Dr Tim Sampson

Tim is regularly instructed in a broad range of commercial disputes spanning the full spectrum of contractual, business and financial disputes with particular expertise in construction disputes, all types of intellectual property and data protection matters – before the High Court or in arbitrations under AAA and LCIA rules.

Tim is known for his sharp and commercial acumen, he is valued by clients for providing clear and strategic advice. He has a formidable courtroom presence and is noted for his incisive cross-examination and persuasive advocacy both written and oral.

In addition, Tim lectures and writes on all his specialist areas of legal practice and for a number of years taught on professional training courses run by BPP University, as well as providing Expert content for LexisNexis. He is also the current editor of Chapter 14 (Appeals) of CITMA’s EU Trade Mark Handbook.

Out of Chambers, Tim can be found on the ski slopes or cooking up a storm in his kitchen or on the bbq. He also enjoys rowing, having rowed for his college first VIII at Durham and May and Lent VIIIs Cambridge and raced at HRR a number of times, climbing and classical music.

Commercial Disputes and Regulatory

Tim acts in a very wide variety commercial cases, with particular expertise in disputes including claims for breach of contract, bank development loan repayment, insolvency matters, debt recovery and third-party guarantee enforcement proceedings, breaches of environmental regulations and claims under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – in particular in relation to caravan sales / pitch agreements. He has considerable experience in relation to recovering monies paid by investors into sham ‘collective investment schemes’ for building plots / allotments and subject to regulation under s.235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Construction and Technology

Tim regularly acts in complex construction disputes often with significant technical or expert evidential issues – including adjudications (both under the Scheme for Construction Adjudications and ad hoc rules) and High Court TCC enforcement proceedings, as well as leading in recent appeals to the Court of Appeal. He also advises in respect of such claims and related matters such as dilapidations. Tim also has substantial experience in relation to domestic building disputes, with a particular emphasis on dealing with such cases through mediation or other forms of ADR.

Intellectual Property, Defamation and Data Protection

Tim has a successful intellectual property practice including copyright, patents, design rights / registered deigns and trademarks / passing. As well as acting in defamation (including claims for malicious falsehood) and data protection claims. He is instructed in all aspects of contentious and non-contentious UK and European intellectual property law and data protection regulation and regularly represents clients in the Trade Marks Office, Chancery Division of the High Court, and IPEC on such matters, as well as conducting international arbitration claims under both AAA and LCIA rules. He was also instructed in both the CA and the Supreme Court in its seminal judgment on accessory liability and accounts of profit in Ahmed v Lifestyle.

Qualifications

Durham University – Bsc (Hons) Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
University of Cambridge PhD in Biochemistry

Languages

Basic Spanish

Memberships

Called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn (March 2000)
Society of Construction Law
Chancery Bar Association

“Thanks for recommending Dr Tim, he prepared some wonderful particulars in a construction dispute and a nice guy too!”

Instructing Solicitor

Commercial

General Commercial Litigation:

Bewlay & Others v Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd. (KB-2023-003366): Tim was instructed on behalf of a number of caravan owners, who were challenging the enforceability of certain contractual terms of their pitch licences, on the basis that those terms were incompatible with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. All claims were settled following the intervention of the Competition and Markets Authority.

Brown & Brown v Royal Bank of Scotland (Claim No.HQ14X01249) – instructed by the Claimants in respect of a multi-million pound claim for damages against the bank in respect of an alleged breach of contract to provide a commercial purchase and redevelopment loan. At first instance successfully resisting an application for Summary Judgment brought by RBS and then negotiated a settlement at the outset of the 5 day trial listed in the QB Division;

Bank Mellat v. Sec. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (CO / 1733 / 2014) – instructed by Bank Mellat (led by Aidan Robertson QC) in respect of an application for Judicial Review of the Bank’s claim that the FCO is acting contrary to the rule of law in not complying with the substance of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat (No.2) 2013.

Vincent Tchengiuz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (2013 / 2014) – instructed to work with the disclosure team (using the EPIC system)in relation to the JR proceedings brought by Mr Tchenguiz against the SFO.

Euro Palace v British Gas Business Services Limited (before Simon J. High Court QB Division 2011) – representing the Applicant at a hearing for an emergency injunction to restore power to it supermarket which had been disconnected causing the shop’s refrigeration systems to shut down.

McClean v Mangat & Walia – Petition No.: 8130 of 2003 (High Court – Companies Court (2011 hearing)) before Mr Nicholas Strauss QC sitting as a deputy judge of the HC: representing the Claimant in a two day trial in respect of his allegation of “unfairly prejudicial conduct” (s.459 of the ) Companies Act) based upon revenue stripping by the two respondent directors and then to determine the appropriate valuation of his 25% shareholding.

Haddad v The University of Bradford (before HHJ Spencer QC – sitting at the Bradford CC 2010) representing the Claimant in his claim that the course content, supervision and facilities provided by the Defendant during the course of his PhD studentship failed to meet the requirements of his funding body (in effect the Iranian Government) and this amounted to a breach of contract – the claim was rejected and the Court of Appeal refused permission to Appeal.

Insolvency:

Andrew Pinnell v Asad Ali Meerza (High Court Chancery Div. Case No. 936 of 2010) drafting the grounds of appeal and appeal skeleton in respect of an appeal from Registrar Baister giving the Respondents the unfettered permission under s.285 of the Insolvency Act to continue proceedings against the Appellant.

In the matter of HH&P Thirty Eight Limited (Petition No. 1452 of 2011 – before Registrar Nicholls Chancery Div. (Companies Court) representing the Petitioner at an application brought under ss. 98 and 166 of the Insolvency Act 1986;

Re Dorset House (Claim Lon / OOBK / LSC/2011/0620 and LAM / 2011 / 0019) before the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal 2011 / 2012; instructed on behalf of the liquidators of the freehold company (as junior counsel) who were seeking to recover circa £2.5 million in service charge arrears to discharge debts to the construction company who had installed a new hearting / water system into the block of over 100 flats.