Home / People / Jeremy Mash
Portrait of Jeremy Mash

Jeremy Mash

Partner

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

Jeremy Mash is a partner in the Commercial Dispute Resolution Team in London. He has over twenty years of experience working on high value disputes, including domestic and cross-border litigation, international arbitration and other dispute resolution methods. He regularly advises UK and international clients on M&A claims, shareholder disputes, outsourcing projects, private equity and venture capital, fraud claims and a wide range of other issues. He has specialised in the technology, media and telecoms industries throughout his career and was previously a partner at Olswang prior to its merger into CMS.

more less

“A first-class litigator with all-round skills”

Legal 500, 2018

"The practice ‘always delivers’…….. Jeremy Mash is recommended."

Legal 500, 2015

"Identified as a key player in technology, media and real estate disputes. Highly regarded for its large-scale litigation capacity and ability to take on challenging mandates. Stable client base includes numerous household names. Jeremy Mash is praised for his availability and accessibility. Sources also point to his ability to deliver pragmatic advice."

Chambers, 2014

"Jeremy Mash is recommended."

Legal 500, 2014

"Jeremy Mash is 'a star'."

Legal 500, 2013

"Jeremy is highly rated."

Legal 500, 2013

Relevant experience

  • Slater & Gordon on its GBP 637m claim against Watchstone Group arising from the sale of the former Quindell legal services business.
  • A Leading IT services supplier on a GBP 300m dispute with a UK mobile operator relating to transformation of legacy IT infrastructure.
  • Shareholders in USD 500m dispute relating to shares in one of the largest construction companies in the Middle East.
  • A leading sports car manufacturer on a dispute relating to the design and development of a racing engine.
  • The BBC on challenges to the reforms implemented to address its GBP 3bn pension deficit.
  • Kaupthing on a EUR 3bn portfolio of derivatives and structured finance disputes following the Icelandic banking crisis.
  • The Defendants in the Masri v Consolidated Contractors litigation relating to cross-border enforcement of judgments.
more less

Education

  • 1999 – Admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales
  • 1997 – LPC, College of Law
  • 1994 - BA Hons, Oxford University, Oxford
more less

