Cases

Brendan is currently involved in:

• R (On the application of Nexperia BV) v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy CO/4702/2022 (Brendan is acting for the Secretary of State in defence of a challenge to a final divestment order made for national security reasons under the National Security and Investment Act).
• R (On the application of the Humane League UK) v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs [2023] EWHC 1248 (acting for an animal welfare charity challenging the lawfulness of the keeping fast growing meat chickens).

Recent work and significant cases include:

• R (On the application of Bain & Co Inc UK v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster CO/31762022 (judicial review challenging the decision of the then Secretary of State Rees-Mogg to preclude Bain from competing for UK Public Contracts for three years).
• Brendan has advised several entities in relation to the application of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable acquisitions) (Specification of Qualifying entities) Regulations 2021, in particular on questions relating to the existence of trigger events and whether a notifiable acquisition has occurred
• R (On the application of FA Gill & Ors) v Food Standards Agency [2022] EWHC 1709 (Admin) (Brendan acted for the FSA in defence of a challenge to the way in which the FSA charges slaughter houses for the provision of official controls and considered the transparency obligations imposed on the FSA under the Official Controls Regulation).
• R (On the application of West Tower Management Limited) v The Ombudsman Service Limited (Brendan successfully acted for the defendant Ombudsman in resisting a judicial review in respect of energy metering in mixed use property).
• R (On the application of (1) Aviva Insurance Limited and (2) Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited v Department of Work and Pensions [2022] EWCA Civ 15 (successfully acted for the DWP in defence of a challenge to the compatibility off the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 with Article 1 Protocol 1).
• R (On the application of Heathrow Airport Limited & Ors) v HMRC (Brendan is currently acting for Heathrow, World Duty Free and Global Blue in their challenge to HMRC’s abolition of airside tax free shopping and the VAT Retail Export Scheme).
• R (On the application of Good Law Project Ltd) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2021] EWHC 2091 (TCC) and [2021] EWHC 1083 (Brendan iacted for the Good Law Project in its challenge to the award of a public contract to Hanbury Strategy and Communications Limited in relation to the provision of polling and communications services in relation to the public understanding of covid and its spread).
• R (On the application of Secretary of State for Justice) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 3490 (Admin) (considering whether the Parole Board had a common law power to retake a decision on which it considered itself functus officio).
• R (On the application of the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2020] EWHC 3609 (TCC) (Brendan represented the Claimants in a series of challenges to the use of the direct award procedure on the basis of Regulation 32(2)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulation 2015 in relation to the supply of PPE to the DHSC under the Coronavirus Support from Business Scheme).
• Secretary of State for Education v CCP Graduate School Ltd [2021] EWHC 2432 (QB) (acting for the Secretary of State in a statutory overpayment claim made in respect of the payment of fee support to an Alternative Provider)
• R (On the application of John Clark & Ors) v Steven Holliday Chairman of the Magnox Public Inquiry [2019] EWHC 3596 (Admin) (acted for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in relation to a challenge to the lawfulness of the procedures adopted by the Inquiry into the collapse of the award of a contract for the decommissioning of the Magnox nuclear sites).
• R (On the application of the Good Law Project) v Ofqual (Brendan is acting for the Good Law Project in its challenge to Ofqual’s award of a public contract to Public First without advertisement or competition).
• Tomanovic & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Oice [2019] EWHC 3350 (QB) (successfully defended the FCO in a claim that sought to make the UK Government liable for failure to investigate deaths in Kosovo in 1999 as a result of FCO Employees acting as prosecutors for EU and local prosecutorial functions – Brendan was led by Sir James Eadie KC).
• R (On the application of Agro Foods Limited) v Food Standards Agency [2019] EWHC 2718 (Admin) (Brendan successfully defended the FSA’s power to withdraw Oicial Controls from premises in relation to which debts have previously accrued and which remain unpaid).
• Worley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] EWCA Civ 15 (Brendan acted for a claimant who sought to challenge the Secretary of State’s interpretation and application of the transitional provisions by which recipients of Disability Living Allowance are transitioned to Personal Independence Payment).
• R (Gallaher Group Ltd and Somerfield Stores Ltd) v Competition and Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 84 (Admin) [2018] UKSC 25: (successfully represented the CMA, over the alleged failure of the CMA to extend the benefit of certain statements made to one addressee of its Tobacco Cartel decision to other addressees of that decision, alleged to be in breach of its equal treatment obligations).
• R (On the application of  Dixons Retail Plc) v HMRC [2018] EWHC 2556 (Admin)(Successfully represented HMRC in defeating an alleged legitimate expectation of certain tax treatment of supplies of insurance for electrical goods).
• Mellissa Jay v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWHC 2620 (Fam) (acted for the Secretary of State and Gender Recognition Panel in a case brought by a transgender person over the scope of the Court’s remedial powers under s.8 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004).
• R (Abis Resources Limited) v Secretary of State for Education CO/607/2018 (Successfully defending the Department of Education over decisions to terminate funding agreements to the providers of training courses).
• R (Campaign for Fairer Gambling) v HM Treasury CO/4446/2017 (Successfully defended the Treasury against a claim that it acted unlawfully in exempted the gambling sector in its entirety from the 2017 Money Laundering Regulations).
• Acting for Ministry of Justice and Claims Management Regulator in multiple appeals against penalty decisions against claims management companies for violating cold-calling rules and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations).
• HY v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 303 (AAC) (acting for the respondent on the issue of whether, in respect of a period before a Gender Recognition Certificate had been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, a male-to-female transgender person who had undergone reassignment surgery had directly effective right to pension from the date on which a similarly situated female would have reached pensionable age).
• Kontic & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 2034 (QB); (Representing the Ministry of Defence in relation to civil claims brought following the deaths of ethnic Serbs following NATO intervention in Kosovo in June 1999).
• R (Veolia ES Ltd and Ors) v HMRC [2016] EWHC 1880 (Admin); (Representing HMRC in a judicial review claim by a landfill operator seeking to enforce alleged legitimate expectations aid to arise from a Business Brief).
• R (Hudson Contract Services Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills [2016] EWHC 884 (Admin); (Representing the Secretary of State over a challenge to the new basis upon which the industrial levy is to be calculated and imposed).
• R (Zaverenskaya) v Civil Injuries Compensation Scheme (acting for a person who was trafficked but denied compensation for index offences for reasons relating to her domicile while being held captive in London).
• R (On the application of Long) v Ministry of Defence: (Brendan acted for the MoD in a challenge to the adequacy of investigations into the deaths of 6 Royal Military Police in Iraq in 2003): [2015] EWCA Civ 770.
• R (Keyu) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [[2015] UKSC 69; (Represented the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a claim for judicial review arising out of a call for a public inquiry to be held into the deaths of a number of people during the Malayan Emergency in 1948).
• R (Biffa Waste Services Ltd) v HMRC [2016] EWHC 1444 (Admin); (Representing HMRC in a legitimate expectation claim over the scope of a tax concession).
• Carpenter v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 464 (Admin): Brendan successfully  resisted an application for a declaration of incompatibility in relation to the evidential requirements imposed under s.3 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
• Gilead v Secretary of State for Health: (Brendan acted for the Claimant Biopharmaceutical company in a challenge to the promulgation of the of the Health Services Medicines (Control of Prices and Supply of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2013).
• Victor Tchenguiz & Ors v Serious Fraud Office: (acting for the SFO (civil claim by the Claimants arising from the SFO’s execution of a search warrant over the Claimant’s property in a high profile investigation of his financial activities following the collapse of the Icelandic Bank Kaupthing).
• Kamoka & Ors v The Security Services and Ors [2015] EWHC 60 (QB): (Brendan acted for the Security Services in a claim brought by 14 Libyan nationals who are alleging complicity in extraordinary rendition. The High Court rejected an application to strike out civil damages claims in circumstances where the claimants had failed to appeal against earlier SIAC and High Court rulings. The security Services have, however, been given permission to pursue the strike out on a closed basis under the JSA.
• Case C-301/10 Commission v United Kingdom: acted for the United Kingdom Government, instructed by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in relation to the infraction proceedings brought by the European Commission over the UK’s alleged non-compliance with the Urban Waste Water Directive.
• R (on the application of U) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: acted for the Defendant on an application in SIAC by terror suspect ‘U’ to extend the boundaries of the zone to which he is confined when not under curfew).
• Alacakanat v General Medical Council: Advised the General Medical Council on application of Directive 2004/58/EC and its relationship with the Ankara Agreement.
• Advised Local Authorities on the applicability of the Electricity Act 1989’s licensing regime in relation to renewable energy installations designed to avail of the Feed in Tariff scheme.
• R (On the application of Mhango) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1321 (Admin) (claim under art. 8 to remain in the UK).
• A B & Others v Ministry of Defence – The British Nuclear Test Veterans Litigation: (acted for the Ministry of Defence in relation to the class action brought by former servicemen alleging improper exposure to radiation during the UK’s nuclear test programme in the Pacific in the 1950s.
• The Billy Wright Murder Inquiry: (Brendan acted for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Prison Service in the public inquiry convened to consider the allegations of collusion surrounding the death of Billy Wright in HMP Maze).
• Advised on the impact of the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s consultation on financial incentives for renewable energy which include a Feed in Tariff (“FIT”) for small scale, low carbon electricity generation of capacity up to 5MW.

