Shortlist ( )
+44 20 7583 4444
AU
Alexander Uff
Called: 1998
"His analytical skills are outstanding. Alexander has the rare gift of being able to identify the relevant points immediately and point them out directly and without hesitation."
(Chambers UK, 2026)
‘He does not get distracted by less important issues and has a laser focus on what are the really important points for both his client and the arbitration tribunal. He is calm, methodical and very effective.’
(Legal 500, 2026)
"Alex is a first-rate lawyer with excellent analytical skills, who argues persuasively and focuses on the strongest points."
(Legal 500, 2025)
"Alexander is a heavy hitter with a deep expertise in arbitration matters. He is a finely honed and compelling advocate, both orally and on paper."
(Legal 500, 2024)
‘Alexander is outstanding - extremely sharp, strategic and practical – and his presentation is clear and compelling.’
(Legal 500, 2023)

Related news

Related events

Related media

Alexander Uff

Academic
Columbia University School of Law, LL.M. Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar; Parker School certificate for achievement in international and comparative law (2003-2004)

The College of Law, Bar Vocational Course (1997-1998)

Nottingham Law School, Post Graduate Diploma in Law (1996-1997)

University of Oxford, St Hugh’s College, B.A., Modern History (1993-1996)
Appointments
Barrister, England and Wales (1998)

New York State Bar (2005)
Memberships
London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)

International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)

International Arbitration Institute (IAI)

Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage (ASA)

British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL)

Gray’s Inn
In-house Experience
Shearman & Sterling LLP, Paris (2007-2012); London (from 2013), international arbitration group. Associate (2007) Counsel (2012); Partner (2015).

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, associate, international arbitration group (2004-2007). Arbitrations relating to investment treaty claims, energy, insurance, pharmaceuticals. Pro bono litigation in New York State courts.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Paris, associate, international arbitration group (1999-2003). Arbitrations relating to investment treaty claims, energy, telecoms, infrastructure and technical disputes, distribution agreements.

No. 1 Serjeant’s Inn, Chambers of Edward Faulks KC (now 1 Chancery Lane), pupil barrister (1998-1999)
Languages
English
French

Alexander acts as counsel and arbitrator in complex commercial disputes, focusing on international commercial and investment treaty arbitrations.  

With over two decades of experience, Alexander has handled scores of commercial and investment treaty arbitrations, valued from the low millions to multiple billions of USD.  Alexander is ranked for his work in international arbitration by Chambers & Partners and by Lexology (Who’s Who Legal), and by Legal 500 for his work in energy and mining.  "His analytical skills are outstanding. Alexander has the rare gift of being able to identify the relevant points immediately and point them out directly and without hesitation."  (Chambers 2026). "Alexander is a heavy hitter with a deep expertise in arbitration matters. He is a finely honed and compelling advocate, both orally and on paper." (Legal 500, 2024).  

Many of the disputes Alexander has handled have involved complex jurisdictional issues and procedural complexity, and they have frequently involved application of foreign laws.   Examples include a series of high-value disputes relating to long term gas supply arrangements subject of four parallel investment treaty and commercial arbitrations; seven concurrent arbitrations concerning the repudiation of long-term contracts in the mining sector; and a long-running, complex dispute relating to the construction of a nuclear power plant.  Alexander has conducted disputes involving numerous regions of the world, including Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, North and sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, India and North and South America.  His work has involved the rules of all major arbitral institutions including ICSID, ICC, LCIA, CRCICA, SIAC, HKIAC and AAA/ICDR, as well as ad hoc arbitrations including under the UNCITRAL Rules.

Alexander’s practice covers numerous diverse industries.  He has a significant focus on disputes in the energy, mining and construction / infrastructure sectors, investment treaty claims and commercial disputes, and has handled disputes involving industries and subject matters including  commodities, agribusiness, shareholder and joint venture disputes, M&A, pharmaceuticals, IP and licensing, distribution agreements, hospitality, food and retail industries, aviation and insurance, among others.  Alexander handles proceedings before the English courts, including arbitration-related applications.  

Originally qualified as a barrister, Alexander was a partner in one of the world’s preeminent international arbitration practices in a global law firm for several years, before joining Quadrant Chambers in 2021.  As such, he is astute to the commercial context of disputes and the needs of end clients, as well as being well placed to work with or manage teams of lawyers. 

