Guy Pendell
Guy is the head of disputes in the UK for the global firm, CMS. He has over 25 years’ experience in International Arbitration and Litigation. His main areas of expertise include corporate and commercial disputes in (among others) the TMT, Life Sciences, Hotels & Leisure and Consumer Products sections.
Guy is also the co-founder of the lawtech start-up, pinqDR.com, the first in the UK offering a complete online solution for the resolution of mid to lower value B2B disputes, providing parties with a binding decision in 8 weeks.
He is a well known figure in the UK arbitration market, is the Chair of ICC UK’s Arbitration and ADR Committee, a founder and honorary vice-president of International Arbitration Charity Ball, a trustee of RCJ Advice and a member of the Bingham Centre Development Board.
Practice Areas
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 1998
Experience
- CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP (and its predecessor firms) (1998 - Present)
Membership
- ICC UK (Chair of Arbitration and ADR Committee) and ICC Commission (member)
- Commercial Litigators’ Forum
- A4ID – Sustainable Development Goals Standing Committee
- RCJ Advice - Trustee
Education
- Diploma in Legal Practice with Commendation, Nottingham Law School
- LLB, Coventry University
5 Contributions by Guy Pendell
PRACTICE NOTES
Claimants’ Guide to pinqDR Online Arbitration: Six-to-Eight-Week Process, Submissions, Evidence, Fees, Hearings, Awards and Platform Features
This Practice Note sets out guidance and practical advice for Claimants submitting a claim on pinqDR’s online platform. It should be read alongside the pinqDR Rules. References to Articles are to Articles of the Rules. Capitalised terms carry the meanings given to them in the Rules.
Who are these guidance notes for?
These notes are intended for Claimants bringing a claim on pinqDR. Some of the core processes described are also relevant to Respondents. ‘Claimants’ are any Representatives of companies pursuing a claim on pinqDR. This typically includes in-house counsel, management, and any external Representatives such as external counsel and administrative support.
Key principles
Speed — pinqDR arbitration operates under strict time limits. The whole process must be completed within eight weeks of Commencement.
Proactivity — pinqDR Arbitrators and the parties must be more proactive than is usual in traditional arbitration procedures. For Claimants this is especially important when raising the claim. Following the guidance in this guide to achieve quick acceptance and assessment by the Arbitrator will help the swift and efficient resolution of the dispute...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Lugano Convention 2007 jurisdiction in insurance, consumer and employment claims: special regimes, contracting out and post-Brexit position
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.
The majority of authorities cited in this Practice Note were determined expressly under the Lugano Convention 2007. Nevertheless, where jurisprudence (from EU Member State courts or the Court of Justice) delivered under Brussels I or Brussels I (recast) is pertinent because the provisions match or are materially alike, cross-references are provided, where appropriate, to the equivalent Brussels regime Practice Notes, which ought to be read alongside this note and considered in tandem. For assistance on whether rulings of the Court of Justice bind UK courts after the UK’s exit from the EU, see Q&A: Are UK courts and tribunals bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union post-Brexit?...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Lugano Convention 2007: choice of court agreements (Art 23) and entering an appearance (Art 24)—formalities, exceptions for weaker parties, trusts, and UK post‑Brexit implications [Archived]
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.
This Practice Note reviews the general provisions of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Lugano on 30 October 2007 (the Lugano Convention 2007). It examines the consequences of a jurisdiction agreement under Article 23, and then outlines the conditions for a valid jurisdiction agreement under Article 23. It then specifically addresses the requirement for the agreement to be in writing or evidenced in writing, together with situations where the jurisdiction agreement is in a form that aligns with the parties’ established practices, or is in a form that accords with a widely recognised usage. The Practice Note considers exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements, and what parties must establish when seeking to rely on a jurisdiction agreement. Protections for weaker parties in insurance, employment and consumer contracts are also examined, along with the position when dealing with trusts, and the position under Article 24 where a defendant enters an appearance before a Member State court...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Lugano Convention 2007: Parallel and Related Proceedings, First Court Seised, and Post-Brexit/Brussels I (recast) Context (Arts 27–30)
ARCHIVED :
This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated or maintained. The majority of authorities cited here were determined under the 2007 Lugano Convention in particular. That said, where decisions—whether from Member State courts or the Court of Justice—under Brussels I or Brussels I (recast) are also pertinent because the provisions are identical or closely analogous, you are directed to the equivalent Brussels regime Practice Notes, which ought to be read together and in parallel with this document. For advice on the extent to which Court of Justice judgments are binding on UK courts following the UK’s departure from the EU, consult the Q&A: Are UK courts and tribunals bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union post-Brexit?...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Lugano Convention 2007: special (Arts 5–6) and exclusive (Art 22) jurisdiction, multi‑defendant, third‑party and counterclaims, and post‑Brexit UK third‑state implications
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.
This Practice Note reviews the provisions set out in the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Lugano on 30 October 2007 (the Lugano Convention 2007), that address special and exclusive jurisdiction. The analysis addresses how these provisions function across civil and commercial disputes. It covers:
Article 5, which concerns, among other matters, claims in contract and in tort, and related issues;
Article 6, which relates to situations involving multiple defendants, the involvement of third parties, or the bringing of counterclaims.
It further assesses the various categories of claims encompassed by Article 22, under which the courts of a contracting state exercise exclusive jurisdiction in specified matters. Lastly, it considers the implications for applying Article 22—which operates irrespective of the parties’ domicile—now that the UK is no longer bound to the convention by virtue of its EU membership and is treated as a so‑called third state for the purposes of the convention’s application...
Dispute Resolution
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
