are hoping to influence the ESG agenda; what are the likely wider repercussions for the financial services sector?
Insights
Nov 28, 2023
Collective settlement of mass claims: an opportunity for innovation