Jack practises across all Chambers’ specialisms, with a particular focus on competition law, procurement law, and public law. He has been instructed in significant cases at all judicial levels:
- Competition law: Jack acts for the applicants in two major abuse of dominance cases before the General Court, T-286/09 RENV Intel v Commission and T-334/19 Google v Commission (Adsense). He was the respondent’s counsel in the UK’s first opt-out class action case, Gibson v Pride  CAT 9. He also acted for the FCA in its first competition enforcement decision (asset management).
- Procurement law: Jack has been instructed on both claimant and defendant sides in major procurement litigation. For example, he acted for Eurotunnel in relation to its expedited procurement and state aid law challenges to the award of Brexit ferry contracts (Eurotunnel v Secretary of State for Transport  EWHC 419 (TCC)), and is instructed by Arriva in relation to the rail franchising litigation (appearing both at High Court and Court of Appeal levels:  EWHC 2047 (TCC),  EWHC 2922 (TCC) and  EWCA Civ 2259).
- Public law: Notable reported cases include R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union  UKSC 5, where Jack acted for one of the interested parties in the Article 50 litigation at both Divisional Court and Supreme Court levels). He is a co-editor (with Professors Mark Elliott and Alison Young) of a collection entitled: “The UK Constitution after Miller: Brexit and Beyond”. Before qualifying as a Barrister, Jack was a College Lecturer at Brasenose College (University of Oxford) where he taught Administrative Law and Constitutional Law.
Jack is a graduate from the University of Oxford (Hertford College) with a Distinction in the BCL masters in Law (ranked 2nd in the year). Before that, he graduated from the University of Cambridge (St Catharine’s College) with a First Class Degree in Law. Jack was awarded University prizes for coming top of the year in Administrative Law (Cambridge), Labour (Employment) Law (Cambridge), and Comparative Public Law (Oxford).
Jack is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel, enabling him to undertake civil and EU work for all government departments.
Jack’s clients include both authorities (including the CMA and the FCA) and private multi- national companies.
Jack has particular expertise and interest in class actions, having represented the represented in Gibson v Pride Mobility Products Ltd  CAT 9 and having written two leading articles on the new opt-out class action regime in UK competition law (see publications below).
More generally, he has advised on a range of competition law matters, including:
- Abuse of dominance (both UK and EU)
- Agency issues
- Anti-competitive agreements (both UK and EU)
- Class actions
- Consumer protection legislation
- European Commission investigations
- Fines and penalty calculations
- Information exchanges
- Jurisdictional disputes
- Service out of jurisdiction
- Single economic entity doctrine
- State Aid
- Territorial jurisdiction
Significant matters include:
- Dorothy Gibson v Pride Mobility Products Ltd  CAT 9: Jack was junior counsel for the respondent in the first “opt-out” class action competition proceedings brought under the new UK private damages regime introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. More information is available here and here.
- T-286/09 RENV – Intel Corporation v Commission: instructed by Intel in relation to the remittal of its application to the General Court following Intel’s successful appeal to the CJEU concerning alleged infringements of Article 102 (abuse of dominance).
- T-334/19 – Google LLC v Commission: instructed by Google in relation to Google’s appeal against the European Commission’s Decision concerning Google’s search and advertising services (Adsense).
- Viagogo AG v Competition and Markets Authority  EWHC 1706 (Ch): Jack acted for the CMA in relation to its secondary ticket market enforcement action against viagogo, including matters relating to service out of jurisdiction and alternative method of service. More information is available here. This included acting for the CMA in relation to viagogo’s application or a declaration that it was complying with certain clauses in the consent enforcement order arising out of the enforcement action.
- The FCA: instructed by the FCA in relation to its first decision under its competition enforcement powers. More information is available here.
- 13 Mar 2020Daniel Beard QC and Jack Williams appear for Intel in General Court
- 17 Apr 2019Paul Harris QC leads for claimants in Merricks v Mastercard: Collective proceedings in competition law revitalised by Court of Appeal
- 25 Feb 2019FCA issues its first decision under competition law
- 27 Nov 2018CMA secures final enforcement order against viagogo
Jack has been instructed on both claimant and defendant sides in major procurement litigation.
Jack also has experience of mediation in procurement dispute contexts, and has oral advocacy experience in the TCC. He has frequently advised on the formation of confidentiality rings and various interlocutory matters.