Feed

22/11/2022
Life Sci­ences are reap­ing the re­ward of di­git­al ad­vances but IP and con­tract...
Di­git­al trans­form­a­tion in life sci­ences is cre­at­ing op­por­tun­it­ies to counter health­care’s most in­tract­able prob­lems from treat­ing rare dis­eases to ac­cel­er­at­ing dia­gnostics and re­du­cing treat­ment back­logs.But tech­no­lo­gic­al ad­vances are out­strip­ping le­gis­lat­ive and reg­u­lat­ory frame­works giv­ing rise to a land­scape strewn with is­sues over data, pri­vacy and IP, the re­cent CMS Glob­al Life Sci­ences & Health­care For­um 2022 heard.“Tech­no­logy change ob­vi­ously brings with it risks in im­ple­ment­a­tion and new uses of tech­no­logy and new reg­u­la­tion and le­gis­la­tion brings new risk,” Jeremy Mash, part­ner at CMS Lon­don, told del­eg­ates.AI is a po­tent force in life sci­ences with ma­chine learn­ing and pa­tient data open­ing up new op­por­tun­it­ies to re­volu­tion­ise health­care and re­lieve sys­tems bogged down by la­bor­i­ous pro­cesses and shrink­ing budgets.The ad­vances are wel­comed across life sci­ences and di­git­al has been en­shrined in most na­tion’s health sys­tem plan­ning but some fun­da­ment­al prin­ciples such as who owns or is re­spons­ible for pa­tient data, new routes to treat­ments and the con­sequences of mis­takes have yet to be fully tested.“There are situ­ations where you can see that evolving in­to risk and leg­al prob­lems,” ad­ded Jeremy. “There is in­creas­ing use of le­gis­la­tion in the space and there is con­cern about where it is go­ing to lead. There are a lot of data is­sues about quite what the ‘black box’ is do­ing and you can see people start­ing to raise con­cerns about how their data is be­ing used.“There is also a lot talk about who is li­able if that AI does not work. Is it the per­son who im­ple­men­ted it or the per­son de­signed it?”CMS ex­amined the emer­ging is­sues in its Tech­no­logy Trans­form­a­tion re­port, which sur­veyed 510 seni­or coun­sel and risk man­agers across sec­tors and dis­covered a range of pre­pared­ness and safe­guards.It iden­ti­fied that IP is­sues rep­res­ent 65% of ex­pec­ted fu­ture tech­no­logy dis­putes, ob­served Jane Hol­ly­wood, part­ner at CMS Lon­don and pat­ent at­tor­ney. She said the ex­ist­ing risk man­age­ment sys­tems for identi­fy­ing, ana­lys­ing, re­view­ing, mit­ig­at­ing and mon­it­or­ing IP risk may need stiff­en­ing.“It's one thing to have con­trac­tu­al ob­lig­a­tions and train­ing for your people gov­ern­ing how you pro­tect your IP and not mis­use third party IP,” she told the For­um, in Brus­sels. “But it's quite an­oth­er to en­sure that your pro­ced­ures re­main ad­equate while you're op­er­at­ing in a world of ma­chine learn­ing al­gorithms and AI fa­cil­it­ated de­cision mak­ing.”She ad­ded: “The IP sys­tem does not evolve as quickly as tech­no­logy ad­vances and there­fore we can have chal­lenges ob­tain­ing pro­tec­tion for new tech­no­lo­gies. We've seen this very much with AI and di­git­al health tech­no­lo­gies where pat­ent pro­tec­tion can be dif­fi­cult to get.”She said that identi­fy­ing own­er­ship and cap­tur­ing de­vel­op­ments in a fast-mov­ing sec­tor where col­lab­or­a­tion and joint ven­tures are com­mon can also gen­er­ate dis­putes.“Big Pharma is in­creas­ingly part­ner­ing with di­git­al health com­pan­ies for drug dis­cov­ery and pa­tient en­gage­ment and clin­ic­al tri­al auto­ma­tion and, again, there's a lack of clar­ity about who owns the data that's gen­er­ated from these part­ner­ships so this is also likely to lead to dis­putes in the fu­ture,” said Jane.To read the full sur­vey, vis­it Tech­no­logy Trans­form­a­tion re­port.
29/09/2022
Glob­al LSHC For­um 2022
Un­cer­tain times, an evolving leg­al frame­work: man­aging risks and en­sur­ing so­cial re­spons­ib­il­ity in the life sci­ences & health­care sec­tor
29/09/2022
Glob­al Life Sci­ences & Health­care For­um 2022
Un­cer­tain times, an evolving leg­al frame­work: man­aging risks and en­sur­ing so­cial re­spons­ib­il­ity in the life sci­ences & health­care sec­tor
21/12/2021
Re­cov­er­ab­il­ity of third party fund­ing costs in ar­bit­ra­tion: Es­sar v Norscot...
Five years ago the de­cision in Es­sar Oil­fields Ser­vices Lim­ited v Norscot Rig Man­age­ment Pvt Ltd [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm) caused a stir in ar­bit­ra­tion circles. The Com­mer­cial Court de­clined to al­low an...
17/08/2021
CMS ad­vises WOW Tech Group on > EUR 1 bn busi­ness com­bin­a­tion with Love­honey...
Mu­nich – WOW Tech Group and Love­honey, two of the glob­al lead­ers for sexu­al well­ness products, join forces. To­geth­er with Swiss brand Amor­ana – ac­quired by Love­honey in 2020 – they now form the...
22/09/2020
Dis­putes 101: Com­mu­nic­at­ing in a Con­ten­tious En­vir­on­ment
It is be­com­ing in­creas­ingly es­sen­tial for in-house law­yers and non-law­yers at all levels to have an un­der­stand­ing of the dis­putes pro­cess.  Our new Dis­putes 101 we­bin­ar series will cov­er fun­da­ment­al...
23/09/2020
Back on Track: Ex­clu­sions, lim­it­a­tions and in­dem­nit­ies
Back on Track: prac­tic­al leg­al and risk is­sues for the gambling sec­tor is our series of up­dates for in-house leg­al and com­pli­ance teams in the gambling sec­tor. Dur­ing this ses­sion, our sec­tor spe­cial­ists...
05/08/2020
Back on Track: Avoid­ing the smoking gun: leg­al priv­ilege and man­aging doc­u­ment...
Back on Track: prac­tic­al leg­al and risk is­sues for the gambling sec­tor is our series of up­dates for in-house leg­al and com­pli­ance teams in the gambling sec­tor. Dur­ing this ses­sion, our sec­tor spe­cial­ists...
20/03/2018
Li­cence to use elec­tron­ic­ally sup­plied soft­ware is not “sale of goods”...
The Court of Ap­peal has ruled that the pro­vi­sion of a li­cence to use elec­tron­ic­ally sup­plied soft­ware does not con­sti­tute a “sale of goods” for the pur­poses of the Com­mer­cial Agents (Coun­cil Dir­ect­ive)...