Home / People / Luke Pardey
Luke Pardey

Luke Pardey


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

Luke Pardey is a partner in the Dispute Resolution Team at CMS London. He specialises in commercial disputes and has around 12 years' of experience acting for clients in contentious situations. An area where Luke has particular expertise is in dealing with disputes in the technology, media and telecommunications sectors, where his deep-seated market knowledge is prized by his loyal client base. Those clients includes global technology businesses, prominent broadcasters and media companies, FTSE100 corporations and other household names. He also has years of experience in acting for his clients in complex corporate, finance and banking, fraud and insolvency disputes.

Clients frequently instruct Luke on their most complex, highly-sensitive and business-critical commercial disputes. In part this is because of his focus on devising effective strategies to help clients achieve optimal outcomes and his ability successfully to weave those strategies into complex litigation and arbitration. Luke also regularly advises clients outside of formal litigation and arbitration procedures, helping them to understand their rights and risks and devise plans to resolve commercial disputes before they crystallise.

more less

Relevant experience

  • A leading IT services supplier on a £300m dispute with a UK mobile operator relating to the transformation of legacy IT infrastructure.
  • A global software company in disputes arising out of contracts for the provision of software/platforms as a service.
  • Lotus Cars in a series of large-scale commercial disputes before the High Court.
  • A syndicated trade finance lender in relation to a dispute with the facility agent following a default under the facility, alongside a related and long-running LCIA arbitration.
  • A leading global industrials business in relation to enforcement proceedings across multiple jurisdictions include the US, England and the DIFC.
  • Private equity investors in an African-based business in relation to prospective arbitration proceedings against company management for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion.
  • Cable & Wireless, Virgin Media and Verizon in Competition Appeal Tribunal proceedings concerning an Ofcom determination in respect of overcharging by BT for wholesale Ethernet services.
  • The joint liquidators of Bilta (UK) Ltd and other companies investigating MTIC fraud in the trading of environmental commodities.
  • News International in relation to the civil phone hacking litigation.
  • Lionel Messi in Commercial Court proceedings for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment concerning the exploitation of his image rights.
more less


  • 2011 – Admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales.
  • 2005 – Admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia.
  • 2005 – Admitted as a solicitor of the High Court and Federal Court of Australia.
  • 2005 – Graduate Diploma in Law and Legal Practice, University of Technology, Sydney.
  • 2005 – Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.), First Class Honours (1:1), University of Technology, Sydney.
more less


  • Commercial Litigation Forum.
  • London Solicitors Litigation Association.
  • Society for Computers and Law.
more less


Show only
Up­date: The Me­dia and Com­mu­nic­a­tions List
From 1 Oc­to­ber 2019, High Court claims for de­fam­a­tion, mis­use of private in­form­a­tion, har­ass­ment by pub­lic­a­tion and claims in data pro­tec­tion must be is­sued in the Me­dia and Com­mu­nic­a­tions List of the Queen’s Bench Di­vi­sion (the “QBD”) (the “M&C List”).
Non-party costs or­ders: The Ar­kin cap should not ne­ces­sar­ily ap­ply...
The High Court has re­jec­ted the sug­ges­tion that the Ar­kin cap, which lim­its the ex­tent of non-party costs or­ders against a com­mer­cial lit­ig­a­tion fun­der, must be ap­plied in every case. Back­ground In Dav­ey v Money & An­or [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch), the ad­min­is­trat­ors.
Com­mer­cial Court ex­am­ines "dom­in­ant pur­pose" in the light of SFO v...
The Com­mer­cial Court has held that an auc­tion house could not claim lit­ig­a­tion priv­ilege over cor­res­pond­ence with ex­perts about the au­then­ti­city of a paint­ing in cir­cum­stances where the cor­res­pond­ence was for the dual pur­pose of reach­ing a com­mer­cial de­cision.
Hold­ing parties to their bar­gain: the Su­preme Court en­forces a “no...
The Su­preme Court has over­turned a Court of Ap­peal de­cision that al­lowed a con­trac­tu­al clause re­quir­ing vari­ations to the con­tract to be in writ­ing to be over­rid­den by a later or­al agree­ment. This de­cision will help to provide cer­tainty to con­tract­ing parties.
Su­preme Court re­turns to a re­strict­ive ap­proach to "hy­po­thet­ic­al ne­go­ti­ation"...
The Su­preme Court has over­turned an earli­er de­cision by the Court of Ap­peal that made it easi­er for claimants to ob­tain dam­ages based on the fee they could hy­po­thet­ic­ally have charged to give per­mis­sion to a de­fend­ant for something that would oth­er­wise in­fringe.