Harry is regularly instructed both as sole counsel on commercial disputes and as part of a team. He is instructed as junior counsel in:

• Dickinson and others v Utmost International, a group action claim brought in the Isle of Man by a large number of life insurance policyholders for alleged misrepresentations and breach of duty of care, acting for the Defendant, Utmost International. A 7 week trial of test claims in these proceedings is due to commence 8 April 2023.
• Kells and others v Utmost International, another group action by life insurance policyholders involving claims of misrepresentation, dishonest assistance and unlawful means conspiracy in respect of breaches of fiduciary duties by financial advisors following the alleged payment of secret commissions (also acting for Utmost International and led by William Buck).
• R (E.ON) v Secretary of State for BEIS and others [2023] EWHC 737, instructed by E.ON in judicial review proceedings arising from the sale of the insolvent energy company Bulb to Octopus Energy, concerning the Secretary of State’s decision to award subsidy valued by the OBR at up to £6.5bn to support the transfer of Bulb’s assets to Octopus, led by George Peretz KC. He remains instructed in the ongoing appeal of the Divisional Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal.

He has previously been instructed in:

• Proctor v Lidl, representing Lidl in a claim for breach of contract arising from alleged breaches of terms implied into contracts for the supply of fresh produce by the Groceries Supply Code of Practice, led by George Peretz KC.
• Re Bulb Energy Ltd [2022] EWHC 3105 (Ch), representing E.ON in insolvency proceedings arising from the collapse of the energy company Bulb, led by William Buck. This case involved the first consideration of the Energy Transfer Scheme system under Energy Acts 2004 and 2011.
• Quilter v Leonteq, a complex £20m+ multiparty Commercial Court (originally offshore in the Isle of Man) dispute concerning allegedly fraudulent sales of structured note investment products to a major insurance institution.
• By the Serious Fraud Offce in a criminal prosecution of two former directors of Serco for procurement fraud. Led by Philip Moser KC, he formed part of a counsel team brought in to deal with preliminary matters relating to points of contractual interpretation ahead of trial.

Harry has is also regularly instructed as sole counsel in commercial matters in the High Court and county courts. His commercial work often involves civil fraud and insolvency elements. He is also experienced in commercial cases with a public law connection, including regulatory, procurement and data protection angles. Current and recent instructions include:

• Acting for the Claimants in a contractual dispute for breaches of terms of the Groceries Supply Code of Practice.
• Acting for a major estate agent in securing an urgent interim injunction against a former employee suspected of stealing large amounts of confidential company data for personal use.
• A three day trial of a civil fraud claim concerning allegations of theft of WWII era military vehicles, in the County Court in Leeds.

Harry has extensive data protection and regulatory experience, and is regularly instructed to advice commercial enterprises and individuals on data protection matters.

He has extensive advocacy experience at High Court and county court level in a range of contractual, tortious and regulatory disputes. He has considerable experience of conducting strike out applications and other preliminary hearings, including CMCs, on behalf of clients.

Harry has experience in a range of competition matters, both acting along and assisting more senior members of chambers, including instructions as a junior barrister in a response to a CMA cartel investigation led by Ben Rayment and advising a local authority on the competition implications of suspected employee fraud. He is currently instructed in R (E.ON) v Secretary of State for BEIS and others [2023] EWHC 737, instructed by E.ON in judicial review proceedings arising from the sale of the insolvent energy company Bulb to Octopus Energy, concerning the Secretary of State’s decision to award subsidy valued by the OBR at up to £6.5bn to support the transfer of Bulb’s assets to Octopus, led by George Peretz KC. He remains instructed in the ongoing appeal of the Divisional Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal.

Harry has been instructed on behalf of Vodafone in relation to the “Phones4U” litigation, regarding alleged anti-competitive conduct by P4U’s major suppliers, and also acted for a part 20 Defendant with regards to the Power Cables cartel litigation.

In 2019, Harry completed a secondment at the Payment Systems Regulator assisting with the card-acquiring services market review. He was recently instructed by one of the Defendants in a claim by the University of Salford for voiding of an allegedly restrictive covenant in a lease.

