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
Should there be a strict li­ab­il­ity re­gime for AI claims?
Money (That’s What I Want): Fail­ure to warn leads to deni­al of a non-party...
In an ac­tion for copy­right in­fringe­ment in a doc­u­ment­ary about a 1964 con­cert giv­en by The Beatles, the Court of Ap­peal over­turned a non-party costs or­der against a com­pany dir­ect­or. The ab­sence of an early warn­ing was a key factor in de­cid­ing that the dir­ect­or.
Ar­ti­fi­cial In­tel­li­gence - Who is li­able when AI fails...
A con­tract can be res­cin­ded for fraud­u­lent mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion if the...
The Com­mer­cial Court has cla­ri­fied that the tra­di­tion­al “but for” test still ap­plies in claims to res­cind a con­tract for fraud­u­lent mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion, al­beit in a weak­er form than for neg­li­gent mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion.
2 May 2016
Tak­ing AIM: am­bi­tion and fear in the UK tech­no­logy...
Simply con­sid­er­ing a doc­u­ment dis­closed by mis­take can be “use”
A party that mis­takenly dis­closes doc­u­ments to its op­pon­ent can still as­sert priv­ilege over those doc­u­ments provided the mis­take was ob­vi­ous and the op­pon­ent has not yet made use of the doc­u­ments. In a rare de­cision on what con­sti­tutes “use”, the Com­mer­cial.
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.