“His written advocacy is excellent; he is incredibly good at what he does.” “He’s great to work with and extremely creative; he’s really good at thinking outside the normal parameters of the cases.” – Chambers UK, 2023

“Brendan is a responsive and strategic barrister. Clients and solicitors have confidence in Brendan leading on cases and giving tactical advice to achieve clients’ objectives.” – Legal 500, 2022

Cases

Brendan is currently involved in:

• R (On the application of the Humane League UK) v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs [2023] EWHC 1248 (acting for an animal welfare charity challenging the lawfulness of the keeping fast growing meat chickens).
• Case T-655/20 Symrise AG v the European Chemicals Agency (Brendan was instructed by Cruelty Free Europe who successfully applied to intervene in the applicant chemical manufacturer’s challenge to the European Chemical’s Agency’s decision to require it to test cosmetics on invertebrate animals, notwithstanding the ban on animal testing in Regulation 1223/2009 (the Cosmetics Regulation). The case is an important test case considering the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation and Regulation 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation) as to the circumstances when the ECA might insist that chemicals manufacturers test their products on animals).
• In 2022, Brendan advised on the basis for an outright ban of farmed fur products across the EU. His advice led the Commission to reconsider its view that there was no legal basis for a ban on fur farming in the EU which in turn led to the adoption of a European Citizens Initiative (“Fur Free Europe”). The ECI aims to achieve an EU-wide ban on the keeping and killing of animals for the sole or main purpose of fur production, as well as placing farmed animal fur, and products containing such fur, on the EU market.

Recent work and significant cases include:

• R (On the application of AH Griffiths Limited) v (1) Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and (2) Food Standards Agency CO: 74/2023 (Brendan successfully defended a claim challenging decisions to suspend Certificates of Competence and to issue Welfare Enforcement Notices in respect of ill-treatment of animals).
• R (On the application of FA Gill & Ors) v Food Standards Agency [2022] EWHC 1709 (Admin) (Brendan acted for the FSA in defence of a challenge to the way in which the FSA charges slaughter houses for the provision of official controls and considered the transparency obligations imposed on the FSA under the Official Controls Regulation).
• Brendan advised a number of EU-based animal welfare charities in relation to the legal basis for an EU-wide ban on the use of animals in circuses.
• Cases C-477/18 and 478/18 Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk and Others v Netherlands (Brendan successfully intervened on behalf of the UK in relation to the interpretation of the charging provisions in the EU Official Controls legislation).
• R. (on the application of Agro Foods (Ashford) Ltd) v Food Standards Agency [2019] EWHC 2718 (Admin) (Brendan successfully acted for the FSA in a case considering the scope of the Food Standards Agency’s power under the Meat (Official Controls Charges) (England) Regulations 2009 reg.4 to withdraw official controls from food business operators. The Court found that the power in reg.4 was not confined so as to be available only in respect of a defaulting operator against whom a judgment for unpaid charges had been obtained; it also applied where there was a successor operator.

Cases

Brendan is currently involved in:

• Guttman v First MTR South Western Trains Ltd [2023] CAT 23 (acting for the Secretary of State for Transport who sought to intervene in the collective proceedings brought in respect of boundary fares by Train Operating Companies).
• Boyle v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2023] CAT 19 and [2022] CAT 46 and [2021] CAT 38 (acting for the Secretary of State for Transport who was granted permission to intervene in the collective proceedings brought in respect of the differential fares charged on the London-Brighton mainline).
• Advising on the potential applicability of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 in relation to funding for infrastructure for the charging of electric vehicles.

Recent work and significant cases include:

• Trailfinders Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (successfully resisted a threatened judicial review contending that the ATOL scheme was unfair and/or unlawful).
• Consumer & Markets Group of the CAA v Flybe Limited (No 2) (Brendan acted acting for the CMG in relation to its re-revocation of Flybe’s Operating Licence).
• Karunaharan v Safety and Airspace Group (SARG) of the Civil Aviation Authority (Brendan was a panel member of the Civil Aviation Authority tasked with determining a regulation 6 review by the applicant of SARG’s decision to revoke his Aero-Medical Examiner’s certificate).
• Hadley-Clarke v Safety and Airspace Group (SARG) of the Civil Aviation Authority (Brendan was a panel member of the Civil Aviation Authority tasked with determining a regulation 6 review by the applicant of SARG’s conduct of an Operator Proficiency Check and a Proficiency Check).
• Advising on the application of the Airport Charges Regulations 2011 as they apply to certain airport services agreements;
• Advising on the extent to which differential treatment of ad hoc / unreserved slots and slots benefiting from horizontal precedence complies with the non-discrimination principle in Directive 2009/12/EC;
• R (On the application of Wizz Air Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport (Brendan successfully acted for Wizz Air who challenged a proposed decision by the Secretary of State to relieve operators from the 80:20 save in respect of newly allocated slots).
• R (On the application of Heathrow Airport Limited & Ors) v HMRC (Brendan is currently acting for Heathrow, World Duty Free and Global Blue in their challenge to HMRC’s abolition of airside tax free shopping and the VAT Retail Export Scheme).
• Consumer & Markets Group of the CAA v Flybe Limited ( No1) (Brendan acted for the CMG in relation to the original proposal to revoke Flybe’s Operating Licence following the company having been placed into Administration in March 2020).
• West Coast Trains Partnership Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWHC 1568 (TCC) (Brendan successfully defended the Secretary of State’s decision to disqualify Stagecoach and Virgin Trains from the West Coast, East Midlands and South East franchise competitions).
• Volare Aviation Limited v Safety and Airspace Regulation group of the CAA (successfully acting for the CAA in defence of a Regulation 6 Review following decisions denying an aircraft operator the right to use parts of aircraft that have not previously been maintained within the EASA framework).
• Aviation Requirements Limited v Ministry of Defence (successfully acted for the MoD in a challenge to the evaluation of a bid in relation to the FATS 5 Framework for the supply of defence equipment).

“Excellent senior junior who is always completely on top of his brief. Also an absolute pleasure to work with.” – Legal 500, 2022

“An excellent senior-junior surely on the verge of taking silk. Phenomenally bright and excellent on his feet – he manages to turn hearings around.” – Legal 500, 2022

Cases

Brendan is currently involved in:

• Asda Stores Limited & Ors v AB Volvo & Ors (CP: 2022/0000032) (acting for MAN Truck and Bus group companies in defence of the follow-on claims brought by later wave Claimants in the Trucks litigation).

Recent work and significant cases include:

