Tim Ward QC

Call 1994 || 2018 (Ireland) | Silk 2011
Education
BA, MA
Contact

+44 (0)20 7405 7211

Send email

Tim Ward QC, joint Head of Chambers, is widely recognised as a leading litigator and advocate in the fields of competition, telecommunications, public law and EU law. Legal directories list him as a leading individual in legal directories in each of those fields, and describe him as “a very adept and able strategist”, “a genuinely talented advocate with the intellectual firepower to deal with complex cases” , “responsive and always accessible,” “a persuasive advocate who gives everything to the cause” and a “natural choice for regulatory judicial review.”

Tim has particular expertise in commercial and regulatory matters, acting in disputes across the full range of regulated industries, including energy, water, telecoms, aviation, financial services, gambling and sport. His practice is increasingly international. He has appeared in more than 50 cases before the European Courts (including the EFTA Court) and has over 30 reported cases in the field of public law, including before the Supreme Court.

Prior to taking silk, Tim was a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel.

Tim sits as an adjudicator on the judicial panels of both the Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.

Tim was awarded ‘Barrister of the Year’ at The Lawyer Awards 2013 and was Chairman of the Bar European Group, 2013-2015.

He is a Bencher of Gray’s Inn.

  • Competition

    “He has lots of experience and is easy to work with. He is very flexible and brings new ideas to the party all the time.” – Chambers UK, 2017 and Chambers Global 2017

    “A persuasive advocate who gives everything to the cause; he fights his client’s corner hard.” – Legal 500, 2016

    “Praised by instructing solicitors as a “top-quality advocate, who is a real pleasure to work with”. – WHO’S WHO LEGAL (WWL) UK BAR 2016

    Tim is an experienced competition litigator, who has acted in the full breadth of competition matters. He appears frequently in the courts and Competition Appeal Tribunal in cases including cartel penalty appeals, competition damages actions (both follow on and standalone), injunction applications and claims for judicial review under the Enterprise Act 2002. He has also appeared before the Competition and Markets Authority and has experience in regard to applications for leniency and early resolution. Cases include:

    Damages:

    • Royal Mail v DAF (trucks).
    • Unlockd v Google (alleged abuse of dominant position).
    • Tesco Stores v MasterCard and Visa (interchange fees).
    • Iiyama Corp v Schott & Ors (CRT – territorial scope of EU competition law)
    • Emerald Supplies v British Airways (Air Cargo, acting for Korean Air).
    • Arriva v Luton Airport: standalone damages claim for abuse of dominant position.
    • Sony v AUO & Ors: (LCD screens).
    • National Grid v ABB: (Gas Insulated Switchgear).
    • WH Newson: (copper tubes and copper fittings).
    • WH Newson: follow-on cartel damages action (copper fittings).
    • Electrical Waste Recycling Group v Philips & Ors: stand alone competition law damages.
    • SEL Imperial v British Standards Institute stand alone claim concerning standard setting.

    Mergers and market reviews:

    • HCA v Competition and Markets Authority: challenge to healthcare market investigation.
    • Skyscanner v Competition and Markets Authority [2014] CAT 16: challenge to decision to accept commitments.
    • AC Neilson v Competition and Markets Authority [2014[ CAT 8: challenge to Phase I merger decision.
    • AkzoNobel NV v Competition Commission [2014] EWCA Civ 482: challenge to jurisdiction of the CC in respect of overseas mergers.
    • AC wGSN/Stylesight, 2014: merger clearance.
    • Barclays Bank v Competition Commission [2009] CAT 27: judicial review of Competition Commission’s report on payment protection insurance.
    • Tesco v Competition Commission [2009] CAT 6: judicial review of the planning remedy proposed by the Competition Commission as a result of its Groceries Market Investigation.

    Competition penalties:

    •  In re: penalty proceedings, 2018.
    • In re: penalty proceedings, 2017.
    • In re: pharmaceuticals , 2013.
    • Tesco v Office of Fair Trading, 2011: Chapter I penalty and retail pricing.
    • Re: a pharmaceutical company.
    • Sepia Logistics v OFT [2007] CAT 13: penalty for breach of Chapter I prohibition in construction sector.
    • Makers v OFT [2007] CAT 11: penalty for bid rigging contrary to Chapter I prohibition.
    • Healthcare at Home v Genzyme (2006):action for damages arising out of an infringement of the Chapter II prohibition.

