Oliver E. Browne

  • Partner
  • Eoliver.browne@lw.com
  • 99 Bishopsgate
  • London EC2M 3XF
  • United Kingdom
  • T +44.20.7710.1825
  •  
 

Profile

Oliver Browne, Chair of the London Litigation & Trial Department and Solicitor Advocate, helps clients resolve complex cross-border disputes arising from transactions, both in court and through arbitration.

Drawing on more than two decades of experience, Mr. Browne regularly advises on clients’ most complex commercial disputes involving novel legal issues. A pragmatic problem solver, he formulates effective strategies to help clients resolve mission-critical cases as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.

An advocacy specialist, Mr. Browne provides strategic advice to corporations operating across a multitude of sectors as well as high-net-worth individuals. He brings considerable experience navigating complex commercial litigation around the world and arbitration-related litigation in all levels of the English courts. His work in international arbitration includes experience with proceedings conducted under the auspices of the world’s leading arbitral institutions as well as on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. Browne advises a range of clients on a pro bono basis, including in connection with criminal and social justice issues. He also frequently represents arts organizations and charities in key disputes.

Experience

Mr. Browne's experience includes advising:

  • Croatia in an investment treaty arbitration brought by an Austrian company, Adria Beteiligungs GmbH.
  • A Polish foundry industrialist in a “bet the company” case against a major Polish private equity house.

  • The subsidiary of one of the world’s largest industrial conglomerates on a €300 million French law arbitration in Paris in relation to a joint venture for the marketing, distribution, and sales of products.

  • A Qatari financial institution over an aborted sale and purchase transaction involving the sale of shares in a prominent Middle East construction company.

  • A major European integrated energy company in relation to oil and natural gas in connection with its disputes with another major European energy company over a long-term gas supply contract.

  • A promoter of professional tennis tournaments in relation to a US$10 million claim in arbitration proceedings in London about a joint venture in Thailand (and working on the subsequent court proceedings relating to the arbitration).

  • A Russian financial organization, and its Cypriot based subsidiary, in two sets of LCIA arbitration proceedings, one relating to complex financial instruments and one relating to attempts to recover sums under finance instruments.

  • A large German power utility active in both upstream and downstream work in relation to allegations of breaches of confidence in relation to gas field exploration rights in the Middle East.

  • A State in connection with a high-profile, high value enforcement action and dealing with the issues of sovereign immunity arising as a result.

  • Clients in relation to a challenge to the Award made in the English High Court in a “bet the company” case. The landmark judgment (B v A [2010] EWHC 1626 (Comm), July 1, 2010, Tomlinson J) gives parties increased confidence that a choice of London as the seat for their arbitration will bring with it solid supervisory courts that will not, without very good reason, entertain long and expensive challenges to awards or try to second guess the arbitrators’ determinations of foreign law.

  • One of the world’s largest providers of trustee services in relation to the potential risks and likely exposure arising out of a series of investments (totalling €100 million) in real estate in Central and Eastern Europe and court proceedings brought by liquidators in relation to a trust operated for a high net worth individual.

  • A major financial institution in relation matters arising from the Madoff US$65 billion fraud. The matters include a number of active litigation matters in the UK, Ireland, Cayman Islands, BVI, the Isle of Man, the United States, and various European countries and include representing the lead defendant in the multibillion dollar Fairfield Sentry proceedings recently successfully ruled upon by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England.

