Picture of Sarah Grenfell

Sarah Grenfell

Partner

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

Sarah Grenfell is a solicitor-advocate and Partner in our Infrastructure, Construction and Energy (ICE) Disputes Group.

Specialising in high-value disputes, Sarah regularly advises clients on all forms of dispute resolution, including international arbitration (ad hoc and institutional) and High Court litigation.

Sarah is a member of, among others, the IBA, LCIA, ICC (Sarah is a member of the ICC Task Force on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings) and Society of Construction Law.

more less

Relevant experience

  • A global engineering company in relation to disputes over the alleged failures of gas turbines in a major Middle East power plant.
  • An SPV in PPP hospital project in its operational phase, including in relation to issues concerning defects in the firestopping.
  • A respondent state in a pending contentious case before the International Court of Justice.
  • A global energy company in relation to claims made under a joint bidding agreement relating to an oil field in the MENA region.
  • An operator in the Middle East in relation to an LCIA arbitration and claims of approximately US450 million arising from a construction contract relating to an oilfield development project.
  • A large Russian energy company in an LCIA arbitration in relation to a dispute over the consequences of the termination of a SPA.
  • Force majeure claims for a ‘Big Six’ energy supplier in the Commercial Court, to avoid significant payments under a take or pay contract.
  • A claim for an offshore excavation company seeking damages for premature contract termination and defending a significant counterclaim relating to the capabilities and quality of the equipment, achieving a beneficial settlement through mediation.
  • A main contractor on multi-billion dollar disputes and possible arbitration proceedings in relation to civil works in Dubai.
  • A UAE financial institution in US$100 million arbitration proceedings (ICC) arising from breach of contract and bad faith.
  • A main contractor in relation to US$20 million delay and disruption claims brought by a sub-contractor.
  • A US$300 million professional negligence and fraud claim arising from the sale and purchase of a chain of retail electronic stores in the UAE.
  • Multiplex Constructions (UK) in the case of Multiplex Constructions v Cleveland Bridge, relating to a dispute arising from the construction of the National Stadium at Wembley.
more less

Education

  • 2004 - LLM, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  • 2003 - Admitted as a Solicitor in Australia
  • 2002 - LLB, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
more less

Feed

Show only
01/11/2016
In­to the un­known: European M&A Out­look 2016
A study of European M&A activ­ity
19/07/2018
Tax in­dem­nit­ies in in­ter­na­tion­al M&A: when does tax be­come pay­able?
In Min­era Las Bam­bas SA & An­or v Glen­core Queens­land Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1658 (Comm), the Com­mer­cial Court de­cided that VAT was not “pay­able” for the pur­poses of a tax in­dem­nity in a share pur­chase agree­ment and re­lated deed of in­dem­nity un­til it be­came co­er­cively.
09/03/2018
CJEU rules against ar­bit­ra­tion clauses in In­tra-EU Bi­lat­er­al In­vest­ment...
On 6 March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Uni­on (CJEU) ruled that Art­icles 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Func­tion­ing of the European Uni­on (TFEU) must be in­ter­preted as pre­clud­ing ar­bit­ra­tion pro­vi­sions in bi­lat­er­al in­vest­ment treat­ies between.
24/02/2017
Ham­burg Rules on jur­is­dic­tion not a block to an anti-suit in­junc­tion
In Aline Tramp SA v Jordan In­ter­na­tion­al In­sur­ance Com­pany (CL-2016-000263) and The Lon­don Steam-Ship Own­ers’ Mu­tu­al In­sur­ance As­so­ci­ation Lim­ited v Jordan In­ter­na­tion­al In­sur­ance Com­pany (CL-2016-000264), a Claimant ves­sel own­er and in­surer sought anti-suit.
24/02/2017
Scope of third party dis­clos­ure cla­ri­fied
In a re­cent ap­plic­a­tion, a party sought an or­der for dis­clos­ure of cer­tain doc­u­ments from a third party. The Court has dis­cre­tion to or­der third party dis­clos­ure only where (a) the doc­u­ments sought are likely to sup­port the case of the ap­plic­ant or ad­versely.
30/01/2017
It takes two to ar­bit­rate: but in what cir­cum­stances will a Court...
In Sil­ver Dry Bulk Com­pany Ltd v Homer Hul­bert Mari­time Com­pany Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm), the Com­mer­cial Court has af­firmed that whilst it “takes two to ar­bit­rate, just as it does to tango”, the Court will nev­er­the­less take a strict ap­proach with re­gards to.
26/01/2017
UK Su­preme Court rules in the Art­icle 50 Brexit Ap­peal: what hap­pens...
The UK Su­preme Court has giv­en its judg­ment in the mat­ter of R (on the ap­plic­a­tion of Miller and an­oth­er) v Sec­ret­ary of State for Ex­it­ing the European Uni­on [2017] UK­SC 5 – more com­monly known as “the Art­icle 50 Brexit ap­peal”.
14/12/2016
Court con­firms in­ter­view notes taken by law­yers in the con­text of...
In a de­cision of the High Court re­cently handed down in con­nec­tion with The RBS Rights Is­sue Lit­ig­a­tion, the Court con­sidered a claim of leg­al ad­vice priv­ilege by the Bank over dir­ect com­mu­nic­a­tions between em­ploy­ees of the Bank and its in-house and ex­tern­al.
29/11/2016
High Court: no priv­ilege without prop­er ex­plan­a­tion
In As­tex Thera­peut­ics Lim­ited (‘As­tex’) v As­traZeneca AB (‘AZ’) [2016] EWHC 2759 (Ch), the High Court ordered AZ to provide fur­ther evid­ence in or­der to sub­stan­ti­ate its claim to priv­ilege over vari­ous doc­u­ments with­held from dis­clos­ure.
22/11/2016
Break­ing the mould: Hamp­ton-Al­ex­an­der Re­view pub­lished on wo­men lead­ers...
The Hamp­ton-Al­ex­an­der Re­view, pub­lished earli­er this month, aims to im­prove the num­ber of wo­men in seni­or lead­er­ship po­s­i­tions. Bey­ond the board­room The Hamp­ton-Al­ex­an­der Re­view con­tin­ues the pro­gress made un­der the Dav­ies Re­view for Wo­men on Boards.
07/11/2016
Con­tri­bu­tion no­tices and freez­ing in­junc­tions: step out from be­hind...
The Court of Ap­peal has al­lowed co-de­fend­ants to serve a con­tri­bu­tion no­tice on a third de­fend­ant who had settled the ori­gin­al claim against him. The court also con­sidered its dis­cre­tion to grant a freez­ing in­junc­tion between parties ac­cused of fraud­u­lent be­ha­viour.
07/11/2016
Call­ing it off: when is per­form­ance of a con­tract frus­trated?
In the con­text of a ser­vices agree­ment, the Court of Ap­peal has provided fur­ther guid­ance on what will amount to a frus­trat­ing event. In reach­ing its de­cision that the agree­ment had not been frus­trated, the Court paid par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion to the fore­see­ab­il­ity.