“Mikhail Vishnyakov is an experienced dispute resolution lawyer and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Mikhail’s clients include high-net-worth individuals and major corporates. He is experienced in designing and implementing a litigation strategy tailored to each dispute”

Mikhail’s practice focuses on international arbitration and litigation. Mikhail also advises on financial sanctions and compliance issues.

He has particular expertise in disputes arising out of M&A transactions and complex shareholder conflicts. He regularly acts in claims concerning assets in the emerging markets and the CIS. Mikhail has experience of arbitrations conducted under the major arbitral institutions and rules, including LCIA, ICC, SCC and UNCITRAL.

His sector experience includes manufacturing, metals and mining, oil and gas, retail, FinTech, media and financial services.


Mikhail joined Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP from the dispute resolution department of  Linklaters LLP, where he practicised for over 7 years and was recognised by the Legal 500 as a key lawyer in the arbitration team.

Mikhail trained and qualified as a solicitor at SJ Berwin LLP.  Mikhail read Law at the University of Bristol. He also holds a Diploma in International Arbitration from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

Mikhail is a Solicitor Advocate and is also registered as an Advocate with the Cyprus Bar Association.

He is fluent in English and Russian and moderate in Greek.

Professional groups

Mikhail is a member of the following: CIARB; ICC YAF; LCIA Young International Arbitration Group; Ukrainian Arbitration Association; RAA40; Hungarian Arbitration Association; Young ISTAC; Young ICCA; and Cyprus Bar Association.

What the legal directories say

The testimonial in the Legal 500 describes Mikhail as:

“…a tenacious litigator. He relishes the fight, and presses for every legitimate advantage for his client. He works hard to ensure that all the angles have been considered and covered. It is great to have him in your corner.”

Publications, articles and seminars

‘Contracts with Russian and Russian-related parties – disputes about disputes’, Business Reporter, December 2023

Arbitration Act 1996: working well, says Law Commission‘,  Solicitors Journal, September 2023

Preparing for dispute – understanding FOSFA arbitrations‘, Food Manufacture, June 2023

Law Commission’s “herculean” task of reform‘, Law Society Gazette, May 2023

Staying “best in class”‘, New Law Journal, April 2023

Enforcement post-Brexit: big win for arbitration?‘, IBA, December 2022

Financial Institutions litigation‘, ThoughtLeaders4 Disputes, October 2022


Cases of Note

  • BPY v MXV [2023] EWHC 82 (Comm): Successfully defending a challenge brought under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to an arbitral award. This case is significant because of the numerous and notable grounds for the challenge, which included: rules applicable to cross examinations in London-seated arbitrations; alleged bias; and treatment of allegedly unlawfully obtained documents.

  • Defending two high-net-worth individuals in claims arising out of the sale of their majority shareholding in an Eastern European steel enterprise to a financial-institution-buyer.

  • Defending a high-net-worth individual from a US$1 billion claim arising out of the disposal of an online gaming platform.

  • Representing the purchasers of a recycling business in a claim under the warranty and indemnity insurance policy, arising out of fraud.

  • Representing Ukrainian sellers of a manufacturing business in breach of contract and fraud claims.

  • Bringing breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims against the sellers of a coffee house chain, arising out of surreptitious payments made to local officials.

  • Pursued a breach of contract claim against the sellers of a telecommunications company.

  • Applying for and obtaining authorisations from the UK and EU competent authorities required under the EU and under the UK sanctions regimes.

  • Advised a central bank of an Eastern European country on potential civil fraud and asset recovery proceedings against the former owners of a major bank following its nationalisation.

  • Challenging a fine imposed by OFSI for breach of financial sanctions.

  • Advising a sovereign state resisting the enforcement of an arbitration award

  • Acting for the liquidators of several companies within the SAAD group in the claims brought by AHAB.