    Examples of advisory work:

    • Airports charging regime.
    • Powers of a sports regulator.
    • Pharmaceuticals and competition damages.
    • Chapter II prohibition and water supply agreement.
    • Legality of long term contracts for a major utility.
    • Abuse of dominant position on behalf of an electricity generator.
    • State aids and utility licensing.
  • Telecommunications

    “From a client perspective he’s just fantastic.” – Chambers UK, 2019

    Has tremendous sector knowledge.” “He is really great to work with, highly approachable and very enthusiastic about cases.” – Chambers UK, 2018

    Counsel of choice for a variety of mobile and fixed-line telecoms operators. He draws upon his expertise in EU and public law to provide a comprehensive assessment of telecoms matters for clients … A very adept and able strategist who is decisive and who consistently delivers sound and forthright advice …A very accessible barrister, he is fantastic at getting into the detail and is very good in front of clients.” – Chambers UK, 2017

    An “outstanding track record of excellence” with a reputation for being “one of the leading figures in the industry.” – Who’s Who Legal UK Bar 2016

    Tim has been a market leader in telecommunications for many years. His practice draws upon a detailed knowledge of the industry and his strengths in competition law and public law. He has been instructed in most of the significant telecoms issues in the UK in the last decade, as well acting for a number of international clients. His litigation experience includes judicial reviews, appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, competition investigations and dispute resolution.

    Tim has acted for fixed, mobile and cable operators, a variety of broadcasters and (occasionally) for regulators, in matters such as those listed below.

    • Spectrum: Tim acted for Telefonica O2 in the successful defense of the judicial review claims brought by BT and Hutchison 3G, challenging Ofcom’s determination as to the rules of the forthcoming auction of 2.3 and 3.4 GHz spectrum. The claim was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in February 2018.
      Tim is currently acting for one of the parties in an overseas dispute over mobile spectrum.
      He has advised in respect of spectrum allocation for many years, addressing questions of due process, auction strategy, competition implications and various technical questions.
    • Satellite spectrum: Tim acted for Inmarsat in a challenge brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal by Viasat, concerning the use of spectrum for provision of broadband services for aviation. He also has experience in satellite spectrum, acting for Ofcom in R (Government of Bermuda) v Ofcom [2008] EWHC 2009 (Admin).
    • Competition investigations: Tim has acted in respect of competition investigations relating to telecoms in the UK and overseas.
    • License conditions: Tim has frequently acted in disputes concerning the terms of telecommunications licenses, both in the UK and overseas. He recently acted for an operator in the Caribbean on such an issue and a UK provider in a confidential matter of this kind i.
    • Non-geographic numbering: Tim acted for Vodafone and 02 in lengthy litigation over BT’s charging structure for non-geographic numbering: BT v Ofcom (2011 – 2016). Tim also acted for the regulator Payphone Plus in a judicial review challenge to concerning penalty action against a provider of premium rate services: R (Ordanduu and Optimus) v PhonepayPlus [2015] EWHC 50.
    • Market definition: Tim has advised on a number of occasions as to market definition issues which bear on charge control regulation. He acted for BT in support of Ofcom in a challenge to the definition of rural broadband markets: TalkTalk v Ofcom [2012] CAT 1.
    • Wholesale charge controls: Tim acted for BT in a series of challenges before the Competition Appeal Tribunal and Competition Commission concerning the conditions of access to BT’s copper wire network, and the terms of the charge controls which govern various wholesale products; eg BT v Ofcom [2011] CAT 24. Carphone Warehouse v Ofcom [2010] CAT 27 (local loop unbundling) Cable & Wireless v Ofcom [2011] CAT 23 (leased lines).
    • Mobile termination charges: Tim acted for Vodafone in successfully defending a challenge to its approach to mobile call termination charges [2012] CAT 28 and before the Court of Appeal in a successful appeal in a successful challenge to retrospective variation to mobile termination charges: Vodafone v Ofcom [2010] 3 All ER 1028.
    • Mobile roaming charges: Tim acted in the European Court of Justice for the UK Government, successfully defending the EU’s regulation of mobile phone roaming charges: C-58/08 Vodafone v Secretary of State, 2010.
    • Broadcasting: Tim acted for a major broadcaster in respect of TV distribution rights in 2018. He acted in litigation concerning the regulation of Sky pay TV content (BSkyB v Ofcom) and in a challenge to its channel numbering policy: JML v Freesat [2010] EWCA Civ 34. He has given advice on a wide range of broadcasting issues including sports rights, equal access and competition.
    • Number portability: Tim acted for Vodafone in a successful challenge to Ofcom’s policy governing number portability: Vodafone v Ofcom, [2008] CAT 12.
  • European law