- Bombardier Transportation Ltd v Merseytravel – Jack was instructed by the defendant to defend a damages claim in relation to contracts for the design, build and maintenance of rolling stock and the modernisation of maintenance depots.
- CAF v High Speed 2  EWHC 311 (TCC) – Jack was instructed by the claimant to challenge the pre-qualification stage of the procurement for the provision of rolling stock and associated services for the new high-speed railway known as HS2.
- Marston v Ministry of Justice  EWHC 3168 (TCC) – Jack was instructed by the defendant in response to a claim against an award decision in respect of contracts for the delivery of approved enforcement agency services.
- Serco v Ministry of Defence – Jack was instructed by the defendant in response procurement challenge relating to defence fire and rescue project.
- Eurotunnel v Secretary of State for Transport  EWHC 419 (TCC) – Jack was instructed by Eurotunnel in relation to its (expedited) procurement and state aid law challenges to the award of Brexit ferry contracts. More information is available here.
- Medequip v Staffordshire County Council and Wiltshire County Council – Jack was instructed by Medequip in relation to its claims against two authorities concerning manifest errors of assessment and abnormally low tender allegations.
- Arriva Rail East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport  EWHC 2047 (TCC),  EWHC 2922 (TCC) and  EWCA Civ 2259 – Jack is instructed by the claimant in respect of its procurement challenge in relation to the operation of the East Midlands Franchise. This included representing Arriva before the Court of Appeal: more information is available here.
- Public law (UK and EU)
Due to his academic and teaching background, Jack has experience and expertise beyond his date of Call in a range of public law matters (in both UK and EU law). He has already been instructed in high profile public law litigation.
Jack has advised both public and private clients on a range of constitutional matters arising out of Brexit, including in relation to: the Article 50 process, the EU Withdrawal Act, nationalising (or on-shoring) the acquis, the use of the royal prerogative, acquired EU rights, and the Withdrawal Agreement. Jack has spoken about these, and related, topics at various events. He is the co-editor of a book on the constitutional implications of the Miller judgment (with Professor Mark Elliott and Professor Alison Young): available here.
Since the EU Referendum outcome, Jack has experience of advising on international trade options and WTO law, with a particular focus on GATS and financial services post Brexit (including topics such as: FTAs under Article V GATS, dispute settlement mechanisms, GATS Schedules of Commitments, mutual recognition agreements under Article VII GATS, the prudential carve out in the Financial Services Annex to GATS, and the jurisdiction of the ECJ in relation to international agreements).
Jack is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel, enabling him to undertake civil and EU work for all government departments.
Jack has also undertaken a traineeship at the Court of Justice of the European Union with Judge Vajda (British Judge), and a six-month secondment in the Bank of England’s Legal Directorate’s EU Withdrawal Unit. Whilst a stagiaire at the Court of Justice of European Union, Jack worked on cases including: Kadi II (the effect of European procedural rights), Pringle (the validity of the European Stability Mechanism), Abdulrahim (continuing interest to bring an action for annulment), and Inuit I (the definition of regulatory acts in Article 263 TFEU for the purposes of standing).
- R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union  UKSC 5 – junior counsel for one of the Interested Parties (Pigney and others: “The People’s Challenge”) in the Article 50 Brexit litigation at both Divisional Court and Supreme Court levels. The case concerned whether Parliamentary involvement was necessary to trigger any UK withdrawal from the EU or if mere use of executive power (under any subsisting prerogative power) was sufficient. More information is available here.
- AI and XH v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1898 (Admin) – junior counsel for one of the Claimants (AI) at the Divisional Court level in his judicial review concerning whether the royal prerogative to withdraw a British Citizen’s passport had been abrogated by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 or was lawfully exercised in any event. More information is available here.
- BAT Industries Plc (and others) v HMRC  UKFTT 558 (TC) – Jack was junior counsel for HMRC, successfully defending a challenge under EU, ECHR and domestic common law to the provisions of Part 8C (“the restitution interest provisions”) of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 before the First-tier Tribunal. More information is available here. Jack is instructed by HMRC in BAT’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
- Commercial and regulatory law
The great majority of Jack’s work includes a commercial and regulatory element. In particular, Jack’s competition law, procurement law and sports law practices involve a considerable amount of commercial and contractual analysis.
Jack has oral advocacy experience before the County Court, the First Tier Tax Tribunal, and the High Court. He has represented clients at CMCs, and in relation to: applications for strike out, to rectify misstatements on the Companies House register, and to extend time for the registration of charges at Companies House. He has also represented British Airways before the County Court to defend a claim concerning an EU-derived right to compensation arising out of a delayed flight (Regulation No 261/2004).