• Department of Health and Social Care v Warner Lambert Company LLC (Brendan is acting for the DHSC who are suing on undertakings given by Warner-Lambert in exchange for injunctive relief that precluded generic suppliers of pregabalin from entering the market).
• Facebook Inc v Competition and Markets Authority [2020] CAT 23 (Brendan acted for the CMA in its successful defence of an application by Facebook for derogations from an initial enforcement order imposed following Facebook’s merger with Giphy).
• P&O Ferries Limited v (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) Eurotunnel (Brendan acted for P&O in its challenge (on State aid, public law and competition law grounds) to the lawfulness of the Department’s settlement of Eurotunnel’s challenge to the Brexit Capacity Contract procurement process).
• Canary Wharf Group Limited v Mayor of London (Brendan acted for the Canary Wharf Group in its challenge to the lawfulness (on State aid and public law grounds) of the Second Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy in relation to the rates imposed on developers in the City of London and the Isle of Dogs as compared with the rates imposed on other similarly situated developers outside those zones).
• Case C-760/19 JCM Europe Ltd v HMRC (Brendan is currently acting for the UK on a reference relating to the lawfulness of Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/1760).
• Cases C-477/18 and 478/18 Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk and Others v Netherlands (Brendan successfully intervened on behalf of the UK in relation to the interpretation of the charging provisions in the EU Official Controls legislation).
• Case C-405/18 Aures Holdings v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Brendan successfully intervened on behalf of the UK in relation to the temporal scope of cross-border group loss relief).
• Case C-353/16 MP (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (successfully represented the Secretary of State before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice in relation to the humanitarian protection required under Directive 2004/83/EC).
• R (Gallaher Group Ltd and Somerfield Stores Ltd) v Competition and Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 25: (successfully represented the CMA, over the alleged failure of the CMA to extend the benefit of certain statements made to one addressee of its Tobacco Cartel decision to other addressees of that decision, alleged to be in breach of its equal treatment obligations).
• Brendan is advising the Department of Health in relation to the development of a new GP indemnity scheme, including as to the state aid questions that may arise.Advising on the State Aid risks that may arise out of the provision of funding for new surface rail access at UK airports.
• Brendan acted for Bernard Tapie in a dispute with Credit Lyonnais over the sale of Mr Tapie’s shareholding in Adidas. The dispute raises issues of State Aid and breach of the EU Merger Regulation in relation to the acquisition by Credit Lyonnais (as a state-owned bank) of his shareholding.
• Volare Aviation Limited v Civil Aviation Authority (successfully acting for the CAA in defence of a Regulation 6 Review following decisions denying an aircraft operator the right to use parts of aircraft that have not previously been maintained within the EASA framework).
• Department of Work and Pensions v Fujitsu Services Limited (acted for DWP in a competition dispute over provision of computing power for legacy software used to pay 8 benefit entitlements in advance of transition to new platform).
• Flynn and Pfizer v CMA [2017] CAT 1 (acting for the Department of Health, intervening in Flynn’s interim relief application).
• Federation of Independent Practitioner Organisations v Competition and Markets Authority [2016] EWCA Civ 777 (Representing the CMA in defence of a statutory judicial review brought in relation to its Private Healthcare Market Investigation Report).
• Packet Media Limited v Telefonica UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 3873 (Ch); (Represented Telefonica in relation to allegations by a supplier of communications services via GSM Gateways of abuse of dominance on the call and text origination markets; discharge of injunction preventing disconnection and enquiry as to damages).
• AXA PPP Healthcare Ltd v CMA [2015] CAT 5: Brendan successfully defended the CMA’s Private Healthcare Market Investigation Report against a challenge to its decision not to find that the formation and operation of anaesthetist groups did not support a finding of an adverse effect on competition.
• Floe Telecom Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics Media and Sport: Brendan is acting for DCMS in a Francovich Damages claim by several commercial providers of GSM Gateway technology.
• Isle of Wight CC & Ors v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 1303: acting for the Commissioners in relation to the determination of whether disapplication of the VAT Directive would lead to the distortion of competition between local authorities and private providers providing the same service in the same market. The Commissioners succeeded before the Tribunal. The matter is currently under appeal.
• BT v Ofcom; Sky / TalkTalk v Ofcom: Counsel to Ofcom (led by Josh Holmes). BT, Sky and Talk Talk are challenging the price control review issued by Ofcom in relation to Wholesale Line Rental and Local Loop Unbundling services.
• Chemistree v Roche Products Ltd: Counsel to the Claimant Pharmacy company in a dispute over the consequences of its having discontinued proceedings against Roche in which it had alleged constructive refusal to supply.
• Blackbay Ventures Limited v Secretary of State for Health (acting for pharmacy chain in dispute over wholesale dealer licensing).
• Everything Everywhere Limited v Shebang Limited: Counsel to Everything Everywhere (the owner of Orange and T-Mobile). Termination of Mobile Phone distribution agreements.
• BT v Ofcom (acting for Ofcom against BT, Sky and TalkTalk’s appeal against Ofcom’s Local Loop Unbundling and Wholesale Line Rental Charge Control Review).
• Zablockyte v London Borough of Harrow (CJEU): allocation of housing was allegedly discriminatory under EU Law).
• Case C-301/10 Commission v United Kingdom: acted for the United Kingdom Government, instructed by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in relation to the infraction proceedings brought by the European Commission over the UK’s alleged non-compliance with the Urban Waste Water Directive.

Brendan’s competition law publications include:

• UK Merger Control in Weinberg and Blank on Takeovers and Mergers (2016)
• ‘Competition Law and Human Rights: The Privilege against Self-Incrimination and related rights in competition investigations’, Competition Law Journal, Volume 12, Issue 3, 2013.
• ‘Off-Patent abuses in the Pharmaceutical Sector’, Competition Law Journal, Volume 11, Issue 4, 2012.

“A smooth and articulate advocate, Brendan is highly technical and produced great written work. He has stood up to tough questions from judges on EU law authorities in the highest courts, such as the CJEU.” – Legal 500, 2023

“Excellent senior junior who is always completely on top of his brief. Also an absolute pleasure to work with.” – Legal 500, 2022

“An excellent senior-junior surely on the verge of taking silk. Phenomenally bright and excellent on his feet – he manages to turn hearings around.” – Legal 500, 2022

Cases

Brendan is currently involved in:

• R (On the application of Guilin GFS Monk Fruit Corporation) v Food Standards Agency CO/4532/2022 (Brendan is defending the FSA in a challenge to its designation of Monk Fruit as a novel food for regulatory purposes under the Novel Foods Regulation).
• R (On the application of Healthspan Limited (Brendan successfully defended the FSA in relation to its decisions to treat certain of the Claimant’s Cannabidiol products (CBD) as novel foods for the purposes of the Novel Foods Regulation).

Brendan was previously involved in:

• Cases C-477/18 and 478/18 Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk and Others v Netherlands (Brendan successfully intervened on behalf of the UK in relation to the interpretation of the charging provisions in the EU Official Controls legislation).
• R. (on the application of Agro Foods (Ashford) Ltd) v Food Standards Agency [2019] EWHC 2718 (Admin) (Brendan successfully acted for the FSA in a case considering the scope of the Food Standards Agency’s power under the Meat (Official Controls Charges) (England) Regulations 2009 reg.4 to withdraw official controls from food business operators. The Court found that the power in reg.4 was not confined so as to be available only in respect of a defaulting operator against whom a judgment for unpaid charges had been obtained; it also applied where there was a successor operator.
• Brendan has advised on the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2019/625 of 4 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to requirements for the entry into the Union of consignments of certain animals and goods intended for human consumption.
• Cranswick Country Foods Plc v The Food Standards Agency HQ12X01829 (Brendan acted for the FSA in defence of the Claimant’s claim for restitution for charges paid for the provision of oicial controls, which charges were alleged to be unlawful and contrary to EU law).
• Brendan has advised on the charging arrangements in respect of the provision of oicial controls to UK slaughterhouses and their compliance with EU law.
• Qanwar Khan trading as Taj & Co, Perveen Ahmed t/a Hasham Halal Poultry and Munir Bros Halal Poultry Limited v the Food Standards Agency (Brendan acted for the FSA in a threatened judicial review to the charging arrangements for oicial controls as they applied to smaller poultry producers).
• The Food Standards Agency v AS Audhali Farm Gate Fresh Poultry Limited HQ18X00365 (Brendan acted for the FSA in a High Court claim seeking recovery of sums due in respect of oicial controls provided to the Defendant poultry producer, where the Defendant defended on the basis that it was permitted to utilise its own Plant Inspection Assistants in lieu of official veterinarians provided by the FSA).

Cases

Brendan is currently involved in:

• Dukes Bailiffs Ltd v Breckland Council [2023] EWHC 1569 (challenge to a contract award decision that was due to be called-off under the PCR 15 but which was in fact awarded as a concession contract).
• Bromcom Computers Plc v United Learning Trust [2022] EWHC 3262 (TCC) (Brendan successfully acted for the disappointed bidder in relation to a competition for the award of a contract for the provision of a Cloud Management Information system in the education sector).
• Sondica Group Inc v Department of Infrastructure (ORD 21/0039) (Brendan is instructed by the Attorney-General’s Office in the Isle of Man in defence of a contract award decision brought by a disappointed bidder in relation to the award of a development contract).