What the directories say
  • "His analytical skills are outstanding. Alexander has the rare gift of being able to identify the relevant points immediately and point them out directly and without hesitation." (Chambers UK, 2026)
  • "He is keenly interested in finding solutions to challenging issues and has a marked appreciation for industry and provides pragmatic and commercially astute legal advice." (Chambers UK, 2026)
  • "He does not get distracted by less important issues and has a laser focus on what are the really important points for both his client and the arbitration tribunal. He is calm, methodical and very effective." (Legal 500, 2026)
  • "Alex is a first-rate lawyer with excellent analytical skills, who argues persuasively and focuses on the strongest points." (Legal 500, 2025)
  • "Alexander is a heavy hitter with a deep expertise in arbitration matters. He is a finely honed and compelling advocate, both orally and on paper." (Legal 500, 2024)
  • "Superlative, practical, commercially sensible, to the point and strong on the law, he provides hard-hitting analysis and compelling presentation." (Legal 500, 2022)
  • "He is a name to remember in investment treaty arbitration" (Who’s Who Arbitration Future Leader 2021)
  • "He has great commercial sense" (Who’s Who Arbitration Future Leader 2021)
  • "Alexander is an extremely sharp and a creative lawyer" (Who’s Who Arbitration Future Leader 2021)
  • "Extremely clever and persuasive practitioner" (Who's Who Legal)
     
