Picture of Adrian Bell

Adrian Bell

Partner
Co-head of the Infrastructure, Construction and Energy Disputes Group | Joint Managing Director for Asia and the Middle East

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
Cannon Place
78 Cannon Street
London
EC4N 6AF
United Kingdom
Languages English

Adrian is a Partner and co-head of the Infrastructure, Construction and Energy (ICE) Disputes Group and is a qualified solicitor advocate.

He advises on dispute avoidance and all types of dispute resolution procedures in the infrastructure, construction and energy and sectors. He specialises in substantial and complex claims, both in the UK and internationally.

more less

very dedicated and hard-working lawyer who is good strategically.”

Chambers, 2019

"astute, focused and no nonsense"

Legal 500, 2018

"Adrian is meticulous in his preparations and provides clear and unambiguous advice."

Chambers, 2018

"He's very enthusiastic, hard-working, and very personable. I like working with him."

Acritas Stars 2018

"a leading name in complex construction disputes … Sources recommend him as "an excellent and tenacious litigator" with "strong construction knowledge"."

Who’s Who Legal, 2018

a ‘strong and determined litigator who knows where the merits lie, and how to deploy his team to reach a satisfactory outcome’.

Legal 500, 2017

Ranked as a leading individual - "He takes the right points and fights them hard but constructively."

Chambers & Partners, 2016

Relevant experience

  • A Spanish energy company and its partners in an arbitration concerning a dispute under a production sharing contract in North Africa under the local laws. ICC arbitral proceedings in Geneva.
  • A Turkish energy company on claims under a Project Agreement regarding an infrastructure project in Jordan under the local laws. UNCITRAL arbitration in Geneva.
  • An international oil and gas company in relation to claims arising from an EPC Contract in respect of an extended well testing facility in Iraq.
  • A Spanish engineering company in an international arbitration commenced against its employer for approximately $800m arising from delays and alleged defects concerning the construction of a 2,000MW combined cycle power plant in the Middle East under the local laws.
  • Japanese contractors in relation to delay claims arising from the construction of a $1billion power (600MW) and desalination plant in Saudi Arabia.
  • A Lebanese company in an arbitration against a BVI company in respect of a dispute relating to the construction of a hotel in the Middle East, including successfully defending proceedings in the English Courts regarding the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
  • An oil super major in relation to delays caused to the refurbishment of a FPSO in the North Sea.
  • A contractor in defence of an adjudication commenced by its marine piling subcontractor under the NEC3 contract in relation to a £400m infrastructure project in the UK.
  • The operating subcontractor on a multi-million pound dispute arising out of a highways maintenance and management PFI.
  • The project company on four adjudications, High Court proceedings and two mediations arising out of multi-million pound delay and defects claims arising from a PFI waste treatment plant.
more less

Education

  • 2000 – BA(Hons) Law and Business, Warwick University, Warwick
more less

Memberships

  • Committee Member, the Technology & Construction Solicitors Association.
  • Member of the International Bar Association, the LCIA Young International Arbitration Group, the Solicitors’ Association of Higher Court Advocates and the Society of Construction Law.
more less

Feed

Show only
14 June 2018
An­nu­al Re­view of Eng­lish Con­struc­tion Law De­vel­op­ments...
An in­ter­na­tion­al per­spect­ive
08/03/2019
Court of Ap­peal re­solves post-ter­min­a­tion li­quid­ated dam­ages de­bate
A Court of Ap­peal de­cision earli­er this week has provided au­thor­it­at­ive guid­ance as to the ef­fect of ter­min­a­tion on li­quid­ated dam­ages pro­vi­sions in re­la­tion to delay. The de­cision re­solves con­flict­ing au­thor­it­ies on this is­sue stretch­ing back more than a cen­tury.
19 December 2017
CMS guide to the FID­IC 2017 suite
26/09/2018
Force ma­jeure clauses and caus­a­tion
A Com­mer­cial Court de­cision earli­er this month has con­sidered the ex­tent to which a force ma­jeure clause re­quires a party to prove that it would oth­er­wise have per­formed its ob­lig­a­tions in the ab­sence of any force ma­jeure event.
5 June 2017
An­nu­al Re­view of Eng­lish Con­struc­tion Law Dis­putes
An in­ter­na­tion­al per­spect­ive
15/02/2018
Con­struc­tion Act ad­ju­dic­a­tion on power gen­er­a­tion pro­jects: new TCC...
A de­cision of the TCC last week has provided im­port­ant cla­ri­fic­a­tion as to the ex­tent to which the power gen­er­a­tion ex­emp­tion in the Con­struc­tion Act ap­plies to ad­ju­dic­a­tion pro­ceed­ings un­der hy­brid con­tracts.
13 January 2017
Ship­ping & Mari­time 2016
05/12/2017
New FID­IC Second Edi­tions: re­vamped claims and dis­pute res­ol­u­tion...
The much awaited Second Edi­tions of the FID­IC Yel­low, Red and Sil­ver Books were un­veiled yes­ter­day at the FID­IC Users’ Con­fer­ence in Lon­don. The new ver­sions con­tain ex­tens­ive amend­ments and are an at­tempt to mod­ern­ise the FID­IC form 18 years after the First.
28/06/2016
CMS dis­putes part­ners iden­ti­fied as Rising Stars in...
03/08/2017
MT Højgaard: Su­preme Court rules on fit­ness for pur­pose dis­pute
In a de­cision is­sued today, the Su­preme Court has up­held an ap­peal in the MT Højgaard lit­ig­a­tion restor­ing the TCC’s ori­gin­al de­cision and find­ing the con­tract­or li­able to com­ply with a fit­ness for pur­pose type ob­lig­a­tion con­tained in a tech­nic­al sched­ule des­pite.
12/11/2015
Glob­al con­struc­tion and en­gin­eer­ing spe­cial­ists
The Middle East & North Africa
30/06/2017
NEC4: New dis­pute res­ol­u­tion and dis­pute avoid­ance pro­vi­sions
Last week saw the launch of the much-an­ti­cip­ated NEC4 suite of stand­ard form con­struc­tion and en­gin­eer­ing con­tracts (see our earli­er Law-Now here). In this art­icle we provide an ana­lys­is of the changes to the dis­pute res­ol­u­tion pro­vi­sions and the new Dis­pute.