Home / People / Adam Greaves
Adam Greaves

Adam Greaves


CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
Cannon Place
78 Cannon Street
United Kingdom
Languages English, French

Adam is a partner in our London Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution team.

Adam advises on a range of complex commercial litigation and arbitration disputes with a particular interest in international cross-border asset tracing and recovery cases, shareholder disputes, product liability and professional negligence claims. Qualified for 30 years, Adam often project manages disputes in multiple jurisdictions, obtaining worldwide freezing injunctions and attachment orders.

Adam also advises and lectures on the UK’s Bribery Act 2010, including compliance, internal and criminal investigations, defence, and related civil claims.

more less

"Scope of expertise is remarkable"

Dispute Resolution/Commercial Litigation Legal 500

"London Super Lawyers"

Super Lawyers, Thomson Reuters

"Legal Expert"

Commercial Litigation Legal Experts EMEA

Relevant experience

  • A client on international arbitration against the foreign government on breach of contract and tort claims for value in excess of $100m.
  • Shareholders on a $400m claim in relation to ownership of a mobile telephony company.
  • A foreign bank on the recovery of a $60m debt in which the security provided to the bank was fraudulent.
  • A number of defendants on a dispute with a Middle-Eastern royal family involving allegations of fraud, value $250m.
  • A mobile telephone manufacturer on a $2bn fraud by a Turkish industrialist family.
  • A ship owner on a $300m shipbuilding dispute.
  • Pension trustees on a highly complex cross-border $500m fraud.
  • A FTSE 100 house building company on a wide-ranging national and international corruption investigation.
  • Advising on several very large disputes relating to the "aluminium wars" in Russia involving staged bankruptcies, illegal share dilutions, corrupt local courts and other forms of corporate fraud.
more less


  • 1984 – Solicitors Finals, The College of Law, Guildford
  • 1983 – LL.B. Hons, The University of Essex, Colchester
more less


  • Member, Russo-British Chamber of Commerce.
  • Committee Member, Commercial Litigators Forum
more less


Show only
4 December 2017
Risk Mat­ters: In­sur­ance Sec­tor Up­date (Winter 2017/18)
Triple chal­lenge on grounds of ser­i­ous ir­reg­u­lar­ity fails to over­turn...
In an ap­peal in the case of Gracie v Rose [2019] EWHC 1176 (Ch), the High Court’s de­cision to dis­miss three chal­lenges to an ar­bit­ral award in a share­hold­ers’ agree­ment dis­pute has em­phas­ised: the re­quire­ment for parties to seek cla­ri­fic­a­tion of awards.
UK com­pan­ies can learn a lot from new US Pro­sec­utors’ Guid­ance on...
The Crim­in­al Di­vi­sion of the US De­part­ment of Justice (“DoJ”) has pub­lished up­dated guid­ance for pro­sec­utors on the Eval­u­ation of Cor­por­ate Com­pli­ance Pro­grams (“DoJ Guid­ance”). The DoJ Guid­ance is in­ten­ded to as­sist pro­sec­utors when con­sid­er­ing (i) wheth­er.
Court of Ap­peal cla­ri­fies two key con­trac­tu­al law is­sues
In a case con­cern­ing a con­tract for the sup­ply of egg products, the Court of Ap­peal has cla­ri­fied two key con­trac­tu­al law is­sues: (1) the cor­rect test for in­duce­ment in cases of res­cis­sion for fraud­u­lent mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion, and (2) the lim­its of the ‘trans­ferred.
Court grants ac­cess to doc­u­ments for use in ar­bit­ral dis­cip­lin­ary...
In The Chartered In­sti­tute of Ar­bit­rat­ors v B and oth­ers [2019] EWHC 460 (Comm), the Com­mer­cial Court al­lowed a non-party to gain ac­cess to court doc­u­ments that were used in pro­ceed­ings to re­move an ar­bit­rat­or.
Su­per­charged crim­in­al dis­clos­ure or­ders to ob­tain over­seas data will...
The Crime (Over­seas Pro­duc­tion Or­ders) Act 2019 re­ceived Roy­al As­sent in Feb­ru­ary 2019. Its op­er­at­ive pro­vi­sions are not yet in force, but when they are, it will en­able UK au­thor­it­ies, without hav­ing to go through the cum­ber­some mu­tu­al leg­al as­sist­ance pro­cesses.
Com­mer­cial Court blocks for­eign pro­ceed­ings to in­val­id­ate an ar­bit­ra­tion...
In Aqaba Con­tain­er Ter­min­al (PVT) Co. v So­letanche Bachy France SAS [2019] EWHC 471 (Comm), the Com­mer­cial Court gran­ted a per­man­ent anti-suit in­junc­tion to re­strain Jord­ani­an pro­ceed­ings that breached the ar­bit­ra­tion clause in a con­struc­tion con­tract.
Leg­al ad­vice priv­ilege: Con­fid­en­ti­al­ity is not lost un­til a “sub­stan­tial...
A Chan­cery judge has con­firmed that con­fid­en­ti­al­ity in leg­al ad­vice is not lost through ac­ci­dent­al dis­clos­ure to a re­l­at­ively small num­ber of people. As a res­ult, the Mir­ror Group could main­tain priv­ilege over a note of leg­al ad­vice that had fallen in­to the.
NCA res­ists first chal­lenge to Un­ex­plained Wealth Or­der
The Na­tion­al Crime Agency (“NCA”) has suc­cess­fully res­isted an ap­plic­a­tion to dis­charge the first Un­ex­plained Wealth Or­der made against “Mrs A” in Feb­ru­ary 2018 (with Mrs A be­ing iden­ti­fied as Zamira Haji­yeva, fol­low­ing a suc­cess­ful chal­lenge of her an­onym­ity.
Ukraine and Rus­sia to have full tri­al over re­pay­ment of USD 3 bil­lion...
On 14 Septem­ber 2018, the Court of Ap­peal handed down judg­ment for Ukraine in its long-run­ning dis­pute with Rus­sia over the re­pay­ment of a USD 3 bil­lion Euro­bond loan (the "Notes") is­sued in 2013 (Ukraine v The Law Deben­ture Trust Cor­por­a­tion PLC [2018] EW­CA.
Fraud de­fence can­not sur­vive dis­con­tinu­ance of pro­ceed­ings to en­force...
The Court of Ap­peal has held that a fraud de­fence did not give rise to an in­de­pend­ent claim and could not sur­vive the dis­con­tinu­ance of pro­ceed­ings to en­force a for­eign award. Back­ground In Stati and oth­ers v Re­pub­lic of Kaza­kh­stan [2018] EW­CA Civ 1896, the.
Court of Ap­peal up­holds stay of en­force­ment in state aid case, but...
The Court of Ap­peal has up­held a High Court or­der to stay en­force­ment of an In­ter­na­tion­al Centre for Set­tle­ment of In­vest­ment Dis­putes (IC­SID) award pending a de­cision of the Gen­er­al Court of the European Uni­on as to wheth­er or not en­force­ment would amount.