Skip to content

Lawson Caisley

Partner

London

Lawson Caisley

Partner

London

Lawson is a partner in Allen & Overy’s Litigation & Investigations Group in London, and is chair of the firm's cyber security group. He specialises in disputes and investigations involving large corporations and financial institutions, and has extensive experience of all aspects of complex commercial litigation and investigations, including matters involving fraud and white collar crime, cyber security breaches, and fund management disputes. He acts for leading FTSE companies, international groups, and private equity and hedge funds, and he routinely handles matters spanning several jurisdictions.

Lawson has been ranked as a leading dispute resolution lawyer in the legal directories for many years where comments about him include: "fantastic, responsive and practical." (Chambers 2019). "[He is] an excellent tactician who is very good at handling large and complex cases" (Chambers 2018); “His ability to combine legal precision with commercial reality is second to none.” (Chambers 2017); “excellent at handling large cases” (Legal 500 2016); “stands out as a serious operator with good commercial judgment” (Chambers 2016);”sees the wood for the trees in complex cases” (Legal 500 2015); “steers through investigatory work with aplomb” (Chambers 2014); "a lawyer who inspires trust…clients know they can rely on him." (Chambers 2013)

Other noteworthy Experience includes advising: 

  • A global law firm on USD200m negligence claim against it concerning a structured finance transaction.
  • A global aerospace company relating to various financing agreements.in concurrent proceedings before the Indian and English courts.
  • A global pharmaceutical company on USD200m outsourcing dispute.
  • A FTSE 100 company in relation to a dispute with the Financial Reporting Council concerning statements made in its report and accounts.
  • A global financial services group in relation to multiple proceedings in several jurisdictions relating to the alleged missale of complex investment products.
  • A major international hedge fund in relation to the theft of highly valuable confidential information and trading strategies by a former UK employee. The case involves civil and criminal proceedings and injunctions in a number of jurisdictions, including England, Hong Kong and the U.S.
  • A FTSE 100 company in relation to an in internal investigation into potential corruption issues in its Chinese operations.
  • A FTSE 250 company in relation to an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into allegations of fraudulent accounting and market manipulation
  • A global corporation in relation to an HMRC investigation into potential tax evasion.
  • A FTSE company in relation to an FCA investigation (and related FRC and ICAEW investigations) concerning potential breaches of the Listing Rules.

Experience highlights

News & insights

Publications: 25 FEBRUARY 2020

A misprediction is not a mistake: settlement not set aside despite change in law

A change in the law made shortly after a compromise agreement was entered into did not give rise to a common mistake of law capable of setting aside the agreement.  The High Court held that while the doctrine of mistake operates in the context of compromise agreements, there was no “common assumption” between the parties as to the relevant law in this case and therefore no mistake.  The court observed that “a mistake will more likely arise where a well-established and unquestioned rule of law is dramatically overturned than where a single decision on a new and difficult point is overruled”.  The decision highlights the reluctance of the English courts to disturb already concluded settlements on the basis of a future revision of the law: Jeremy Philip Elston v (1) Lawrence King (2) Sue Roscoe (trustees in bankruptcy of Jeremy Philip Elston) [2020] EWHC 55 (Ch).

Read more

Publications: 25 FEBRUARY 2020

Legal advice privilege subject to “dominant purpose” test – how to deal with multi-party email communications

The dominant purpose of a communication must be to obtain, or give, legal advice for legal advice privilege to apply.  The Court of Appeal considers how, in the light of this, to analyse privilege and internal multi-party email communications between in-house lawyers and non-lawyer employees. Three Rivers No. 5 is criticised but acknowledged to be binding: The Civil Aviation Authority v Jet2.Com Ltd, R. (on the Application of) [2020] EWCA Civ 35.

Read more
Cyber and data breaches: the questions that always arise

Publications: 14 OCTOBER 2019

Podcast: Cyber and data breaches – the questions that always arise

Cyberattacks make prominent headlines yet many cyber and data breaches remain private. How firms act in the immediate aftermath of being hit may impact how much damage is done. In this cybersecurity podcast, Lawson Caisley, talks through immediate priorities post-attack answering the following key questions:

Read more

Publications: 11 SEPTEMBER 2018

ENRC v SFO appeal: internal corporate investigation documents were protected by privilege

Documents, including interview notes, generated by mining company ENRC during an internal corruption investigation were protected by privilege and therefore did not have to be disclosed to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

Read more

Recognition