Recent work and significant cases include:

• Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd v Gambling Commission [2022] EWHC 1664 (TCC) (Brendan advised the Gambling Commission in relation to its successful application to lift the automatic suspension).
• Bolinda Limited v Education Authority of Northern Ireland (Brendan is acting for the Claimant following the Defendant’s abandonment of a procurement for the supply of eBooks to Northern Irish Libraries, at a time when the Claimant had accrued rights of action in relation to the conduct of the procurement).
• West Coast Trains Partnership Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport  [2020] EWHC 1568 (TCC) (Brendan is currently defending the Secretary of State’s decision to disqualify Stagecoach and Virgin Trains from the West Coast, East Midlands and South East franchise competitions).
• Lowry Construction Limited v Habinteg Housing Association Limited (successfully acted for the Defendant housing association in seeking to lift the automatic suspension preventing it from awarding a contract for the construction of a large housing project in Strabane in Northern Ireland)
• Advance Business Solutions v Swindon Borough Council (Brendan is acting for a bidder who was disqualified from an IT procurement).
• Leicester City Council v Safe Computing Limited (Brendan is acting for an IT company who were the successful bidder in an IT procurement in relation to the performance of the contract).
• Advanced Health and Care Limited v Velindre University Trust (Brendan is acting for a bidder who lost out in an IT procurement and who seeks to impugn the lawfulness of the scoring of the bids).
• Advanced Business Solutions v Northern College (Brendan is acting for the bidder in an IT procurement competition that was, it alleges, abandoned unlawfully).
• R (on the application of QLTS School LLC) v Law Society of England and Wales CO/5053/2017 (acting for the claimant in a judicial review claim that arose out of a procurement undertaken by the Law Society of England and Wales pursuant to which it sought to appoint an exclusive training partner to conduct training of foreign lawyers seeking to be admitted as solicitors in England.
• Advising on the CMA’s investigation into potential competition abuses through the use of price comparison websites.
• Advising on procurement challenges in relation to the award of carer services contracts in the North of England.
• Aviation Requirements Limited v Ministry of Defence (successfully acted for MoD in a challenge to the evaluation of a bid in relation to the FATS 5 Framework for the supply of defence equipment).
• Premaitha Limited v Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and Illumina Limited HT-2016-00075 (successfully intervened on behalf of Illumina, the successful bidder in the award of a contract for the provision of non-invasive pre-natal testing).
• Carillion Construction Limited v Ministry of Defence (acting for MoD in a dispute over liquidated damages in a military construction contract).
• Cranfield University v Defence Academy (acting for the Defence Academy in relation to a dispute over the contractor’s performance in relation to the supply of defence training and education services).
• Capita Business Services Limited v Secretary of State for Defence (acting for MoD in a dispute over the financial baseline and payments due in relation to the long term management of the MoD estate).
• JS Fraser Ltd v Department of Heath: (Representing the Department of Health in a challenge to the procurement of Major Incident Response Vehicles).
• Secretary of State for Defence & Anor v Nash & Ors; (Representing the Secretary of State in a claim for wasted costs over the abandonment of a procurement for the supply of search air and rescue helicopters).
• Supreme Foods GmbH v Ministry of Defence; (Represented the Ministry of Defence in relation to a decision to refuse to permit the Claimant from participating in a procurement for the worldwide supply of food to the British Army following associated entities being entangled in the fraudulent provision of similar supplies to the US Military).
• Advanced Business Software and Solutions v Pirbright Institute [2014] EWHC 4651 (QB): application to lift the automatic suspension in an IT procurement.
• Vestey Foods Limited v Ministry of Defence; (Represented a challenge to the award decision in relation to the procurement for the worldwide supply of foods to the British Army).
• Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust v DRC Locums Limited: acting for the NHS Trust in a dispute over the entitlement of locums providers to charge uplifted commission payments under a National Locums Framework Agreement.
• Gilead v Secretary of State for Health: (Brendan acted for the Claimant Biopharmaceutical company in a challenge to the compatibility of the Health Services Medicines (Control of Prices and Supply of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2013) with the Treaty principles of Transparency and Equal treatment.
• Brendan has recently advised on neutralising the advantages of incumbency in relation to the re- procurement of high value central government IT contracts.
• Law Enforcement International Limited v National Policing Improvement Agency: Acting for the NPIA (led by Philip Moser KC). Civil claim arising out of the decision to use Single Tender Action (and thus forego the holding of a public procurement under the 2006 Regulations) on grounds of national security.
• Carillion Plc v Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council: acted for Carillion Plc in a claim for wasted bid costs as a result of the suspension and abandonment of a procurement process (led by Michael Bowsher KC).
• Brendan has advised on the potential application of the EU procurement rules in relation to a number of service proposals arising out of the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s consultation on financial incentives for renewable energy and Feed in Tariffs in relation to small scale, low carbon electricity generation of capacity up to 5Mw.
• Re Development of Poplar Baths and Dame Colet in Tower Hamlets: advising on the procurement process relating to the refurbishment of Poplar Baths and the construction of affordable housing under a Competitive Dialogue procedure.
• Re Guildford College: Counsel to the College in relation to various issues surrounding the tendering of works leading to a substantial redevelopment of its sporting and educational facilities.

“Very academic and very clever.” “A superb senior junior, who is calm, composed and extremely bright.”  – Chambers UK, 2023

“A well prepared advocate who is very good on his feet.” – Legal 500, 2023

Brendan published ‘Data Profiling and Insurance Law’ in March 2019, the leading work on the use of big data by insurance companies and the impact of such use on central principles of insurance law.

Brendan is co-author of Professional Indemnity Insurance, the second edition of which was published in 2016 by Oxford University Press, the leading practitioners’ text on the subject and has published several articles on insurance law.

Cases

Brendan is currently involved in:

• Tughans v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 999 (Brendan is currently acting for insurers in a coverage dispute arising out of the role of the Claimant’s former managing partner in the acquisition of the Northern Irish Loan Portfolio from NAMA in 2014).
• EDF Energy Limited v Euro Foods Group Limited (acting in a dispute over sums payable for the commercial supply of electricty).
• Regent Gas Limited v J&B Woodcock & Sons (acting in a restitutionary claim for unpaid sums in relation to the commercial supply of gad to business premises).

Recent work and significant cases include:

