Augusto Garcia Sanjur is an Associate at Floyd Zadkovich (London office).

Augusto focuses his practice on investment and commercial arbitrations and litigation. Augusto has a growing practice in the maritime and international trade sectors. Augusto has acted for both States and private companies in arbitrations under leading institutional and ad hoc rules, including ICSID, ICC, and UNCITRAL.

He is a prominent scholar and has won two world writing competitions: the UNIDROIT Writing Competition 2020 and the Young ITA Writing Competition 2022-2023. His articles have been published in peer-reviewed legal journals across the Americas, Europe, and Asia, in publications such as the Uniform Law Review published by Oxford University Press. Augusto regularly lectures on dispute resolution and public speaking in renowned universities and forums. Augusto also assisted in the Restatement of the Law, The U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration.

Augusto works in English (fluent) and Spanish (native).

  • Representation of the Republic of Panama in investment treaty arbitration – Leopoldo Castillo Bozo v. Republic of Panama, PCA 2019-40.
  • Representation of an investor in an investment treaty arbitration under the ICSID Rules related to the energy sector.
  • Representation of an investor in an ICC arbitration, seated in London, related to the finance sector.

Professional Experience

  • Associate, Floyd Zadkovich  (2023 – present)
  • Visiting Foreign Lawyer, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (2022-2023)
  • Intern, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (2021-2022)
  • Project Manager, Arbitrator Intelligence (2018-2020)


  • Diploma in Electricity Markets, Technological University of Panama (2023)
  • LL.M., Pennsylvania State University (2019) – Recognition: Oralist of the Team Winner of First Place of Willem C. Vis Moot Competition, Vienna, Austria (2019)
  • LL.B. (Summa Cum Laude), University of Panama (2018)
  • The “Impecunious Claimant” and security for costs

    The “Impecunious Claimant” and security for costs

    Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc (The “Victor 1”) [2023] EWHC 2995 (Comm)

    There is certain bitter irony for a defendant when a claimant, who has spent a small fortune in legal proceedings against that defendant, turns around and pleads poverty when that defendant seeks security for costs.

    Such circumstances were considered in “The Victor 1”, where the Commercial Court considered a defendant’s security for costs application against a claimant which appeared, on paper, not to have any assets, but which seemed capable of funding litigation with seemingly bottomless pockets in numerous jurisdictions.[1]

    Under CPR 25.13, if the “claimant is a company or other body (whether incorporated inside or outside Great Britain) and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so”, then the defendant will have a prima facie entitlement to security for costs.  However, the courts will weigh this entitlement up against key considerations of justice.

    [1] Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2023] EWHC 2995 (Comm).

  • WhatsApp-enned here?! Salutary lessons when negotiating subjects over social media | ZFZ Postcard Cases

    WhatsApp-enned here?! Salutary lessons when negotiating subjects over social media | ZFZ Postcard Cases

    When emails became popular in business in the 1990’s, to a large extent replacing faxes and letters by post, it was difficult to foresee how things could get any quicker. However, with the advent of social media into the fast-paced world of broking, and the arrival of WhatsApp, communication by email, it seemed, was just too slow.

    WhatsApp messages are now regularly used for the negotiation of charterparties. However, the difficulties start when the charterparty falls apart. As many times as one party produces the messages as evidence of the contract, the other party argues that they are merely informal or unverifiable communications that should be given no value by a court or tribunal in considering contract formation.