Thought Leadership

  • Getting the Deal Through – Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2022 -  September 15, 2021
  • High Court Clarifies Appeal Procedures Following Remote Hand Downs of Judgments -  June 10, 2021
  • English Court Confirms Expansive Jurisdiction to Reverse Transactions to Defraud Creditors Even Outside Insolvencies -  May 28, 2021
  • High Court Rejects New Look Landlords' CVA Challenge in Landmark Decision -  May 13, 2021
  • What Rules Will Apply to Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit? Part Five -  April 15, 2021
  • Complex Commercial Litigation Law Review – England and Wales -  January 26, 2021
  • What Rules Will Apply to Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit? Part Four -  December 31, 2020
  • Court of Appeal Rules That “Judgments on Judgments” Are Not Registrable for Enforcement Under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 -  December 04, 2020
  • What Rules Will Apply to Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit? Part Three -  November 27, 2020
  • 15 Asia-Pacific Countries Form New Trading Bloc  -  November 27, 2020
  • Court of Appeal: Professional Privilege Must Pass the “Dominant Purpose” Test -  October 29, 2020
  • Chinese Court Decision Reinforces Need for Clear and Precise Drafting of China-Related Arbitration Agreements -  October 15, 2020
  • What Rules Will Apply to Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit? Part Two -  October 09, 2020
  • The Singapore Mediation Convention: Will It Enhance Mediation's Effectiveness? -  September 18, 2020
  • Getting the Deal Through - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2021 -  September 15, 2020
  • An Attractive Regime For Governing Jurisdiction Post-Brexit -  July 15, 2020
  • Relief for UK Companies: Court Protects Against Winding-up of Companies Due to COVID-19 -  June 04, 2020
  • English Commercial Court: Foreign Judgment Did Not Establish Issue Estoppel -  May 28, 2020
  • What Rules Will Apply to Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit? -  May 11, 2020
  • Court of Appeal Clarifies Legal Professional Privilege -  May 01, 2020
  • Unexplained Wealth Orders Subject to Rigorous Judicial Scrutiny  -  April 27, 2020
  • Court of Appeal Can Compel a Non-Party to an Arbitration Agreement to Provide Evidence -  April 08, 2020
  • Complex Commercial Litigation Law Review – England & Wales -  February 04, 2020
  • English Court of Appeal Rules on Privilege and Settlement Agreements  -  December 13, 2019
  • Court of Appeal: London-Seated Arbitration Cannot Circumvent Mandatory Arbitration Act Requirements -  December 11, 2019
  • Issuer Liability for Intermediated Securities -  December 09, 2019
  • Reaffirmation of the Principle of Open Justice -  November 19, 2019
  • Application for an Extension of Time for Appeal Against a Committal Order -  November 19, 2019
  • Case Management and Relief from Sanctions; Dealing with Failure to Pay Trial Fee -  November 19, 2019
  • English High Court Confirms Costs Award Part and Parcel of Substantive Award  -  November 13, 2019
  • International Arbitration: Focus on Chinese Counter-Parties  -  October 29, 2019
  • Fraud Unravels All – Even Post-Judgment -  April 18, 2019
  • Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 Have Bite! -  April 08, 2019
  • Chinese Court Takes Pro-Arbitration Approach to Validity of International Arbitration Agreement  -  February 26, 2019
  • English Court of Appeal Clarifies Test for Determining Jurisdictional Challenges  -  January 28, 2019
  • Whether Service of a Claim Form Is a ‘Reserved Legal Activity,’ Whether That Impacts the Validity of Service -  January 17, 2019
  • Complex Commercial Litigation Law Review – England & Wales -  January 09, 2019
  • English High Court Confirms the Scope of Freezing Injunctions in Relation to Third-Party Assets  -  January 03, 2019
  • A Collision of Two Heads -  November 27, 2018
  • English High Court Confirms the Strict Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure -  September 24, 2018
  • Saving Time and Money by Sanctioning Bad Behavior -  September 07, 2018
  • Repeat Vexation of the Legal System Can Result in Summary Judgment or Strike Out (Hodgson v National House Building Council) -  September 03, 2018
  • English Court Refuses to Extend Time for Serving a Claim Form  -  August 17, 2018
  • English Court Issues Anti-Arbitration Injunction Restraining Lebanese Arbitration Proceedings -  July 03, 2018
  • English Court Cannot Issue Anti-Suit Injunctions Restraining Other EU Court Proceedings -  July 02, 2018
  • Duty of Good Faith Implied into a Commercial Contract (Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed Bin Shakhboot Al Nehayan v Kent) -  June 19, 2018
  • Cartelized Products: In or Out of EEA? Only a Trial Will Tell  -  June 06, 2018