• European Professional Club Rugby v RDA Television LLP [2022] EWHC 50 (Comm) (Brendan acted for the Claimant in a dispute over a force majeure clause in a media rights agreement which was relied on by the Defendant during the Covid pandemic to justify terminating the agreement as a result of certain club rugby matches not having been played as scheduled).
• Quilter International Isle of Man Limited & Anor v Leonteq Securities AG & Leonteq Securities (Europe) GmbH CL-2020-000291 (Brendan acted for the claimant life insurance companies who acquired investment products which the claimants held, the performance of which dictated the value of the benefits paid out under insurance policies issued to policyholders. The Claimant alleges that the Defendants sold them a large number of structured notes that violated the Claimants’ asset acquisition criteria);
• Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (Uk) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Co LLC [2022] EWHC 1865 (Ch) [2022] EWHC 189 (Pat) and [2021] EWHC 2182 (Ch) (Brendan acted for NHS England, Wales and Northern Ireland in their claims to recover sums paid to Pfizer / Warner-Lambert that the latter received for the supply of its branded pregabalin product which remained on the market without competition as a result of injunctions wrongly granted that precluded generic entry and the reduction in price that would have resulted from such entry).
• Brendan is advising on the insurance implications for Government and insured licensees or operators or nuclear installations or disposal sites as a result of the amendments to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 soon to be brought into force.
• Saxby v UDG Healthcare (UK) Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 144 (Ch) (acted for the Claimant in a misrepresentation claim relating to the value of shareholdings in a third party company acquired by the Claimants in reliance on those representations);
• Battle McCarthy Limited v Royal & Sun Alliance Limited & Ors (Brendan is acting for insurers in a dispute over coverage as between different year insurers regarding to what extent the underlying claim falls to be indemnified by each policy period);
• A number of commercial arbitrations on behalf of insurers or insureds in relation to cover disputes arising following claims by third parties.
• R (On the application of (1) Aviva Insurance Limited and (2) Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited v Department of Work and Pensions (CO/2608/2019) (acting for the DWP in defence of a challenge to the compatibility off the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 with Article 1 Protocol 1).
• Pioneer Fuels Limited v Full Circle Generation Limited (Brendan is acting for the Claimant in a commercial dispute over demurrage charges arising on a Fuel Supply Agreement);
• Brendan has been advising on various regulatory questions on Solvency II (as retained) including on the location of a particular risk for the purposes of the provision of insurance by UK insurers following the end of the Implementation Period.
• Brendan has been advising on the obligations of business interruption insurers in relation to the Covid pandemic and consequential issues of quantum following the Supreme Court’s decision in the business interruption test case on.
• Brendan is currently advising in relation to the FCA’s investigation into price-walking in the home and motor insurance markets.
• Brendan was advising the FCA in relation to issues consequential on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the test Business Interruption Insurance case brought by the FCA;
• Hodder & Partners v Allied World Assurance Company (Brendan is acting for the insured in a dispute over cladding cover for an architects’ firm).
• Gallery Alpha LLP v Argenta (Brendan acted for the Claimant against its former Member’s Agent in a Lloyds’ Arbitration in relation to the collapse of Syndicate 1884).
• Brendan has advised regulators on the application of the Transitional and Prior Authorisation and Approval provisions Imposed by Solvency II.
• Brendan is advising on the extension of the Risk Protection Arrangements from Academies to Local Authority Maintained Schools.
• Brendan has advised in relation to the proposed GP Indemnity Scheme to be introduced by the Department of Health.
• Das v YVA Solicitors [2019] EWHC 1183 (Ch)[2018] 5 WLUK 552; (successfully obtained summary judgment in defending solicitors in a loss of a chance claim).
• Nicholson and Hamilton v Howell (acting for the liquidators of a PAYE Umbrella company whose former directors are the defendants in this litigation. The liquidators are suing the directors to recoup, on behalf of the company’s creditors, damages personally from its former directors as a result of their alleged misfeasance, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
• RRRL Limited v AM Trust; (representing insurers in dispute over cover following investigation of a Guernsey Financial Services Firm by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission.
• Egan Property Asset Management Limited v Parsons (claim for damages arising out of alleged negligence of former finance director in having fallen victim to phishing fraud).
• Various Investors v McClay Murray & Spens: (acting for solicitors in relation to claims by investors in Enterprise Zone tax Shelter Investment Schemes).
• Ahmed v Linder Myers (a firm) (acted for the Defendant solicitors in defence of a claim for professional negligence arising out of the failure to identify a clause in a sale of commercial property as an unlawful Rentcharge).
• Sharma and Ors v Hawkins Ryan; (representing insured solicitors in relation to the provision of of SDLT avoidance products).
• Various Investors v Howlett Clark; (acting for insured solicitors who acted for the providers of alleged land-banking schemes).
• McManus Seddon Runhams v European Risk Insurance Company Hf: acting for insured seeking declarations that valid notification of circumstances was made under a policy of professional indemnity insurance.
• Financial Services Compensation Scheme v Independent Financial Advisers: acting for Independent Financial Advisers insured alleged to have mis-sold bonds comprising Traded Life Policies.
• Allardyce & Ors v ProAct Financial & Ors (Defending Independent Financial Advisors in the Little Wings Film Finance Tax Avoidance litigation).
• Brown & Ors v Innovator Plc and others (the Innovator litigation), acting for a firm of solicitors in relation to a claim arising out of allegedly fraudulent tax efficient technology investment schemes established by their former client. Brendan was also instructed in sister litigation arising out of very similar technology tax avoidance schemes (the Keydata litigation).
• Ellis & Co v ZL Insurance (acceptance of notifications made under professional indemnity insurance policies.
• Advised insurers on the impact on certain types of cover of the Environmental Liability Directive.
• Collyer Bristow & Ors v Streets Financial Services & Ors (Part 20 proceedings subsequently commenced against a large number of Independent Financial Advisors in the Innovator litigation).
• Givaudan Suisse SA v Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SE and other :acting on behalf of Chubb Insurance in relation to the policy aspects of a mass-tort action brought by American Claimants in the Swiss Courts.
• A.C. Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin (Five) & Others [2009] EWHC 3122 (Comm) (Protections Warranties in Commercial Contents Insurance policies).
• Brendan regularly advises on issues relating to the scope of authority granted to financial advisers operating under authorised representative agreements or within financial services networks.
• Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd : Brendan was instructed as a research junior for the Zurich Insurance companyin the Employer’s Liability Policy Trigger litigation in the Court of Appeal in, led by Jeremy Stuart-Smith KC.
• Re Falconara: acted on behalf of insurers on a major commercial arbitration arising out of delay claims brought in respect of the construction of a power plant. The case considered the impact of the decision of Colman J in Lumbermans Mutual Insurance Company v Bovis Lend Lease Limited.
• Brendan has advised insurers on the potential liabilities of local authorities arising out of the major flood events of 2007.

Cases

Recent work and significant cases include:

• Aviva and Swiss Re v Department of Work and Pensions (CO/2608/2019) (acting for the DWP in defence of a challenge to the compatibility off the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 with Article 1 Protocol 1).
• Dickinson & Ors v Quilter International Isle of Man Limited (Claim No. ORD 20/0012) (defending a misrepresentation claim brought against Quilter International who provided life insurance products from which investors could invest in further investment products).
• Quilter International Isle of Man Limited & Anor v Leonteq Securities AG & Leonteq Securities (Europe) GmbH CL-2020-000291 (Brendan is acting for the claimant life insurance companies who acquired investment products which the claimants held, the performance of which dictated the value of the benefits paid out under insurance policies issued to policyholders. The Claimant alleges that the Defendants sold them a large number of structured notes that violated the Claimants’ asset acquisition criteria).
• Brendan has been advising on whether a number of commercial property developments have features amounting to collective investment schemes.
• Brendan is advising on the regulatory aspects of crowdfunding and Peer to Peer (P2P) lending in light of the introduction of Article 36H of the Regulated Activities Order.
• Brendan is currently advising on the application of Article 39A of the Regulated Activities Order in relation to the provision of claims management services in the insurance sector.
• RRL Limited v AM Trust Europe Limited; (Acting for Defendant insurer in relation to coverage disputes arising out of violations of Guernsey Financial Services Law).
• Brendan is currently advising on a number of claims involving allegations of mis-selling of swaps products; allegations of breach of various COBs rules; and claims under s.138D of FSMA.
• Financial Services Compensation Scheme v Various ISAs (2013) (acted for Royal and Sun Alliance and all of their IFAs in relation to the subrogated claim brought by the FSCS following pay-outs relating to the sale of traded life insurance policies).
• Various Investors v McClay Murray & Spens & Anor (2013-2015) (acted for the Defendant following a claim by disappointed investors in an EZ Investment Scheme, which claims involved alleged failure to advise on FSMA 2000 and the existence of collective investment schemes).
• Various Investors v Howlett Clark (2015) (claim by various investors in land-banking schemes; allegations that scheme was a collective investment scheme).
• Brown v InnovatorOne Ltd & 8 Ors [2012] EWHC 1824 (Admin) (claim alleging that tax efficient technology schemes amounted to collective investment schemes; claims under old FSMA s.150 and the relationship between a right of action under s.150 and the common law duty of care).
• Ex Parte the Horizon Group (2014) (advising insurers on the PII and FSMA issues arising out of an investigation into the conduct of a Jersey-based Financial Services provider in light of a report by the Jersey Financial Services Commission).
• Various Investors v ProAct Financial & Ors (2013/14) (acted for insurers in defence of claims relating to tax efficient film scheme. Allegations of breach of Financial Promotions Order and violation of general prohibition in relation to advice on suitability of certain designated investments).
• Ugboaja v Kidd Rapinet (2012) (claim against law firm over alleged conflicts of interest arising from role in sale of plots in land-banking scheme).
• Solicitors Disciplinary Authority v Benz & Ors (2011) (disciplinary proceedings brought against 4 partners of a firm acting for company administering schemes said to be collective investment schemes).
• Brendan has regularly advised insurers on whether the FSO has correctly taken jurisdiction over complaints against financial services providers, dealing also with limitation issues and claims for judicial review.
• Brendan regularly advises on issues relating to the scope of authority granted to financial advisers operating under authorised representative agreements or within financial services networks.

‘‘He is an excellent all-rounder’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Cases

Brendan has acted in the following matters:

• Brendan is currently advising on the applicability of the safe harbor provisions under the e-Commerce Directive in connection with adverts that constitute Financial Promotions for the purposes of the Financial Promotions Order, where such adverts appear on various forms of social media platforms;
• Gunton v British Telecommunications Ltd (acting in an alleged databreach by BT).
• Help Your Claim Limited v Claims Management Regulator CMS/2017/0003; (Acting for the Claims Management Regulator in defence of penalties imposed on the appellant in the context of its provision of claims management services for individuals mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance).
• RRL Limited v AM Trust Europe Limited; (Acting for Defendant insurer in relation to coverage disputes arising out of violations of Guernsey Financial Services Law).
• Elkador Finance Limited v Claims Management Regulator CMS/2015/001; (Successfully defended the Regulator’s imposition of a fine for breaches of the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 20145).
• Complete Claims Solutions v Claims Management Regulator CMS/2015/003; (Represented the Claims Management Regulator in the first appeal to its new penalty jurisdiction conferred under section 139 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (which amends the Schedule to the Compensation Act 2006) and which concerned the use of consumer data.
• Sun Lane Limited v Claims Management Regulator [2013] CMS/2013/0002 (Challenge to sanctions imposed for breach of conditions of authorization).
• Money Made Simple v Claims Management Regulator [2014] CMS/2014/0002 (Challenge to sanctions imposed for breach of conditions of authorization).
• Iqbal v Claims Management Regulator [2015] CMS/2015/0001 (Challenge to Regulator’s penalty decision).
• Brendan is currently advising a range of clients on the quantum of potential damages as a result of data breaches.
• Brendan advised the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to the enforceability of Binding Corporate Rules after the end of the Brexit transition period.
• Brendan advised Insurers in relation to use of algorithms and compliance with the GDPR.
• Brendan is advising on the use of segmentation and profiling tools.

