Tara Panicker

Paralegal, Howard Kennedy LLP

Tara Panicker is a newly qualified solicitor with over five years of experience in commercial litigation, international arbitration, and corporate advisory work. She is currently a paralegal in the International Construction team at Howard Kennedy LLP, where she works on high-value disputes arising from complex infrastructure and construction projects across multiple jurisdictions, including proceedings before the LCIA, ICC, SIAC, and the High Courts of England and Wales.

Her career includes assisting on a £3 billion asset recovery claim in the English High Court, preparing a £65 million commercial dispute for trial, and supporting a high-profile defamation case before the Court of Appeal. She has also worked on a £6 million fraud and asset recovery claim involving a bitcoin mining scam, and contributed to precedent-setting litigation in the cryptocurrency space.

Prior to joining Howard Kennedy, Tara worked at a global dispute resolution practice specialising in litigation and corporate matters, an American multinational law firm focusing on life sciences and healthcare regulation, and a French multinational bank, primarily working on delivering regulatory policies and compliance.

As a legal writer, she has authored content for LexisNexis UK on the legal implications of cryptocurrency and maintains a widely used resource on global FIDIC cases. She has also published commentary in the FT Adviser on mortgage prisoner litigation.

Contributed to

3

Crypto and digital assets—what are they and how do they work?

Practice Notes

This Practice Note on crypto and digital assets for dispute resolution lawyers identifies the common characteristics of cryptoassets, their initial development via the Bitcoin White Paper, how cryptography works, the distinction between public and private keys, the concepts of nodes and mining (including proof of work and proof of stake), explains blockchain, identifies different types of digital asset, explains how crypto exchanges typically work and the emergence of regulatory obligations in this area.

Dispute Resolution

Crypto disputes and arbitration

Practice Notes

Arbitration differs from litigation because it provides a private forum for the resolution of disputes, as opposed to proceedings in open court. It is widely used in sectors such as construction, shipping, sports, and energy-industries that are typically international and involve high‑value transactions. It is therefore unsurprising that parties to cryptocurrency and blockchain‑related disputes are increasingly doing likewise. Its core advantages are flexibility, confidentiality, and easier cross‑border enforceability, which align with the needs of the crypto sector.Arbitration enables parties to appoint decision-makers with expertise in blockchain technology, smart contracts and digital asset markets–expertise that may not be available in all national courts. Arbitration is adaptable, allowing disputes to be resolved faster than court proceedings. Speed is especially important where digital assets have been misappropriated and risk dissipation.Confidentiality is another benefit, as arbitration allows proceedings and awards to remain private, protecting sensitive proprietary information such as code or algorithms. Finally, arbitration can mitigate the jurisdictional challenges prevalent

Arbitration

Cryptoassets—civil recovery

Practice Notes

This Practice Note on civil recovery of misappropriated cryptoassets identifies the potential methods for seeking recovery as well as explaining the difficulties, both legal and technical, in so doing given the nature of cryptoassets and the ease with which fraudsters may engage technical tools to avoid detection of the misappropriated assets. It includes reference to following and tracing of cryptoassets in the recovery process as well as interim relief in civil recovery of cryptoassets and the relevance of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provisions with regard to civil recovery of cryptoassets.

Dispute Resolution