The Legal 500

Chambers of Christopher Rees

20 CATHEDRAL ROAD, CARDIFF, CF11 9LJ, WALES
Tel:
Work 02920 232032
Fax:
Fax 02920 233636
DX:
141874 CARDIFF 28
Email:
Web:
www.apexchambers.net

Alexander Greenwood

Tel:
Work 029 2023 2032
Email:
Apex Chambers (Chambers of Christopher Rees)

Position

Alex specialises in regulatory prosecutions and criminal law and was formerly a solicitor. Alex is on the Health and Safety Executes advocates list. He is a Grade 4 prosecutor and rape panel advocate. In 2008 he led the representation of a local authority in the Pennington Inquiry into the UK’s second largest outbreak of e-coli 0157. The inquiry was the first under the Inquiries Act 2005 and the first to be ordered by the Welsh Assembly Government. Alex prosecutes and advises local authorities throughout England and Wales and has recently undertaken one of the first prosecutions of a pyramid selling scheme under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Many prosecutions include significant confiscation proceedings. Last year he appeared before Lord Justice Leveson presiding in the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Cairns and others (2013) EWCA Crlm 467 which restated the guiding principles in respect of basis of pleas. Alex has also prosecuted for the Illegal Money Lending Unit, The British Recorded Music Industry, the Federation Against Copyright Theft, the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. Alex also regularly lectures and trains legal and enforcement officers on recent developments in the law and produces a regular update for those prosecuting enforcement work (see www.enforcement update.com).

Career

Apex Chambers 2007; 33 Park Place Chambers 2002-2007; Gray’s Inn 2002; Hugh James Solicitors 1996-2002; Solicitors’ Roll 1996.

Member

Captain Scott Society; Cardiff Lawn Tennis Club.

Education

Bishop of Llandaff (Church in Wales) High School; University of Leeds LLB (Hons).

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Update on EU Sanctions against Russia

    On 6 December 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 entered into force. This regulation is the latest in a series of regulations regarding "sectoral sanctions" against Russia.
  • Slovakia: Checkmate? New law regulates protection of employees when blowing the whistle

    So far, in Slovakia there has not been in force any regulation specifically addressing whistleblowing situations in which employees report wrongdoings, such as the commission of a crime which they learnt about in connection with the performance of their employment, work or function. Certain partial aspects related to whistleblowing have been regulated by the country's data protection, criminal and labour laws. read more
  • Croatia: A look at the Strategic Investment Projects Act One Year after Implementation

    Croatia's sixth consecutive year of recession
  • AT: Transparency International – Release of 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index

    On 3 December 2014, Transparency International, the leading civil society organisation fighting corruption worldwide, released its 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The index draws on surveys covering the views of business people, provides expert assessments, and ranks 175 countries by the perceived levels of corruption in their public sectors. The scale ranges from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). The CPI can be found under the following link .  read more...
  • Review of the Constitutional Court Decision on the Cancellation of Article 42/1 (C) of Law No. 556

    Introduction
  • Transfer and Granting of Rights under Turkish Petroleum Law: Freedom of Contract versus Regulatory R

    Especially after the drop in oil prices the companies that are in early stage of their investments have begun to get position aiming to turn into an advantageous investment and started to look to what extent the regulations allow them to transfer and grant their rights under Turkish Petroleum Law. This may be deemed also as an exit strategy for some from operational perspective as it parallels with the tendency around the world and has direct relation with oil prices. 
  • Contracting the Petroleum Operations under Turkish Petroleum Law: Scope and Limits of Liability on P

    As exception to liberty of contracting and unlike a number of other industries, Turkey's petroleum industry imposes certain obligations to petroleum right owners in contracting the conduct of the petroleum operations.  At the first glance this seems that it aims to strengthen the management of hazards by enhancing the safety however the liability imposed to petroleum right owners in case of contracting the operations still remains unclear in terms of limitation.
  • Liabilities of Primary Employer and Subcontractors in case of a Collusive Contract

    Growing economy and competitive environment in Turkey has been leading companies to seek more profitable ways to conduct their business. Therefore companies have chosen to engage in subcontracts for the purpose of reducing their costs. Yet, to serve such purpose, at some point companies have started utilizing subcontracts to limit employees' entitlements through collusive contracts. Labor Law numbered 4857 (the " Labor Law ") and Bylaw on Subcontractor dated September 27, 2008 (the " Bylaw ") regulate which services or works may be subcontracted and strictly prohibit collusive contracts. According to Article 2/7 of the Labor Law, a collusive subcontract is considered null and void. Such nullity of subcontract automatically results in primary employers being redefined as main and sole employers of employees assigned to subcontracted work. Consequently, primary employers are solely responsible for employees' rights arising from subcontracted works and technically, primary employers would not have the option to recourse to subcontractors in order to claim any compensation due to their sole responsibility.
  • Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority’s Investigative Powers

    Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority's Investigative Powers: Case Handlers vs. Personal Property
  • Potential Consequences of Acquisitions of Minority Shareholdings under Turkish Competition Law

    The acquisition of a minority shareholding may come under the Turkish Competition Authority's (" Authority ") scrutiny in two ways, mainly: 1) it may result in de facto or de jure sole or joint control, depending on the rights possessed by the minority shareholders and/or shareholding structures and past voting patterns; and 2) it may not result in control but in cross-shareholding structures amongst competitors in a concentrated market which may raise questions about coordinated effects. This article discusses the circumstances under which the abovementioned consequences may arise under Turkish competition law with references to the relevant legislation and the most noteworthy cases in this regard.