    “The top EU lawyer in the set.” – Chambers UK, 2019

    Tim is a very adept and able strategist who is decisive and consistently delivers sound and forthright advice.” – Chambers UK, 2017

    A persuasive advocate who gives everything to the cause; he fights his client’s corner hard.” – Legal 500, 2016

    Tim has exceptionally broad experience of litigation and advocacy before the European Courts. He has wide experience of litigating EU law issues in the domestic courts including the Supreme Court, and has acted in a large number of references from the English courts to the CJEU. He has appeared in cases concerning sanctions, direct and indirect tax, telecoms, free movement, conflicts of laws, single market, external relations and the environment. He has acted in over 50 cases before the European Courts including the EFTA Court.

    Cases include:

    • R(Nouazli) v SSHD [2016] 1 WLR 1565: successful defence of Supreme Court appeal under EU law to free movement legislation.
    • R(Rosneft) v BIS, HMT and FCA: [2018] QB 1: successful defence of EU sanctions regime against Russia
    • Financial Services Compensation Scheme v Iceandic Deposit Guarantee Fund (2016): claim to recover “Icesave” deposits in the EFTA Court
    • C-202/13 McCarthy v Secretary of State: free movement of persons and Frontiers Protocol.
    • C-80/14 USDAW v Secretary of State, CA: collective redundancy.
    • E-16/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland: successfully defended the Icelandic Government against infraction proceedings in the EFTA Court arising out of failure of Icesave bank.
    • C-393/10 O’Brien: reference from Supreme Court regarding pension claims of part-time judges.
    • C-40/10 Commission v Parliament: challenge to increase in remuneration for EU officials.
    • Lekpo-Bozua v LB Hackney (2010) HLR 46: EU citizenship.
    • C-543/09 Deutsche Telekom: telephone directory services.
    • C-434/09 McCarthy: reference from Supreme Court concerning EU citizenship.
    • FA Premier League v QC Leisure (2009) 1 WLR 1603: import of set top boxes from within the EU and use by English pubs.
    • C-428/08 United Kingdom v Council: challenge to validity of EU anti-terrorism legislation.
    • C-127/08 Metock: rights of third country nationals.
    • C-175/08 Abdullah: compatibility of EU legislation with international human rights law.
    • C-58/08 O2, Vodafone v Secretary of State: mobile phone roaming charges.
    • Jeleniewicz v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 1163: free movement of persons.
    • C-485/07 Akdas: interpretation of treaty governing EU external relations.
    • T-257/07 France v Commission: validity of BSE regulations.
    • C-350/06 Stringer: reference from the Supreme Court concerning working time.
    • C-475/05 Banca Popolare di Cremona: direct tax and prospective temporal limitation.
    • C-432/05 Unibet: test for grant of interim relief in national courts.
    • C-298/05 Columbus Container Services: effect of double taxation convention.
    • C-101/05 A: restrictions on free movement of capital between the EU and third countries.
    • C-491/01 R(British American Tobacco) v Secretary of State: validity of tobacco control directive.
    • R(Factortame) v Secretary of State for Transport: damages for breach of EU law.
  • Public Law

    A really good advocate, good w and really knows the law.” – Chambers UK, 2018.

    ‘‘A natural choice for regulatory judicial review.’’ – Legal 500. 2017

    A genuinely talented advocate with the intellectual firepower to deal with complex cases. He delivers attractive and easily understood submissions.” – Chambers UK, 2017

    Tim’s public law practice is predominantly concerned with commercial, European, and regulatory challenges, including tax matters. He has, however, acted in almost every conceivable kind of public matter in both domestic and in the CJEU and ECtHR. He has particular expertise in cases where public law and EU law overlap.