Cases

Brendan is currently involved in:

• Fisher v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] EWCA Civ 1438 (successfully acting for HMRC in its appeal against the UT’s interpretation and application of Case C-212/06 [2008] ECR 1- 1693 Walloon and the impact of that interpretation on intra-Member State devolved taxes. The further appeal in the Supreme Court was heard in July 2023).
• Lloyd’s Asset Leasing v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (Brendan acted for HMRC in defence of appeals challenging the Commissioners’ refusal to accede to claims by the Lloyds Banking Group for cross border group loss relief in respect of losses incurred by an Irish subsidiary as a result of the financial crisis).
• Vision Dispensing Limited v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (Brendan is acting from HMRC in defence of an appeal whereby the appellant provider of online dispensing services in relation to contact lenses is seeking repayment of output tax accounted for in reliance on the health exemption in Schedule 9 of VATA 94).
• King’s Lynn and West Norfolk BC v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2022] UKUT 326 (successfully defending an appeal in a test case as to the legality of local authorities charging and accounting for VAT on overpayments made by customers using local authority car parks).
• S Walsh v Customs and Revenue Commissioners (Brendan is currently acting for the taxpayer in a tax dispute over landfill liabilities in relation to materials removed from groundworks at the Tottenham Hotspur stadium).

Recent work and significant cases include:

• Kishore v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] EWCA Civ 1565 (Brendan successfully argued that a taxpayer becoming appeal rights exhausted in relation to a Kittel appeal did not itself bar that taxpayer from contesting a related penalty, the prospect of which had not previously been raised by HMRC).
• R (On the application of Heathrow Airport Limited & Ors) v HMRC (Brendan is currently acting for Heathrow, World Duty Free and Global Blue in their challenge to HMRC’s abolition of airside tax free shopping and the VAT Retail Export Scheme).
• Award Drinks Limited (In liquidation) v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 1235 (Successfully acted for HMRC in support of the contention that there was no obligation on HMRC to plead an allegation of fraud where it wished to rely on the fact or possibility that some kind of fraud had been committed when testing the taxpayer’s evidence against a best judgment assessment.)
• Customs and Excise Commissioners v Devon Waste Management & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 584 (successfully acting for HMRC in defence of challenges by the landfill sector as to the proper interpretation of s.40 of the Finance Act 1996).
• Case C-760/19 JCM Europe Ltd v HMRC [2021] 4 W.L.R. 44 (Brendan successfully acted for the UK on a reference relating to the lawfulness of Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/1760)
• King’s Lynn and West Norfolk BC v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 10 (Brendan successfully defended HMRC in an appeal over the VAT treatment of overpayments in publicly-run off-street car parks).
• General Transport Service SpA v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 405 (successfully resisted an appeal as to the proper interpretation of Article 37 of Directive 2008/118 (the Excise Directive)
• National Car Parks Ltd v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 854 (successfully acted for HMRC in relation to tax treatment of overpayments made in respect of parking tariffs).
• Case C-405/18 Aures Holdings v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Brendan successfully intervened on behalf of the UK in relation to the temporal scope of cross-border group loss relief).
• MSA Britain Limited v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 693 (TC) (successfully defending the customs classification applied in Binding Tariff Informations in relation to electronic products)
• G4S Corporate Services Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 234 (TC) (successfully defended an appeal against interest assessments on the basis of the taxpayer’s reliance that one part of Government could not be enriched at the expense of another in the application of the doctrine of the indivisibility of the Crown).
• Euro Trade and Finance Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKUT 23 (TCC) (successfully acted for HMRC in appeals brought revoking WOWGR licences of licensed traders in duty suspended alcohol).
• Pierhead Drinks Limited v HMRC [2019] UKUT 7 (TCC) (successfully resisted an appeal against a Tribunal decision that found a company director was not fit and proper such as to be entitled to hold a WOWGR where it was contended that failure to warn the person of the criticism in the public judgment violated his human rights).
• Maugham v Uber London Limited (Acting for the Claimant taxpayer who is seeking to establish that supplies of private vehicle hire are made by Uber who are therefore required to provide a VAT receipt for those taxable supplies).
• J&B Hopkins Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKUT 382 (TC) (successfully defended HMRC against a claim that the Reemstma line of cases could be relied upon in a restitutionary claim against HMRC for tax accounted for that would have been the subject of an input tax reclaim were it not for the intervention of a corporate insolvency).
• R (Dixons Retail Plc) v HMRC CO/2376/2017 (Successfully represented HMRC in defeating an alleged legitimate expectation of certain tax treatment of supplies of insurance for electrical goods).
• Wood Group International Services v HMRC (acting for HMRC in a civil claim testing the scope of the Reemstma and Danfoss rights of direct recovery against the revenue for wrongly paid tax.
• Kishore t/a Movill 2000 v HMRC (acting for taxpayer denied a Repayment Supplement otherwise due that has been set-off against penalties raised under s.63 of VATA, notwithstanding the latter was repealed in 2008. Article 6 ECHR challenge to the repayment refusal and EU challenge to the application of s.81(3) set-off).
• Award Drinks Limited v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 632 (TC) (Successfully represented HMRC in defence of VAT assessments raised in relation to excise goods alleged to have been sold in France but returned back to the UK).
• Dale Global Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 363 (Successfully representing HMRC in defence of appeals against assessments in relation to excise goods which the trader claimed had been sold in France).
• Biffa Waste Services Ltd & Ors v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 181 (Successfully represented HMRC in defending the taxation of waste materials said to be used in the construction of landfill cells).
• Agrawal v HMRC (acting for taxpayer in appeal against Partner Payment Notice).
• HMRC v Honeywell Analytics [2018] EWCA Civ 579 (successfully appealing a decision of the Upper Tribunal on the proper approach to the classification of products and the intended use of those products).
• Denley v HMRC [2016] UT/2016/0020 (Acting for HMRC on the status of the juxtaposed customs controls in Coquelles, France).
• Vital Nut Co. Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKUT 192 (Acting for HMRC in customs classification dispute and questions as to review jurisdiction of the FTT).
• British American Tobacco (Holdings) Limited v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 167 (Acted for British American Tobacco in successfully challenging penalties raised by HMRC under the Tobacco Products Duty Act, as amended).
• R (Veolia ES Ltd and Ors) v HMRC [2016] EWHC 1880 (Admin); (Successfully represented HMRC in a judicial review claim by a landfill operator seeking to enforce alleged legitimate expectations aid to arise from a Business Brief).
• Unicom Insurance Services Ltd v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 782 (Considering whether an insurance agent incorporated in the UK supplied insurance intermediary services to an associated insurer in Gibraltar or to UK policyholders).
• R (Hudson Contract Services Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills [2016] EWHC 884 (Admin); (Representing the Secretary of State over a challenge to the new basis upon which the industrial levy is to be calculated and imposed).
• Fairway Lakes Limited v HMRC [2016] UKUT 340 (TC) (successfully represented HMRC in a dispute over the proper characterization of construction contracts).
• R (Allpay Limted) v HMRC; (successfully defended HMRC in a challenge to the lawfulness of a number of retrospective assessments raised on the basis that the Claimant’s supply of debt and payment collection services were treated by the Claimant as exempt when they should have been taxed at the standard rate).
• Wheels Private Hire Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKUT 51.
• Grand Entertainments Co v HMRC [2016] UKUT 209 (TC) (acted for HMRC in dispute over scope of what constitutes an amendment to an existing  claim as opposed to a new (and time-barred) claim).
• Water Property Ltd v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 721 (Appeal as to whether the anti-avoidance provision in para 12 of Schedule 10 to VATA entitled HMRC to disregard an option to tax where expenditure had been purportedly incurred within the capital goods scheme).
• R (Biffa Waste Services Ltd) v HMRC [2016] EWHC 1444 (Admin); (Representing HMRC in a legitimate expectation claim over the scope of a tax concession).
• Lenstore Limited v HMRC; (acted for HMRC in defence of an appeal by online contact lens supplier that a certain proportion of its supplies were exempt healthcare – appeal withdrawn following cross-examination).
• Isle of Wight & Ors v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 1303: Counsel to HMRC in successfully demonstrating that exempting local authorities from VAT in the provision of commercial (and taxable) services such as car parking would likely lead to a distortion of competition where private entities were offering the same services in the same market albeit without the benefit of the tax exemption.
• United Grand Lodge of England v HMRC [2015] UKUT 589 (TC): Counsel to HMRC in an appeal by the Claimant against the Commissioners decisions that, to the extent that the Freemasons constitution does not have philanthropy is one of its aims, it cannot seek an exemption from VAT (and thus seek recovery of allegedly overpaid tax) on that basis.The matter is currently under appeal.
• Mather v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1062 (TC): customer of a taxpayer could not compel HMRC to take a decision and had an effective remedy if he could take action against his supplier in the civil courts.
• Redcats (Brands) Ltd v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 376 (TC); (acted for HMRC in a dispute over whether a catalogue retailer was entitled to reduce the consideration for a supply retrospectively).Vital Nut Co Ltd v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 338 (TC); (acted for HMRC in dispute over classification of certain foods under the Common Customs Code).
• Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd v HMRC: Counsel to HMRC. Successfully resisted an appeal by the Theatre over its entitlement to recover overpaid tax without having to give credit for input tax received in different periods albeit where both the overpayments and the deductions were made and received pursuant to the same failure by the UK to implement a VAT exemption for certain cultural activities. This case is on appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Brown v HMRC: defending a challenge by boat-dwellers to the compatibility of the VAT Act with the ECHR and the Equality Act 2010.
• Dazmonda Ltd v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 337 (TC): Counsel to HMRC in an appeal by the Claimant as to its entitlement to recover VAT said to be wrongly assessed on commission payments made by table-dancers to the owners and operators of table-dancing clubs (relying on the exemption for the grant of licences to occupy land).
• R (On application of Brown) v Commissioners : successfully defended the Commissioners in a judicial review on the question of the appropriate jurisdiction in which decisions by HMRC to exempt certain supplies from VAT might be challenged.
• Prescription Eyewear Limited v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 357 (TC): Counsel to HMRC in an appeal as to the correct apportionment between the Claimant’s standard-rated and exempt supplies.
• Lighterlife Ltd v HMRC: Counsel to HMRC in a second appeal by the Claimant as to the availability of VAT exemptions.
• Tallington Lakes v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 159 (TC): acted for HMRC in an appeal on the tax treatment of non-permanent residential accommodation.
• David Baxendale Limited v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 377 (TC): Counsel to HMRC in a claim for the return of overpaid tax on the basis that a Court of Appeal decision in the same proceedings was per incuriam the prior decision of the ECJ in RLRE Tellmer Case C-572/07. The appeal was dismissed, inter alia, on grounds of res judicata.