International Arbitration
  • A southern African claimant in an ICC arbitration against its State-owned JV partner, concerning the dissolution of the JV and seizure of its assets based on allegations of fraud and misappropriation.
  • Advising an Indian party in relation to a potential arbitration concerning the development of a battery storage facility.  
  • Advice in relation to an ICC arbitration between Asian parties, arising out of a JV agreement concerning manufacturing operations.  
  • Presiding arbitrator, in an LCIA arbitration concerning the sale of oil, including jurisdictional disputes relating to insolvency proceedings.  The seat was London.
  • Advice in relation to an ICC arbitration between Asian parties, concerning a loan agreement governed by English law.  
  • Representing a Middle Eastern marine oil services company, Respondent in an LCIA arbitration concerning oil production support jack-up vessels.  
  • Presiding arbitrator, in an LCIA arbitration arising out of an M&A transaction concerning a fintech company, governed by New York law.  The seat was London.
  • A European food manufacturer as Respondent in a CRCICA arbitration in Cairo against a North African licensee under a technology license agreement.  
  • Coarbitrator in an LCIA arbitration arising out of a sale and purchase agreement for PPE governed by New York law.  The seat was Washington, D.C.
  • Two subsidiaries of a North American mining and metals company in seven concurrent LCIA arbitrations in London against a European trading firm. The disputes related to the performance of contracts for the sale and purchase of metal concentrates. English law applied.   Associated s. 68 challenge proceedings and coordination of foreign bankruptcy proceedings.
  • Advising UK petrochemicals companies in connection with a potential investment treaty claim against a central Asian state, concerning the treatment of oil production assets and related businesses.
  • A North African consulting company as Claimant in an ICC arbitration against North American oil services companies, in a dispute relating to oil drilling contracts.
  • A North African State-owned mining and chemicals company, in relation to substantial claims for project delays, associated costs and alleged scope changes relating to the construction of two large scale chemical processing plants. The claims were first subject to expert determination in accordance with the ICC administered expertise procedure, and were then referred to ICC arbitration.  The law of the Respondent’s home State applied.  
  • Alverley Investments Ltd and Germen Properties Ltd, Claimants in an ICSID arbitration against Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/30). The dispute related to a multi-billion euro commercial and residential real estate project in northern Bucharest.  The claims were brought under the Cyprus-Romania bilateral investment treaty.
  • Two international contractors, Respondents in an ICC arbitration in London initiated by a Middle Eastern State-owned company. The dispute concerned the development of a world-class medical facility in the Middle East. The law of the Claimant’s State applied. Over USD 3.7 billion was at stake.
  • A French-German consortium in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over EUR 6.1 billion was at stake.
  • Two African subsidiaries of an international mining and exploration company as Respondents in an ICC arbitration in London initiated by a South African contractor under a FIDIC contract. The dispute related to a mine expansion project in Sub-Saharan Africa. English law applied.
  • Two Egyptian State-owned entities in a USD 6 billion ICC arbitration in Geneva and a USD 4 billion CRCICA arbitration in Cairo arising out of a long-term gas supply contract relating to the export of Egyptian gas to Israel. English law applied to both arbitrations. More than three quarters of the Claimants’ claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or on the merits.  Representing the Arab Republic of Egypt as Respondent in two investment arbitrations concerning alleged violations under the Egypt-Poland, Egypt-U.S. and the Egypt-Germany bilateral investment treaties relating to the performance of the same long-term contract for the supply of natural gas. Around USD 2 billion were claimed in the investment disputes. More than two thirds of the Claimants’ claims were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and on the merits.
  • A major European retail group as Claimant in an ICC arbitration against its Brazilian joint venture partner, in a dispute concerning a shareholders’ agreement relating to Brazil’s largest retailer arising following an M&A transaction.
  • TNK-BP in a dispute with BP regarding TNK-BP’s lost participation in an Arctic exploration project. The amount at stake in the dispute was estimated at between USD 5 and 10 billion.
  • A European chemicals company against European subsidiaries of a U.S. chemicals company, in several ICC arbitrations arising out of a joint venture agreement, relating to the use of intellectual property.
  • A Middle Eastern development company, in an ICC arbitration initiated by a Middle Eastern contractor under a FIDIC contract, concerning a major urban development project in the Middle East.  The law of the Middle Eastern State applied.  
  • A multinational agribusiness company as Respondent in an UNCILTRAL arbitration against a joint venture partner, relating to delays in the construction of a process plant in Ukraine.
  • A multinational agribusiness company as Claimant in an UNCITRAL arbitration concerning the exercise of put and call options in relation to assets located in Ukraine.  
Energy, mining and natural resources
  • In addition to his contentious practice, Alexander has for several years been providing regular advice to clients in the mining industry on numerous pre-contentious and noncontentious matters concerning contractual issues and negotiations and the legal implications of commercial and operational matters, such as shipment and delivery terms including under different Incoterms, the impact of import regulations and product standards, actual and potential force majeure events and deviations from contractual obligations, ESG  and sanctions issues, among others.
  • Representing the Defendants/Counterclaimants in a series of contractual disputes and counterclaims arising in contract and tort, concerning supplies of gas and electricity, in the King’s Bench Division.
  • Advising a European mining company in relation to alleged sanctions breaches by a counterparty.
  • Advising an Indian party in relation to a potential arbitration concerning the development of a battery storage facility.  
  • Advising in relation to a potential investment treaty claim against a Central American State, relating to the treatment of a foreign investor’s oil and gas assets.
  • Representing a Middle Eastern marine oil services company, Respondent in an LCIA arbitration concerning oil production support jack-up vessels.  
  • A Middle Eastern energy company as Claimant in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against an Asian manufacturer, relating to an agreement for the manufacture of oil drilling rigs.  
  • Advice in relation to suspected tampering during assay processes for metal concentrates.
  • A North African consulting company as Claimant in an ICC arbitration against North American oil services companies, in a dispute relating to oil drilling contracts.
  • Two subsidiaries of a North American mining and metals company in seven LCIA arbitrations in London against a European trading firm. The dispute related to the performance of contracts for the sale and purchase of metal concentrates. English law applied.  Associated s. 68 challenge proceedings and coordination of foreign bankruptcy proceedings.
  • Advising UK petrochemicals companies in connection with a potential investment treaty claim against a central Asian state, concerning the treatment of oil production assets and related businesses.
  • Advising a North American natural resources investor in relation to an investment treaty claim concerning investments in the mining sector in an EU state.
  • Two African subsidiaries of an international mining and exploration company as Respondents in an ICC arbitration in London initiated by a South African contractor under a FIDIC contract. The dispute related to a mine expansion project in Sub-Saharan Africa. English law applied.
  • Two Egyptian State-owned entities in a USD 6 billion ICC arbitration in Geneva and a USD 4 billion CRCICA arbitration in Cairo arising out of a long-term gas supply contract relating to the export of Egyptian gas to Israel. English law applied to both arbitrations. More than three quarters of the Claimants’ claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or on the merits.  Representing the Arab Republic of Egypt as Respondent in two investment arbitrations concerning alleged violations under the Egypt-Poland, Egypt-U.S. and the Egypt-Germany bilateral investment treaties relating to the performance of the same long-term contract for the supply of natural gas. Around USD 2 billion were claimed in the investment disputes. More than two thirds of the Claimants’ claims were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and on the merits.
  • TNK-BP in a dispute with BP regarding TNK-BP’s lost participation in an Arctic exploration project. The amount at stake in the dispute was estimated at between USD 5 and 10 billion
Infrastructure and technical disputes
  • Advising an Indian party in relation to a potential arbitration concerning the development of a battery storage facility.  
  • A Middle Eastern energy company, in an LCIA arbitration against an Asian manufacturer, relating to defects in the manufacture of oil drilling rigs.  
  • A North African State-owned mining and chemicals company, in relation to substantial claims for project delays, associated costs and alleged scope changes relating to the construction of two large scale chemical processing plants. The claims were first subject to expert determination in accordance with the ICC administered expertise procedure, and were then referred to ICC arbitration.  The law of the Respondent’s home State applied.  
  • Two international contractors, Respondents in an ICC arbitration in London initiated by a Middle Eastern State-owned company. The dispute concerned the development of a world-class medical facility in the Middle East. The law of the Claimant’s State applied. Over USD 3.7 billion was at stake.
  • Two African subsidiaries of an international mining and exploration company, Respondents in an ICC arbitration in London initiated by a South African contractor under a FIDIC contract. The dispute related to a mine expansion project in south east Africa. English law applied.
  • A French-German consortium in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over EUR 6.1 billion was at stake.
  • A Middle Eastern development company, in an ICC arbitration initiated by a Middle Eastern contractor under a FIDIC contract, concerning a major urban development project in the Middle East.  The law of the Middle Eastern State applied.  
  • A multinational agribusiness company as Respondent in an UNCILTRAL arbitration against a joint venture partner, relating to delays in the construction of a process plant in Ukraine.
  • A Scandinavian contractor, in an ICC arbitration against a Scandinavian owner relating to laying submarine telecommunications cables.
  • A Southern African owner, in an ICC arbitration brought by the contractor under a FIDIC contract, in relation to the construction of a HEP project.  
     