    Cases include:

    • R(Chiltern Farm Chemicals) v HSE [2018] 1 WLR 3144, CA: successful appeal re: EU pesticides regulation.
    • R(Nouazli) v SSHD [2016] 1 WLR 1565: successful defence of Supreme Court appeal under EU law to free movement legislation.
    • R(Rosneft) v BIS, HMT and FCA: [2018] QB 1: successful defence of EU sanctions regime against Russia
    • Re: Quality Contracts Scheme (2015): successful challenge to proposed model of bus regulation .
    • R(Ordanduu and Optimus) v PhonepayPlus [2015] EWHC 50 Admin : premium rate phone service regulation.
    • AkzoNobel NV v Competition Commission [2015] 1 All ER 693 CA: judicial review of merger decision.
    • R(Drax Power) v Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 1153: challenge to renewable energy regime.
    • HCA v Competition and Markets Authority (2014): challenge to healthcare market investigation.
    • Skyscanner v Competition and Markets Authority [2014] CAT 16: challenge to decision to accept commitments.
    • AC Neilson v Competition and Markets Authority [2014] CAT 8: challenge to Phase I merger decision.
    • London Welsh v RFU (2012): acted on the Panel determining appeal by London Welsh against refusal of promotion on competition grounds.
    • R(Shoesmith) v Ofsted & Ors, (2011) ICR 1195: procedural fairness of inspection of Children’s Services.
    • R(Global Knafaim) v BAA and CAA, (2011) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 324: legality of detention of aircraft for unpaid charges.
    • Boots v HMRC (2010) STC 657: legal consequences of mistaken repayment.
    • Langley v Preston Crown Court (2009) 1 WLR 1612: scope of right of appeal and of judicial review.
    • X v Switzerland (2009): ECtHR challenge to Swiss financial services regulation and mutual assistance.
    • Gallagher v Church of Latter Day Saints [2008] UKHL 56, (2008) 1 WLR 1852: challenge to tax on grounds of religious discrimination, now before ECtHR.
    • R(Government of Bermuda) v Ofcom [2008] EWHC 2009 (Admin): judicial review concerning allocation of satellite spectrum.
    • R(Couronne) v Crawley BC (2008) 1 WLR 2762: rights of Chagos Islanders.
    • R(Federation of Tour Operators) v HM Treasury, (2008) STC 2524: human rights and EC law challenge to increase in Air Passenger Duty.
    • R(EISAI) and Alzheimer’s Association v NICE (2007) BMLR 70: challenge to regulation of availability of Alzheimer’s drugs.
    • R(British Casino Association) v Secretary of State [2007] EWHC 1312 (Admin): challenge to new gambling legislation.
    • TH v Secretary of State (2007) 1 WLR 1670: susceptibility of decision to judicial review.
    • Farley v Child Support Agency [2006] UKHL 1; (2006) 1 WLR 817: scope of statutory immunity from challenge.
    • R (Corporation of London) v Secretary of State [2006] UKHL 30; (2006) 1 WLR 1721: scope of statutory powers.
    • R(AN) v Secretary of State (2006) QB 468: civil standard of proof.
    • Han & Yau v HMRC (2001) 1 WLR 2253: regulatory penalties and human rights.
    • R(North and East Devon HA) v Coughlan (2001) QB 213: substantive legitimate expectation.

     

  • What the Directories Say

    Administrative & Public Law: “He is easy to work with; his advocacy is very clear and he has good judgement. He gets on well with clients.” “Direct, sensible, and a good team player who treats the team he’s working with as his intellectual equals. He’s shrewd and capable.” – Chambers UK, 2019

    Competition Law: “He gets down to the nub of the case very quickly, giving clear and concise advice, and communicating in a clear and simple way. His advocacy is also excellent.” – Chambers UK, 2019

    European Law: “The top EU lawyer in the set.”  – Chambers UK, 2019

    Telecommunications: “Really smart, level-headed and pragmatic. He is down to earth and his advice is always very much grounded in practical considerations.” “He immediately spots good points and he works in a very user-friendly manner.” “From a client perspective he’s just fantastic.” – Chambers UK, 2019

    Leading silk in Administrative and public law (including local government): ‘‘He is fantastic, a persuasive advocate, and connects easily and effectively with clients.’’Legal 500, 2018