He has also sat as an Arbitrator, appointed by Ofwat, in a dispute under the Water Industry Act 1991, and has advised on the Arbitration Act 1996.
Jack has advised and assisted on a range of sports matters, particularly in a football context. He has advised and represented national sports governing bodies, clubs and private individuals in relation to:
- agent fees
- arbitration proceedings (particularly Rule K arbitrations)
- British Rowing disciplinary proceedings
- contractual disputes
- employment rights
- FA disciplinary proceedings
- fraud and unlawful means conspiracy allegations
- intermediary activities
- player transfers
- representation agreements (including with minors)
- safeguarding matters
- settlement agreements
- sponsorship agreements
- stay applications
- strike out applications
Jack has experience in front of a variety of forums including disciplinary and arbitral panels and the High Court.
- Academic background
- Dover Grammar School for Boys, 2002 – 2009
- First Class Degree in Law – University of Cambridge, 2012
- Distinction in the BCL (Masters in Law) – University of Oxford, 2014
- Outstanding in the BPTC – BPP University, 2015
Awards and prizes
Bar Professional Training Course: BPP & Gray’s Inn
- Arden Scholarship (Gray’s Inn), 2015
- Bedingfield Scholarship (Gray’s Inn), 2014
- Residential Scholarship (Gray’s Inn), 2014
- Excellence Award (BPP), 2014
Postgraduate: Oxford University, 2014
- Vinerian Proxime Accessit Scholarship, 2014 (for coming overall 2nd in the year)
- The University’s Prize for Comparative Public Law, 2014 (for coming top in the year)
Undergraduate: Cambridge University
- The University’s ‘Littleton Chambers Prize for Labour Law’, 2012 (for coming top in the year)
- The University’s ‘E.C.S Wade Prize for Administrative Law’, 2011 (for coming top in the year)
- Ms Payne (1610) Scholarship, 2012
- The College’s ‘Adderley Prize for Law’, 2012
- The College’s ‘Lauterpacht Prize for International Law’, 2011
- The College’s ‘Simmons and Simmons Prize for Constitutional Law’, 2010
- Gooderson Memorial Scholarship, 2013
- The UK Constitution after Miller: Brexit and Beyond (M Elliott, J Williams and A Young eds) (Hart, 2018) (available here)
- “The Miller tale: an introduction” in The UK Constitution after Miller: Brexit and Beyond (M Elliott, J Williams and A Young eds) (Hart, 2018)
- “Prerogative Powers After Miller: An Analysis in Four E’s” in The UK Constitution after Miller: Brexit and Beyond (M Elliott, J Williams and A Young eds) (Hart, 2018)
- “Proportionality in English Administrative Law” in The Judge and the Proportionate Use of Discretion: A Comparative Administrative Law Study (Sofia Ranchordás and Boudewijn de Waard eds) (Routledge, 2015)
- “A priceless victory for consumers: the Court of Appeal revitalises competition law’s collective actions: Merricks v Mastercard  EWCA Civ 674” (2019) 38(3) Civil Justice Quarterly, 327-337
- “Some things money cannot buy – lessons learned from the latest judgment under the UK’s new regime for collective competition law claims: Merricks v Mastercard Inc” (2018) 37(1) Civil Justice Quarterly 48-61
- “Brexit and EU Sports Law” Global Sports and Taxation Reports (No 1, March 2017)
- “The protean principle of proportionality: how different is proportionality in EU contexts?”, (2016) 75(2) Cambridge Law Journal 186
- “‘Well, that’s a relief (from sanctions)!’ —Time to Pause and Take Stock of CPR r.3.9 Developments within a General Theory of Case Management”, (2014) 33(4) Civil Justice Quarterly 394
December 10, 2018
- “Does Wightman mean that Miller was decided incorrectly?” (Monckton Chambers Brexit Blog)
- “Case Note on Webster: Article 50 decision validly taken” (Monckton Chambers Brexit Blog)
- “Procurement after Brexit: the UK and the GPA” (Monckton Chambers Brexit Blog)
- “Miller and the Human Rights Act 1998: can the Government withdraw the UK from the ECHR by the royal prerogative?”, (2017) Practical Law’s Public Sector Blog
- “The Supreme Court’s approach to prerogative powers in Miller: an analysis in four e’s”, (2017) UK Constitutional Law Blog