Lydia, a solicitor-advocate, specialises in high–value, complex domestic and international litigation and arbitration. Lydia has been recognised as “very bright and client focused” by Legal 500 and is “known for her pragmatic, commercial advice.”

Lydia’s practice focuses on civil fraud, fintech/hi-tech (including crypto), partnership, corporate and M&A disputes. She regularly provides tactical advice on interim measures including freezing injunctions, Norwich Pharmacal and search and seizure orders, as well as advising on jurisdiction issues, breach of contract, shareholder disputes and breach of warranty claims, claims in deceit, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duties and trust, dishonest assistance, misappropriation, misrepresentation and asset tracing and recovery.

Her clients range from multi-nationals, investment funds and members, LPs and GPs, SMEs and high net worth individuals. Lydia has an international practice with many of her cases being cross-border, including in Russia, CIS, India and South America.


Lydia read History at Newcastle University before spending a year teaching English at a leading Chinese university. She undertook her Graduate Diploma in Law and Legal Practice Course at the College of Law in London. She qualified as a solicitor in 2007 and joined Cooke, Young & Keidan in March 2009.  She has been a partner with the firm since 2017.

What the legal directories say

She is no-nonsense and never gives up on finding a solution for the client.” “She’s super impressive, very knowledgeable and astute” (Chambers and Partners 2022)

Lydia has an easy and collaborative style which is a great catalyst to case preparation and strategizing, and best positions the client for a successful outcome. She gives 100% to her clients and is not fazed by aggressive tactics during hostile litigation” (Chambers and Partners 2021)

 Ranked “Up and Coming” for Civil Fraud in Chambers and Partners 2021 and 2022

Gutsy and straight-talking” (Legal 500, 2022)

 Lydia Danon is a legend; totalling charming and totally on the ball.” (Legal 500, 2021)

 Ranked “Next Generation Partner” – Legal 500 2021 and 2022, Commercial Litigation (Premium)

Professional groups and appointments

Lydia is the Co-Chair of the Young Litigators Forum, The International Bar Association.

She is also a member of the Law Society of England and Wales, London Solicitor Litigation Association, Commercial Fraud Lawyers Association and the Association of Partnership Practitioners.

Speaking engagements

Lydia regularly speaks at industry conferences, most recently on:

  • Navigating AI and Technology Disputes via Arbitration” (FICCE / ICA International Conference on Arbitration in the Era of Globalisation”, March 2022, Dubai)
  • “Crypto Asset Fraud as an Existential Threat”, (C5 Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovering Conference in Miami January 2022)
  • The Finer Points of Navigating International Arbitration: Non-Parties, Depositions and Injunctions” (C5 Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Conference in Miami October 2020)
  • ‘Case management – the heart of court management in the new millennium” (IBA, India Litigation Symposium: taking reforms to the last mile, Delhi 2020)
  • “Adverse Costs & Litigation Funding” (Knect 365 – India Disputes – 2019)

Cases of Note

  • Ang v Reliantco Investments Ltd [2019] EWHC 879 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 2529 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 3242 (Comm): acting for the Defendant in: (i) an application challenging the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear a claim relating to the alleged wrongful close-out of Bitcoin futures; and (ii) at trial.

  • Re Infund LLP: [2018] EWHC 1306 (Ch); [2019] EWCA Civ 1673: Proceedings ancillary to a US$2billion share dispute in Mexico. The English Court (to the Court of Appeal) considered for the first time the meaning of certain statutory provisions applying to both companies and LLPs in the context of an administrative restoration. The Court determined that it had the power to reverse the restoration of an LLP in certain circumstances.

  • Grove Park Properties Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland [2018] EWHC 3521 (Comm): acting for the Claimant in relation to claims that the Bank materially altered a substantial loan agreement without the Claimant’s consent/knowledge.

  • VTB Bank (Austria) AG v Kombinat Aluminijuma Podgorica AD [2015] EWHC 750 (Ch): acting for the successful respondent in an application to lift a stay of arbitration proceedings pursuant to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.

  • Wani LLP v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and another [2015] EWHC 1181 (Ch): acting for the Claimant in an application for “late” amendments to its statements of case.

  • M&C Energy Group Ltd v St Cuthberts Mill Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 935: acting for the successful appellant in the Court of Appeal. The judgment provides guidance on what amounts to a compelling reason to bring a second appeal.

  • North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc and Ors [2010] EWHC 1485 (Ch); [2011] EWCA Civ 230; and [2012] EWCA Civ 11: acting for high net worth Russian individuals in the High Court and Court of Appeal defending a multi-party action valued at $55 million in respect of the alleged breaches of a loan agreement, allegations of fraud, enforcement of personal guarantees, freezing injunctions and the disclosure of trust documents. The claims included issues arising Russia, Switzerland, the BVI and Nevis.

  • For Lloyds political risk insurers defending a complex and high value ($15million) arbitration claim brought by an international bank relating to a high profile Kenyan oil scandal.

  • For the Claimant against solicitors in respect of the misappropriation of monies held in escrow and the collapse of a Middle Eastern power project ($40million).

  • JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and Ors: acting for a successful Defendant in proceedings relating to one of the largest series of fraud claims brought before the High Court (approximately $5 billion when the claims are taken together) (2010/2011).

  • Edenbooth Ltd v CRe8 Developments Ltd [2008] ALL ER (D) 20 TCC; (2008) CILL 2592: acted for the successful Claimant in enforcing an adjudication decision when the Defendant failed to pay.