Harry also worked on a wide range of competition law matters during pupillage, including Emerald Supplies and others v British Airways plc (assisting Philip Moser KC and Ben Rayment) and Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (assisting Ben Lask). Harry also assisted with a range of confidential advisory matters, including in respect of object and effect infringements in the financial sector and the applicability of the illegality defence in competition law actions.

Harry is currently instructed in R (E.ON) v Secretary of State for BEIS and others [2023] EWHC 737, instructed by E.ON in judicial review proceedings arising from the sale of the insolvent energy company Bulb to Octopus Energy, concerning the Secretary of State’s decision to award subsidy valued by the OBR at up to £6.5bn to support the transfer of Bulb’s assets to Octopus, led by George Peretz KC. He remains instructed in the ongoing appeal of the Divisional Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal, which raises important questions about the operation of the UK’s subsidy control system post-Brexit and compliance with the terms of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

Harry accepts instructions in relation to EU law and international law, and regularly advises private clients, NGOs and regulatory bodies on the interpretation of EU legislation. Instructions include advising on the possibility of an EU regulation for tackling human rights abuses in business supply chains and advising DEFRA on farming appeals. He was seconded to the FCO within a team dealing with consular aid to British nationals abroad and issues around diplomatic immunity and international organisations in the UK. Recently, he has been instructed to advise on the implications of Exxon Mobil’s challenge before the EU General Court to EU Council regulations providing for a ‘solidarity contribution’ on energy profits and on treaty making in respect of overseas territories.

Harry was instructed as sole counsel for the Claimant in two important test cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal on whether the jurisdictional scope of EU Regulation No 261/2004 (providing for compensation in case of delayed flights) conflicts with principles of customary international law and exceeds the EU’s legislative competence (Varano v Air Canada [2021] EWHC 1336 (QB)) and whether the same regulation should apply to connecting flights passing through the United Kingdom (Chelluri v Air India [2021] EWCA Civ 1953). These cases also raised importance points of principle and practice concerning extraterritorial effect and application of retained EU law following Brexit.

He has also been instructed on behalf of the government in a number of benefits and immigration related cases, including Secretary of State for the Home Department v Denis Viscu [2019] EWCA Civ 1052, led by Ben Lask, where the Court of Appeal decided that that the term “imprisonment” in the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 includes custodial sentences passed on minors and young offenders. He has recently assisted the Attorney General with issues around the drafting and implications of the Rwanda Bill, and previously assisted a number of MPs on potential amendments to the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Harry is regularly instructed information and data protection matters involving public authorities. He is currently instructed pro bono in a potential claim by a former special forces officer against the Ministry of Defence for unauthorised disclosure of his data in response to a freedom of information request, in breach of his data protection rights and threatening the safety of the officer and his family. He is also regularly instructed by the Information Commissioner in freedom of information matters before the tribunals.

Cases

Recent and former instructions include for the Commissioner include:

• Public Law Project v Information Commissioner: an appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerning the entitlement of the PLP to the Home Office’s forced marriage guidance.
• Williams v Information Commissioner [2023] UKUT 57 (AAC): an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on whether inquest proceedings fell within the ‘law enforcement’ exemption in section 31(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
• Amies on behalf of The Independent v Information Commissioner and His Majesty’s Treasury: an appeal to the FTT concerning a request for communications with US officials concerning the Prime Minister’s green card.
• Rhonnda Borough Counsel v Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 27 (GRC): an appeal to the FTT concerning data on disused coal tips in Wales.
• Greenwood v Information Commissioner and Department of Health and Social Care EA/2022/0030: Hary successfully defended the Commissioner’s decision that DHSC was not required to disclose details of businesses and individuals admitted to the Government’s high priority lane for PPE procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Cowan v Information Commissioner and Home Office: an appeal on whether the Home Office was entitled to refuse disclosure of information relating to small boat crossings from France.
• Austin v Information Commissioner and Metropolitan Police [2023] UKFTT 1082 (GRC): whether the Metropolitan Police were entitled to refuse disclosure of information relating to gifts given by a visiting foreign dignitary.
• NASUWT v Information Commissioner: an appeal to the FTT concerning a request for the Department for Education’s equality impact assessment for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• DWP v Information Commissioner: an appeal against the Commissioner’s decision in respect of information relating to the end of the £20 uplift to Universal Credit introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic.
• Tottenham Football Club v Information Commissioner: concerning requests by Tottenham Football club in respect of information relating to redevelopment of parts of North Tottenham by Haringey London Borough Council.
• Nockolds Solicitors v Information Commissioner, Civil Aviation Authority and Stansted Airport: an appeal arising from a request for information to the CAA.
• Gerhold v Information Commissioner and Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government EA/2020/0202 EA/2020/0300, where he successfully defended the Commissioner’s decision that MHCLG was not required to disclose minutes and other documents relating to the siting of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning
• Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Information Commissioner EA/2019/0200, where he successfully defended the Commissioner’s decision that the Trust should be required to disclose an external review into a contract for the provision of orthopaedic surgery.