‘‘Brendan is a real rising star of the junior Bar; he is excellent on his feet and his written submissions are always compelling and extremely well written. He is adept at distilling complex factual and legal matters into convincing and easily understood arguments.’’ – Chambers UK, 2023

“Brendan is a fantastic advocate, his oral submissions are particularly persuasive and he is adept at pitching his submissions so that they contain the appropriate level of detail.” – Legal 500, 2023

Cases

Current cases:

• European Professional Club Rugby v RDA Television LLP [2022] EWHC 50 (Comm) (Brendan acted for the Claimant in a dispute over a force majeure clause in a media rights agreement which was relied on by the Defendant during the Covid pandemic to justify terminating the agreement as a result of certain club rugby matches not having been played as scheduled).
• FC Kairat v FC Chertanovo (Brendan is acting for the Claimant in a dispute that is currently before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, relating to the Claimant’s alleged obligation to pay the Defendant training compensation in relation to the transfer of Russian footballer Kirill Kolesnichenko).

Recent work and significant cases include:

• Brendan is advising on the application of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in relation to the transfer of minor players.
• Brendan is currently advising on the requirements of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations 2018.
• Brendan has advised Formula 1 manufacturers on the application of the FIA F1 Sporting Regulations
• Brendan acted for two Italian U20 players, Lodovico Manni and Jacopo Bianchi before the 6 Nations Disciplinary Committee, each of whom were cited following the 6 Nations international between Ireland and Italy in Dublin in 2018.
• Brendan acted for Italian International Marco Fuser in a citing hearing following a game between Bath and Treviso.
• Brendan acted for Giorgio Intoppa following a citing after a mass brawl at a Guiness Pro 12 fixture between Edinburgh and Treviso.
• Brendan acted for Michele Rizzo and the Italian Rugby Federation following a double sending-off in the RBS 6 Nations game between Italy and France.
• Brendan is acting in a company court challenge against the British Weightlifters Association.
• Brendan has advised on several football transfer disputes.
• Football Dataco & Ors v SportRadar: (Brendan advised Sportradar GmbH on prospects of appealing judgment of Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court).
• Paddy Power v LOCOG (acted for Claimant in dispute over compatibility of billboard campaign with Olympics advertising regulations).
• Winston Gordon & Ors v British Judo Federation: Counsel to a number of Team GB ‘Judokas’ who contested the decision of the British Judo Federation not to select them for London 2012. As a result of the challenge, Mr Gordon was selected to represent Team GB, the only successful challenge to a selection decision in the run up to the London Games.
• London Olympics 2012: acted for a number of other Team GB Athletes who have sought to challenge the selection decisions of their governing bodies’ Olympic Selection Panel.
• Big Star Creations: Acting for agents in dispute over commission in transfer of Marlon Samuels to Pune Warriors.
• Joe Calvino v British Weight-Lifting (acted for Ms Calvino in seeking to challenge BWL’s Olympics de-selection decision).
• Allardyce & Ors v ProAct Financial Limited & Ors (claim by, amongst others, Sam Allardyce and Peter Reid in relation to film finance tax avoidance schemes).
• Anthony McGann v Michael Bisping: (dispute between sports agent seeking recovery of commission payments from his former client, a leading ‘ultimate cage fighter’ in the United States of America).
• Brown & Ors v InnovatorOne Plc (footballers and agents invested into failed tax efficient technology schemes).
• Re Don Valley Sports Stadium: (advising the local authority in a matter relating to whether additional securitisation of a sports stadium would be in breach of covenants given by the local authority owner to banks that had an existing security interest in the stadium).
• Hougaard v World Artists Limited (acted for Saracens and South African international in a commission and Image Rights dispute with former agent).
• Costa v Welsh Karate (acted for the Welsh Karate Governing Body in a dispute with a former affiliate member over voting rights and disqualification).
• Brendan acts for players in disciplinary contexts and takes instructions on a direct basis having obtained a direct access certificate.
• Brendan advises on Fifa’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
• Brendan regularly advises on all kinds of contractual disputes between players and clubs and clubs and associations.

Administrative & Public Law: “Brendan has a remarkable forensic ability particularly when it comes to complex administrative areas of law.” “Brendan is very analytical. He wants to understand the nitty-gritty.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Animal Law: “Brendan is good on his feet, incredibly bright and a tenacious advocate.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Data Protection: “Brendan is always impressive.” – Chambers UK, 2025

EU Law: “Brendan McGurk KC is a fierce but charming and meticulous advocate who time and time again produces results.” “Brendan McGurk KC is an exceptional barrister. His ability to quickly assimilate detail is second to none, and clients are universally impressed by him.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Life Sciences Regulatory: “Brendan’s opinion is highly valued by us and our client. His understanding in the area is second to none and the written advice he provides is always very clear, definitive and timely.” “Brendan is a brilliant lawyer.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Public Procurement: “He is very thorough and also works in a very collaborative way.” “Brendan is excellent.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Tax: Indirect Tax: “Brendan is incredibly bright, highly approachable and very user-friendly.” “Brendan is a pleasure to work with, He’s incredibly hard-working and he thinks creatively.” “He has a brilliant procedural manner, and his knowledge of case law is masterful and can switch between different streams of jurisprudence in a very impressive way.” “He is an extremely pleasant opponent, pleasant to be against and takes his job seriously.” “Brendan is very approachable and practical in his advice.” – Chambers UK, 2025

New Silk in Competition: “Brendan is very thorough knowledgeable of competition law; very strategic; extremely pragmatic and excellent with clients.” – Legal 500, 2025

New Silk in European Union relations: “Brendan is exceptional bright. His ability to quickly assimilate detail is second to none. He adds real value and consistently achieves tangible results in complex matters.” – Legal 500, 2025

New Silk in Public procurement: “Absolutely fantastic. Brendan’s technical knowledge is vast. He has a great ability to absorb considerable amounts of information, often very technical either legal or mechanics and to have that ready at his finger tips. His preparation for trial is some of the very best and most detailed.” – Legal 500, 2025

New Silk in Tax: VAT and Excise: “A leader in the field and fully deserves silk. Both written and oral advocacy is first-rate.” – Legal 500, 2025

New Silk in Administrative law and Human Rights: “He has judges eating out of his hands with his encyclopaedic knowledge of case law and legislation.” – Legal 500, 2025

New Silk in Professional Negligence – Legal 500, 2025

New Silk in Aviation and Travel: “Very thorough knowledge of the sector and the surrounding legislation, particularly as it intersects with competition law. User friendly and responsive. Provides clear and strategic advice.” – Legal 500, 2025

