Recently published

Jurisdiction / Region

  • Loading...

More information


CMS Worldwide

Selected jurisdiction


Latest news

Press contact





404 - Page not found

404 - Page not found

Unfortunately, we can’t seem to find the page you’re looking for.

Error code: 404



Next Events


CMS on LinkedIn

Follow us

Lee Gluyas

Lee Gluyas


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

Lee is a commercial lawyer who specialises in the resolution of disputes, particularly those arising out of technology, outsourcing and telecommunications contracts.  He also acts for clients in other industry sectors, including the financial services, real estate, facilities management, automotive and energy sectors.  He has extensive experience of advising clients on disputes arising out of corporate transactions and on issues relating to fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

In addition, he advises clients on data protection and data security.

Lee is a solicitor-advocate with over 20 years' experience of litigation, arbitration (ICC, LCIA, AAA) and mediation.

more less

"Considered in his thinking" and "thorough"

Chambers & Partners

"Considered and calm"

Legal 500

Relevant experience

  • Acting for a global IT supplier in a claim involving allegations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract in the delivery of a customer relationship management system – BSkyB v EDS [2016] EWHC 86 (TCC).
  • Acting for an IT supplier in arbitration proceedings against an energy company concerning the delivery of a trading and risk management system.
  • Acting for a multinational IT supplier in arbitration proceedings brought by a reseller involving consideration of the application on the Commercial Agents Regulations across various jurisdictions.
  • Acting for an international insurance company in proceedings against an IT supplier relating to the delivery of a disaster recovery system.
  • Acting for a property management company in a series of disputes against a telecommunications company.
  • Acting for a leading international media company in proceedings relating to allegations of inducement to breach of contract.
  • Acting for the administrators of a bridging finance company in a series of claims against professional advisors – Lexi Holdings – various matters.
more less


1991 – Law Society Finals, College of Law, Chester

1990 – LL.B, University of Leicester

more less


  • Society for Computers & Law (Committee member)
  • ICT Arbitration Club (Committee member)
  • ITechLaw
  • Commercial Litigators Forum
more less


  • Whose fault is it anyway? Why IT projects fail (Part 1: the customer’s fault). Outsource Magazine, September 2015, with William Hooper.
  • Whose fault is it anyway? Why IT projects fail (Part 2: the supplier’s fault). Outsource Magazine, September 2015, with William Hooper.
  • The IT Frontline.  Compliance Monitor, March 2015.
more less

Lectures list

Managing IT Project Disputes. LexisNexis webinar, 20 April 2016.

more less


Show only
2 May 2016
Tak­ing AIM: am­bi­tion and fear in the UK tech­no­logy...
Wikileaks cables are ad­miss­ible in Eng­lish court pro­ceed­ings
The Su­preme Court has held that the Ad­min­is­trat­ive Court was wrong to ex­clude a Wikileaks cable from evid­ence. The un­der­ly­ing ju­di­cial re­view pro­ceed­ings in R (Ban­coult No. 3) v Sec­ret­ary of State for For­eign and Com­mon­wealth Af­fairs [2018] UK SC 3 con­cerned.
Li­quid­at­ors must dis­close the iden­tity of third-party fun­ders to fa­cil­it­ate...
In Hel­las Tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions (Lux­em­bourg) [2017] EWHC 3465 (Ch), the High Court ordered re­spond­ent li­quid­at­ors to dis­close the iden­tity of third-party lit­ig­a­tion fun­ders and the terms on which fund­ing was provided in or­der to fa­cil­it­ate an ap­plic­a­tion for se­cur­ity.
Re­tri­al high­lights danger of not put­ting for­ward ex­pert evid­ence
A Chan­cery judge has con­sidered the weight to be giv­en to ex­pert evid­ence when only one party has called an ex­pert in a giv­en field. In Ash­down & Oth­ers v Griffin & Oth­ers [2017] EWHC 2601 (Ch), HHJ Mat­thews found that the court’s ap­proach should be es­sen­tially.