  • UK Supreme Court: NOM Clauses Invalidate Oral Variations of Contracts -  June 01, 2018
  • English Court Provides Welcome Clarification on Key Arbitral Award Issues  -  May 31, 2018
  • English Court of Appeal Re-Affirms Pro-Enforcement Stance Toward Foreign Arbitral Awards  -  May 30, 2018
  • Court Rules that Arbitrators Must Disclose Related or Overlapping Appointments -  May 24, 2018
  • Is Good Faith a Bad Choice Under English Law? -  May 09, 2018
  • Pharma and Biotech: Key Trends and Legal Risks -  November 14, 2017
  • Further Disclosure? Yes, but Not at Any Cost -  September 13, 2017
  • How Will Court of Appeal Decision in Sabbagh v Khoury and Others Affect Future Article 6(1) Cases?  -  September 07, 2017
  • High Court Willing to Set Aside Arbitral Awards on Public Policy Grounds  -  July 26, 2017
  • International Arbitration Newsletter (May 2017) -  May 08, 2017
  • Moving mountains—no implied term of good faith -  July 21, 2016
  • Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd: A Landmark Decision on Predictive Coding in e-Discovery -  July 18, 2016
  • Arbitral Awards Based on Penalty Clauses: Enforceable? -  February 11, 2016
  • International Arbitration: Resolving a World of Disputes -  January 25, 2016
  • The Vulnerability of Default Judgments: Failure Effectively to Serve May Prevent Enforcement Later Down the Line -  November 25, 2015
  • What Makes a Multi-tiered Dispute Resolution Clause Enforceable? -  July 08, 2015
  • Dispute Resolution Clause in Settlement Agreement Supersedes the Underlying Agreement  -  March 06, 2015
  • Change to Rules of Service Out of the United Kingdom Following the Recast Brussels Regulation -  March 06, 2015
  • International Arbitration Newsletter (February 2015) -  February 05, 2015
  • 4 Elements to Improve Enforceability of a Multi-tiered Dispute Resolution Clause -  August 20, 2014
  • Disclosure v. Blocking Statutes -  December 19, 2013
  • Reconsidering Repudiations of Contracts: Recent Developments -  December 19, 2013
  • Good News for Agents, but be Aware -  December 19, 2013
  • Getting the Basics Right: The Importance of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses -  August 02, 2013
  • In From the Cold: English Court Provides Freezing Order Principles -  August 02, 2013
  • International Arbitration Newsletter (July 2013) -  July 25, 2013
  • Avoiding Pitfalls in Drafting and Using Unilateral Option Clauses  -  July 22, 2013
  • Reform of the Brussels Regulation — Latest Developments and the “Arbitration Exception” -  April 15, 2013
  • Reform of the Brussels Regulation: Developments in Questions of Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Across the European Union  -  October 01, 2012
  • India Announces That It Will Now Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Awards From China and Hong Kong -  May 16, 2012
  • England: Scope of Challenges Following an Alleged Error of Foreign Law -  September 15, 2010
  • International Arbitration and the English Courts: A Robust Approach to Challenges Based on Foreign Law -  August 2, 2010
  • Courts Deliver Landmark Backing For Arbitral Process -  July 29, 2010
  • London Litigation Briefing Issue 10, July 2009 -  15 July 2009
  • Lost At Sea Or A Storm In A Teacup? -  May 01, 2009
  • Setback for Antitrust Class Actions in Europe—the English High Court Rules in Emerald Supplies v. British Airways -  April 28, 2009
  • London Litigation Briefing, Issue 9 -  October 2008
  • London Litigation Briefing, Issue 8 -  May 2008
  • A "Fresh Start": The Construction of Arbitration Clauses Under English Law Following Premium Nafta v Fili -  October 26, 2007
  • Convergence Between English and New York Law -  October 2007
  • London Litigation Briefing, Issue 5 -  April 2007
  • London Litigation Briefing, Issue 4 -  January 2007
  • Finance Agreements: A Practical Approach to Options to Arbitrate -  January 7, 2007
  • Dispute Resolution and Financial Transactions: Is Arbitration the Answer? -  October 2006
  • London Litigation Briefing, Issue 3 -  October 2006
  • London Litigation Briefing, Issue 2 -  June 2006
  • London Litigation Briefing Newsletter, Issue 1 - March 2006 -  March 2006
"Oliver is 'really impressive for the personal involvement and attention he gives to cases, the speed of his responses and the quality of his legal advice and work'."Legal 500 UK 2020
Education
  • Diploma in Legal Practice, BPP Law School, 2000
  • LLB, King's College London, 1999
  • Maitrîse en Droits Privés Francais et Anglais, Université de Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1999
Industries
  • Hospitality, Gaming & Leisure
  • Energy & Infrastructure
  • Financial Institutions
Practices
  • International Arbitration
  • Antitrust & Competition
  • Africa Practice
  • Litigation & Trial Practice
  • Complex Commercial Litigation
  • Securities Litigation & Professional Liability
  • Public International Law