People

Dr Tim Sampson

Head of Construction

Tim regularly acts in complex construction disputes often with significant technical or expert evidential issues – including adjudications (both under the Scheme for Construction Adjudication and under ad hoc rules) and High Court TCC enforcement proceedings, as well as leading in recent appeals to the Court of Appeal: PBS Bester AS v Bester Generation UK Ltd [202] EWCA 404; Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2695: [2019] Bus. L.R. [2019] B.L.R. 99; 182 Con. L.R. 38 | [2019]; C.I.L.L. 4249: and Brown & Brown v Complete Building Solutions Ltd. [2016] EWCA Civ 1; [2016] B.L.R. 98; [2016] 164 Con. L.R. 21. Tim also has substantial experience in relation to domestic building disputes, with a particular emphasis on dealing with such cases through mediation or ADR. Tim became head of Lamb Chambers’ construction group in January 2020.

Tim also has a very successful intellectual property practise which  covers all aspects of UK and European intellectual property law (copyrights: Davies v Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club (1986) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1252 (Ch), trademarks and brand rights: Asian Business Publications Ltd v British Asian Achievers Awards Ltd [2019] EWHC 1094 (IPEC), rights in designs and patents) in the High Court (IPEC and chancery division), the UKIPO and the CJEU: Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd v Red Bull GmbH – (Court of Justice of the EU – Case C-206/15 P: 2015). His practise also includes conducting complex arbitrations of intellectual property claims under both LCIA and AAA rules. He also advises on and drafts commercial contracts, licensing and franchising agreements, and software licensing agreements.

In addition, Tim also lectures and writes and lectures on all his specialist areas of legal practise and for a number of years has taught on professional training courses run by BPP University.

Publications

University Course content – A Contractual Right or a Matter of Academic Judgement? Ed. Law Journal 2011

Strategic Legal Thinking For IPR Dependant Enterprise – The ‘Five Rings’ Method: EIPR – July 2009

The “Adjusted Future Free Income Ratio” – A New Methodology for Determining IPR Royalty Rates? : EIPR – September 2007

Transboundary Movement of Genetically Modified Organisms (EC) 1946/2003: A Review: Bio-Science Law Review 2005/2006 Vol. 8

The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food and Feed in the Community: Bio-Science Law Review 2004/2005 Vol. 7

Would you know your GMO? Bio-Science Law Review 2004/2005

GMO Regulation in Europe – A Prima for Patent Applicants: Bio-science Law Review2003/2004 Vol.  4

Madey, Integra and the Wealth of Nations: EIPR January 2004

Achieving Ethically Acceptable Biotechnology Patents: A Lesson from the Clinical Trials Directive?: EIPR September 2003

Aptamers and SELEX – Part 2 Protecting IP Rights: in World Patent Information, December 2003

Aptamers and SELEX – Part 1 The Technology; in World Patent Information, June 2003

Environmental Risk Assessments of GMOs Under Directive 2001/18: An Effective Safety-net or a “Collective Illusion”: EIPR February 2003

Rewriting the Genetic Code: The Impact of Novel Nucleotides on Biotechnology Patents: EIPR August 2002

Further information

Other publications

  • IPR Updates – July 2015
  • Starbucks (HK) Ltd. v British Sky Broadcasting Group and Other (No.2) [2015] UKSC 31
  • CJEU Clarifies Law on Form Shifting and the Exhaustion of Distribution Rights in the EU – Arts & Allposters (Case C-419/13)

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)
  • Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents
  • Chancery Bar Association
  • Fellow of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

Interests

Climbing, skiing and classical music

General Commercial Litigation:

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.

News & Resources

*This barrister is authorised to practice in England & Wales. Click here to search on the Bar Standards Board Barristers’ Register.

Back to People

Barristers

Richard Power

Richard Power

Head of Chambers

Call: 1983

Antonio Bueno QC

Antonio Bueno QC

Call: 1964, QC 1989

Our Expertise