    Leading silk in Competition: ‘‘The best competition silk in the business; always responsive, on top of the detail and extremely user friendly – a fantastic team player.’’Legal 500, 2018

    Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘Fantastic – clever, hard-working and not afraid to get his hands dirty digging into the detail.’’Legal 500. 2018

    Leading silk in Telecoms (regulatory): ‘‘He is a persuasive advocate and connects easily and effectively with clients.’’Legal 500. 2018

    Administrative & Public Law: “A really good advocate, good with clients and really knows the law.” “He has excellent judgement and is a great team player.”Chambers UK, 2018

    Competition Law: “He offers a good balance of analytical and commercial skills, and has a clear and economical advocacy style.”Chambers UK, 2018

    European Law: “Ward is very down-to-earth, straightforward and the court trusts him.”Chambers UK, 2018

    Telecommunications: “Has tremendous sector knowledge.” “He is really great to work with, highly approachable and very enthusiastic about cases.”Chambers UK, 2018

    Leading silk in Administrative and public law (including local government): ‘‘A natural choice for regulatory judicial review.’’Legal 500. 2017

    Leading silk in Competition: ‘‘Hardworking, accessible and not afraid to get into the detail.’’Legal 500. 2017

    Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘A terrific counsel and a persuasive advocate.’’Legal 500. 2017

    Leading silk in Telecoms (regulatory): ‘‘A very clear advocate, who is good on technical points of law.’’Legal 500. 2017

    Administrative & Public Law: “A genuinely talented advocate with the intellectual firepower to deal with complex cases. He delivers attractive and easily understood submissions. Even when arguments are technical or dull, he brings them to life.” “Excellent judgement and a great team player.” – Chambers UK, 2017

    Competition Law: “He has lots of experience and is easy to work with. He is very flexible and brings new ideas to the party all the time.”Chambers UK, 2017

    European Law: “Tim is a very adept and able strategist who is decisive and consistently delivers sound and forthright advice.”Chambers UK, 2017

    Telecommunications: “A very adept and able strategist who is decisive and who consistently delivers sound and forthright advice.” “A very accessible barrister, he is fantastic at getting into the detail and is very good in front of clients.”Chambers UK, 2017

    Leading silk in Administrative and public law: “He has excellent judgement and is a great team player.”Legal 500, 2016

    Leading silk in EU and Competition: “A persuasive advocate who gives everything to the cause; he fights his client’s corner hard.” – Legal 500, 2016

    Leading silk in Telecoms (regulatory) Tim has a “combined strength in public law and telecoms cases.”Legal 500, 2016

    Competition Law (The Bar) – UK: “He is extremely responsive and always accessible. It is clear that he works very hard.” –  Chambers Global, 2016

    Competition: Praised by instructing solicitors as a “top-quality advocate, who is a real pleasure to work with”.WHO’S WHO LEGAL (WWL) UK BAR 2016

    Telecommunications:  An “outstanding track record of excellence” with a reputation for being “one of the leading figures in the industry.”WHO’S WHO LEGAL (WWL) UK BAR 2016

    ‘‘Excellent in his understanding of procedure and how a matter is likely to play out.’’ Tim Ward was ranked by Legal 500, 2015 in Administrative and Public Law, EU and Competition Law and Telecoms Law as a Leading Silk.

    Administrative & Public Law: “He is exceptional. He has a very good manner with clients and is passionate and enthusiastic. He is excellent at distilling a morass of information down to the nub of the issue.” “A first choice for work concerning the crossover between public and competition law.”Chambers UK, 2015

    Competition Law: “He is incredibly quick and someone who gets to the point.” “Very approachable, accessible and hands-on, he’s both a sensible and a persuasive advocate.”Chambers UK & Chambers Global, 2015

    European Law: “He is fantastic and definitely one of my top choices for EU law.” “Approachable, accessible, sensible, hands-on and a persuasive advocate.”Chambers UK, 2015

    Telecommunications: “I use him on cases which raise a public law issue – he’s a very strong juridical review lawyer.”Chambers UK, 2015

    ‘Excels in commercial judicial reviews.’  is listed as a leading Silk in Public & Administrative Law. Legal 500, 2014

    ‘Quick minded, experienced and presents well in court.’  is listed as a leading Silk in EU & Competition Law . Legal 500, 2014