Commercial disputes
  • A Southern African company in an ICC arbitration against a State-owned JV partner, concerning the dissolution of the JV and seizure of its assets based on alleged fraud and misappropriation.
  • A European food manufacturer as Respondent in a CRCICA arbitration in Cairo against a North African licensee under a technology license agreement.  
  • A major European retail group as Claimant in an ICC arbitration against its Brazilian joint venture partner, in a dispute concerning a shareholders’ agreement relating to Brazil’s largest retailer arising following an M&A transaction.
  • A European pharmaceutical company, in an ICC arbitration against a North American pharmaceutical company in a dispute arising from an M&A transaction involving intellectual property rights.  
  • A European chemicals company against European subsidiaries of a U.S. chemicals company, in several ICC arbitrations arising out of a joint venture agreement, relating to the use of intellectual property.
  • A European manufacturer of aircraft components, in an ICC arbitration concerning a dispute with a US supplier.
  • A Middle Eastern software distributor, in an ICC arbitration against a European software developer.
Investment Treaty Disputes
  • Advising in relation to a potential investment treaty claim against a Central American State, relating to the treatment of a foreign investor’s oil and gas assets.
  • Advising in relation to a potential investment treaty claim against a Latin American state, arising from tax-related measures affecting an investor.
  • Advising UK petrochemicals companies in connection with a potential investment treaty claim against a central Asian state, concerning the treatment of oil production assets and related businesses.
  • Advising a North American natural resources investor in relation to an investment treaty claim concerning investments in the mining sector in an EU state.
  • Alverley Investments Ltd and Germen Properties Ltd, Claimants in an ICSID arbitration against Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/30). The dispute related to a multi-billion euro commercial and residential real estate project in northern Bucharest.  The claims were brought under the Cyprus-Romania bilateral investment treaty.
  • The Arab Republic of Egypt as Respondent in two investment arbitrations concerning alleged violations under the Egypt-Poland, Egypt-U.S. and the Egypt-Germany bilateral investment treaties arising out of a long-term gas supply contract relating to the export of Egyptian gas to Israel, as well as representing two Egyptian State-owned entities in a USD 6 billion ICC arbitration in Geneva and a USD 4 billion CRCICA arbitration in Cairo arising out of the same long-term contract for the supply of natural gas.  Around USD 2 billion were claimed in the investment disputes. More than two thirds of the Claimants’ claims were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and on the merits.
  • Subsidiaries of two North American investors, in an investment treaty claim against a South East Asian State relating to the expropriation of a power plant.