Administrative & Public Law: “Very knowledgeable in procurement cases, and willing to take a creative approach.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Animal Law: “He’s extremely bright and capable on his feet and clients are assured by the advice he provides.” “Brendan McGurk is a force of nature.”  – Chambers UK, 2024

Life Sciences Regulatory: “Brendan McGurk is an impressively smooth operator.”  – Chambers UK, 2024

Public Procurement: “He is very strong technically and good on strategy.” “Brendan is highly responsive and a very good communicator. His ability to drill into the detail and core issues is impressive, and he is very familiar with the law in this area.” “Absolutely fantastic, he quickly gets up to speed and is technically brilliant. He is always very well prepared for cross-examination.”  – Chambers UK, 2024

Tax: Indirect Tax: ‘‘He’s very smooth and classy.” “However complex a case, he can explain it clearly.” “He is very assured on his feet and very clear.” “His quality and dedication to the case and his provision of service to our firm and the cause of the client have been fabulous.’’ – Chambers UK, 2024

Leading junior in Competition: “Brendan is highly knowledgeable in matters relating to judicial review, public procurement and linked competition issues.”  – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in EU law: “Brendan is an excellent advocate – extremely eloquent. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of CJEU case law.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in Public procurement: “Brendan has an incisive eye and cuts straight to the key issues in a case.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in Tax: VAT and Excise: “Brendan is technically very strong indeed; his ability to turn around complex pleadings quickly is very impressive and his client management is extremely good, reassuring clients and lay clients in particular. His advocacy in relation to complex tax matters is impressive in that he has great clarity in explaining all the necessary detail.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in Administrative law and Human Rights: “An excellent advocate, extremely smooth and persuasive. His written work is also superb, with excellent drafting and clear, concise advice.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in Professional Negligence: “Quietly impressive, always available and humble.” – Legal 500, 2024

Administrative & Public Law: “His written advocacy is excellent; he is incredibly good at what he does.” “He’s great to work with and extremely creative; he’s really good at thinking outside the normal parameters of the cases.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Animal Law: “Clients praise Brendan’s written output and advocacy. He is meticulous and thinks outside the box.”  – Chambers UK, 2023

Life Sciences Regulatory: “An excellent lawyer, who is very approachable and helpful.”  – Chambers UK, 2023

Public Procurement: “Very academic and very clever.” “A superb senior junior, who is calm, composed and extremely bright.”  – Chambers UK, 2023

Tax: Indirect Tax: ‘‘Brendan is a real rising star of the junior Bar; he is excellent on his feet and his written submissions are always compelling and extremely well written. He is adept at distilling complex factual and legal matters into convincing and easily understood arguments.’’ – Chambers UK, 2023

Leading junior in Competition – Legal 500, 2023

Leading junior in EU law: “A smooth and articulate advocate, Brendan is highly technical and produced great written work. He has stood up to tough questions from judges on EU law authorities in the highest courts, such as the CJEU.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading junior in Public procurement: “A well prepared advocate who is very good on his feet.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading junior in Tax: VAT and Excise: “Brendan is a fantastic advocate, his oral submissions are particularly persuasive and he is adept at pitching his submissions so that they contain the appropriate level of detail.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading junior in Administrative law and Human Rights: – Legal 500, 2023

Leading junior in Professional Negligence – Legal 500, 2023

Administrative & Public Law: “His grasp of the detail and the clarity of his written material is impressive. He is also friendly and easy to work with.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Public Procurement: “A barrister with excellent client-handling skills, who is very capable and able to take on complex cases.” “His responsiveness and technical prowess are fantastic. He is surgical in court, and his strategic advice is excellent.”  – Chambers UK, 2022

Tax: Indirect Tax: ‘‘Very hard-working, intelligent and articulate.” “He is very well prepared and impressive on his feet.’’ – Chambers UK, 2022

Leading junior in Administrative and public law (including Elections): “Brendan is a responsive and strategic barrister. Clients and solicitors have confidence in Brendan leading on cases and giving tactical advice to achieve clients’ objectives.” – Legal 500, 2022

Leading junior in Competition: “Excellent senior junior who is always completely on top of his brief. Also an absolute pleasure to work with.” – Legal 500, 2022

Leading junior in EU law: “An excellent senior-junior surely on the verge of taking silk. Phenomenally bright and excellent on his feet – he manages to turn hearings around.” – Legal 500, 2022

Leading junior in Public procurement – Legal 500, 2022

Leading junior in Tax: indirect and VAT: “Brendan is a pleasure to work with and his technical indirect tax knowledge is very strong. Brendan’s work is always thoroughly researched and his written pleadings are always punchy and persuasive. As an advocate, Brendan is very polished. He is particularly impressive and accomplished on his feet.” – Legal 500, 2022

Leading junior in Professional Negligence – Legal 500, 2022

Administrative & Public Law: “He’s good on his feet – he has a very lovely court manner and is very smooth with the judge. He’s straightforward to work with; he just rolls up his sleeves and gets involved.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Public Procurement: “Responsive and calm, he provides practical, commercial advice to clients.” “He’s knowledgeable and able to distil information into understandable concepts.”  – Chambers UK, 2021

Tax: Indirect Tax: ‘‘His opinions are very clear and he goes out of his way to understand queries.’’ – Chambers UK, 2021

Leading junior in Administrative and public law (including Elections): ‘‘Extremely clever and thoughtful – very on top of the detail of nuanced tests.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Leading junior in Competition: ‘‘Very bright and articulate, Brendan is thorough, calm and a pleasure to work with.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Leading junior in EU law: ‘‘Very bright and articulate and enjoyable to work with.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Leading junior in Public procurement: ‘‘He is very intellectual and extremely thorough. He is very good on heavyweight, black letter law’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Leading junior in Tax: indirect and VAT: ‘‘He is extremely impressive on his feet, delivering powerful speeches and being unfazed by difficult and probing questions from the judiciary’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Administrative & Public Law: “His intellectual capacity is fantastic; he’s good to work with, his written work is outstanding, and he’s an incredibly capable, compelling advocate. His ability to break down the facts and applicable law was highly impressive.” “An imaginative, intelligent, up-and-coming barrister with an expanding practice.” “His submissions were forceful, persuasive and well researched.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Public Procurement: “His capacity to understand and get to grips with complex issues is really very impressive.”  – Chambers UK, 2020

Tax: Indirect Tax: ‘‘His intellectual capacity is really fantastic. He’s good to work with and his written work is outstanding; all round he’s an incredibly capable, very compelling advocate’’ – Chambers UK, 2020

Leading junior in Administrative and public law (including local government): ‘‘His submissions are forceful, persuasive and well-researched’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading junior in Competition: ‘‘He draws on his wide experience of competition law to find imaginative ways of tackling problems.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading junior in EU law: ‘‘An accomplished advocate who adjusts when he assesses which way the wind is blowing from the bench’s interventions.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading junior in Professional Negligence: ‘‘He is very bright and strong on the detail.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading junior in Public procurement: ‘‘An extremely thoughtful lawyer, who analyses a situation from all possible angles’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading junior in Tax: indirect and VAT: ‘‘His submissions are forceful, persuasive, and well-researched’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Administrative & Public Law: “Committed, creative, and has excellent instincts as well as the knowledge to back them up. Uses his breadth of experience to great effect.” “Incredibly knowledgeable.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Public Procurement: “His legal acumen and his commitment to the cause cannot be questioned.”  – Chambers UK, 2019

Leading junior in Administrative and public law (including local government): ‘‘He has excellent instincts as well as the knowledge to back them’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading junior in Professional Negligence: ‘‘His advocacy is top notch.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading junior in Public procurement: ‘‘Shapes information into understandable content based on very good procurement knowledge’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading junior in Tax: indirect and VAT: ‘‘He is an excellent all-rounder’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Administrative & Public Law: “He is very good, very clever and has a nice style with the courts.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Public Procurement: “Intelligent, diligent, balanced and measured.” “He’s an insightful speaker on procurement issues.”  – Chambers UK, 2018

Brendan obtained First Class Honours (Law BA Hons) as an Undergraduate at Cambridge and as a Postgraduate at Oxford (BCL, 2 year). His D.Phil was supervised by Professor John Gardner and is entitled ‘The Rule of Law in the Regulatory State’. He was short-listed for a Prize Fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford in 2003, won a Queen Mother’s Major Scholarship in 2004 and a Bar European Group Scholarship in 2006. Before coming to the Bar, Brendan held a lectureship in Constitutional and Administrative Law at Wadham College in the University of Oxford. He taught as an associate lecturer in Competition Law at Cambridge University between 2018-2021.

Brendan was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2015 and the Bar of Ireland in 2018.