He was instructed on an appeal to the UNHRC on the question of the compatibility of whole-life sentences with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, led by Piers Gardner. Harry is regularly instructed in cases concerned with discrimination in the provision of services under the Equality Act 2010.

In his first year of practice, Harry completed a secondment in the Bank of England’s EU Withdrawal Unit, where he gained extensive experience advising on Brexit-related issues in the financial sector.

Harry accepts instructions in VAT and customs matters, and has appeared for and against HMRC in the VAT Tribunal and county court. Most notably, he appears in Mid Ulster District Council (formerly Magherafelt District Council) v HMRC (TC/2011/687 & TC/2012/9253), led by Melanie Hall KC, in both the FTT and UT proceedings and the ongoing appeal to the Court of Appeal. This is a test case for Northern Ireland in which the District Council claimed that its supplies of sports, leisure and recreational services fell outside the scope of VAT on the basis that the making of those supplies does not comprise an economic activity.

Other instructions include:

• Acting for an industry body in a case relating to whether services provided should be classified as insurance intermediary services, led by Valentina Sloane KC.
• Assisting with advice on the signs and implications of missing trader fraud in a supply chain.
• Advising a sporting body on the VAT implications of a scheme to construct sporting facilities.
• Advising an educational body on whether it should be considered a college of a university for VAT purposes following the Supreme Court’s judgment in SAE Education Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKSC 14.

Cases

Harry has gained extensive procurement litigation experience on both the claimant and defendant sides, and has acted in an advisory capacity to a number of government clients.

Cases

His instructions include:

• Acting for the Ministry of Justice in Mitie v Ministry of Justice, a challenge to a procurement for HMCTS’ facilities maintenance contract, including in respect of a successful application to lift the automatic suspension (led by Sarah Hannaford KC and Ewan West).
• Advising a central government department on whether a multi-million pound procurement exercise had been properly carried out.
• Acting as sole counsel in a challenge to a procurement for window-cleaning services.
• Acting for the Ministry of Defence in Marine Specialised Technology Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence, a claim for substantial loss alleging breach of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011.
• Advising a government department on the territorial scope and application of the procurement regulations.

Harry has advocacy and advisory experience in insolvency matters. He has been instructed on a number of matters relating to winding up petitions, including applications to restrain, dismiss or rescind winding up petitions. His instructions includes successfully representing a company in an application to restrain and dismiss a winding up petition on the basis of a disputed debt, advising a company on potential liability to the directors under insolvency and tax legislation in the case of insolvency, and drafting submissions to establish a company as a creditor in an insolvency, led by William Buck. Harry has considerable experience of the winding up courts, and regularly assists in the London winding up courts as part of the Company Insolvency Pro Bono Scheme administered by City University.

Harry has extensive experience in data protection and freedom of information matters. He is regularly instructed by the Information Commissioner to draft responses in appeals under FOIA and EIR and represent the Commissioner in the Information Tribunal and by private clients, both claimant and defendant, in data protections claims.