    Under Administrative & Public: “A bright and attractive advocate who has the ability to galvanise the interest of the court.” “He is immensely intelligent, hard-working and knowledgeable.” Chambers UK, 2014

    Under Competition Law: “He is excellent at thinking four or five steps ahead of the process.” “He inspires great confidence in clients – his advice is commercial and to the point.” Chambers UK, 2014

    Under European Law: Praised for his effective litigation skills, he is viewed by peers as a formidable opponent when it comes to EU cases. He is often sought out by clients faced with complex and contentious cases, and has particular experience of appearing before the EFTA and ECJ. “He is very good at finding the right balance between being technical and practical.” “He is very pragmatic and gives high-quality advice.” Chambers UK, 2014

    Under Telecommunications Law: His telecoms expertise stems from his in-depth knowledge of public and European law. “Known for the clarity of his submissions and the precision of his mind.” Chambers UK, 2014

    “The ‘bright and capable’ Tim Ward QC“, is listed as a leading Silk in EU & Competition Law and Public & Administrative Law. Legal 500, 2013

    Competition / European Law: “Sources comment that he “addresses issues from all angles and instils immediate confidence in clients.” His “excellent pragmatic advice” is much valued by instructing solicitors.” Chambers UK, 2013

    Under Administrative and Public: “He is “a go-to silk for regulatory-based judicial review,” according to the market.” Chambers UK, 2013

    “Interviewees agree that the “first-class” Tim Ward QC well deserved his promotion to silk. He has lately acted for Vodafone in a successful challenge to the jurisdiction of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and also successfully handled a judicial review for ShopDirect in a challenge to the Competition Commission’s findings on payment protection.” – Chambers UK, 2012

    Competition/European Law: “Tim Ward QC is seen as a “class operator” by those that use him. He was instructed by Freesat in BSkyB & Others v Ofcom, a dispute as to wholesale access to Sky’s premium sports channels. – Chambers UK, 2012

    Telecommunications: Winning “strong market approval … new silk Tim Ward QC, who is “calm, measured and plays his hand well.”  recently defended the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform in an ECJ challenge by Vodafone and O2 to the validity of the EU-wide roaming regulation, which imposes a cap on the prices mobile telephone operators can charge for cross-border services”. – Chambers UK, 2012

    Tim Ward QC is a recommended leading silk in Public & Administrative Law. Legal 500, 2011

    New silk Tim Ward QC is recommended in Civil liberties and human rights (including public inquiry law and actions against the police). Legal 500, 2011

    EU & Competition Law recommend Tim Ward QC as a leading silk. Legal 500, 2011

    “Sources speak highly of Tim Ward as an “excellent pure public lawyer.” He has been attracting attention on a number of significant judicial reviews challenges, including acting for Ofsted in the Sharon Shoesmith judicial review and for BAA in a challenge to the exercise of power to detain aircraft for non-payment of airport charges.” Public & Administrative Law, Chambers UK, 2011

    Under Telecommunications Law Tim Ward is recognised as” “a coherent and well-reasoned advocate.” He impressed with his work for the Secretary of State on the roaming charges case, Vodafone & O2 v Secretary of State” – Chambers UK, 2011

    Recommended in Chambers UK, 2011 “Tim Ward practises both competition and EU law to a high standard. His “solid performances and carefully considered advocacy” ensure he maintains a good profile in both areas. His recent sorties include appearing for ASDA in a judicial review before the CAT.”

  • Publications

    His publications include three books: Competition Litigation in the UK (with Kassie Smith, Sweet & Maxwell 2005), Judicial Review and the Human Rights Act (2000) and The Strasbourg Case Law – Leading Cases from the European Human Rights Reports (2001). He is Editor in Chief of the Human Rights Law Reports – UK Cases (Sweet & Maxwell) and Contributor to The European Union Law of Competition (Bellamy & Child).

  • Additional Information

    Education / Prizes

    BA, MA

    Tim was awarded ‘Barrister of the Year’ at The Lawyer Awards 2013, details of which can be viewed here.

    Professional Memberships

    Tim was elected as Chairman of the Bar European Group, 2013-2015.

    In 2013, Tim was appointed to the Rugby Football Union panel to sit as an adjudicator hearing appeals concerning competition issues. In 2018 he was appointed to the Football Association judicial panel.

Add to portfolio View portfolio