Cases

His instructions include:

• Public Law Project v Information Commissioner: an appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerning the entitlement of the PLP to the Home Office’s forced marriage guidance.
• Williams v Information Commissioner [2023] UKUT 57 (AAC): an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on whether inquest proceedings fell within the ‘law enforcement’ exemption in section 31(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
• Amies on behalf of The Independent v Information Commissioner and His Majesty’s Treasury: an appeal to the FTT concerning a request for communications with US officials concerning the Prime Minister’s green card.
• Rhonnda Borough Counsel v Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 27 (GRC): an appeal to the FTT concerning data on disused coal tips in Wales.
• Greenwood v Information Commissioner and Department of Health and Social Care EA/2022/0030: Hary successfully defended the Commissioner’s decision that DHSC was not required to disclose details of businesses and individuals admitted to the Government’s high priority lane for PPE procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Cowan v Information Commissioner and Home Office: an appeal on whether the Home Office was entitled to refuse disclosure of information relating to small boat crossings from France.
• Austin v Information Commissioner and Metropolitan Police [2023] UKFTT 1082 (GRC): whether the Metropolitan Police were entitled to refuse disclosure of information relating to gifts given by a visiting foreign dignitary.
• NASUWT v Information Commissioner: an appeal to the FTT concerning a request for the Department for Education’s equality impact assessment for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• DWP v Information Commissioner: an appeal against the Commissioner’s decision in respect of information relating to the end of the £20 uplift to Universal Credit introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic.
• Tottenham Football Club v Information Commissioner: concerning requests by Tottenham Football club in respect of information relating to redevelopment of parts of North Tottenham by Haringey London Borough Council.
• Nockolds Solicitors v Information Commissioner, Civil Aviation Authority and Stansted Airport: an appeal arising from a request for information to the CAA.
• Gerhold v Information Commissioner and Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government EA/2020/0202 EA/2020/0300, where he successfully defended the Commissioner’s decision that MHCLG was not required to disclose minutes and other documents relating to the siting of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning
• Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Information Commissioner EA/2019/0200, where he successfully defended the Commissioner’s decision that the Trust should be required to disclose an external review into a contract for the provision of orthopaedic surgery.

In addition, Harry regularly represents both claimants and defendants in data protection matters in the High Court, County Court and Information Tribunal. Recent instructions include:

• Advising on a potential group action claim in respect of serious data breaches where a technology company was exposed to a cyber attack by a failure to remedy software vulnerabilities.
• Advising an individual on data protection breaches and a potential defamation claim where their information had been published and allegations made in connection with Russian sanctions on a YouTube channel and by various news and campaigning organisations.
• Representing the directors of a television production company before the First-tier Tribunal in a data protection dispute arising from a commercial dispute over the television show based on the ‘Horrid Henry’ books.
• Advising a former special forces officer on a potential claim against the Ministry of Defence for unauthorised disclosure of his data in response to a freedom of information request, in breach of his data protection rights and threatening the safety of the officer and his family.

Education

• BPTC, BPP London
• GDL, City University, London
• BA Classics, Magdalen College, Oxford (Double First)

Scholarship and prizes

• BPP Excellence Award
• Inner Temple Exhibition
• Magdalen College Demyship (Academic Scholarship)
• Goddard Classics Scholarship

Prior to coming to the Bar, Harry graduated from Magdalen College, Oxford, with a double first in Classics. He was a choral scholar at Oxford and still enjoys singing with choirs and operatic groups in London. Harry was also a finalist on University Challenge in 2015. After graduating, he worked as a researcher in Parliament with a particular focus on EU issues. He serves as an Army Reservist with the Honourable Artillery Company, and was previously chair of Human Rights Watch’s Young Professionals Network.

Up and Coming in Commercial Dispute Resolution: “Harry has a strong understanding of the commercial aspects and his overall case management is very strong.” “Harry Gillow provides sound, practical advice.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Rising Star in Fraud: Civil: “Harry is a very bright and able barrister who provides consistently first-rate support. His written work is of a very high standard, and he is an effective advocate.” – Legal 500, 2024