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

Construction

Tim regularly acts in construction disputes – in particular in respect of evidentially and legally complex TCC claims and adjudications (both under the Scheme for Construction Adjudication and under ad hoc rules) including multi-million-pound interim application “smash and grab” claims and TCC enforcement proceedings, as well as in appeals to the Court of Appeal.

Dawnvale Café Components Ltd v Hylgar Properties Ltd [2024] EWHC 1199 (TCC); [2024] B.L.R. 557; 214 Con. L.R. 238

Tim was instructed in respect of a Part 8 claim seeking a declaration that Hylgar were not entitled to bring further adjudication claims in respect of an established breach of contract due to the parties having previously enter into a “full and final” settlement agreement (as a Tomlin Order) or because the further adjudication claims were impermissible attempts to re-adjudicate for the purposes of para. 9(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts.

WOL v Croydon Investments Ltd and Others [2024] EWHC 251 (TCC); 213 Con. L.R. 72

Tim was instructed on behalf of the first defendant in respect of an application for summary judgment brought against a claim for around £16 million said to arise from internal and external fire safety defects found in an office block redeveloped into residential flats.

Hirst & Another v Dunbar and Others [2022] EWHC 41 (TCC); 201 Con L.R. 71: – Tim acted for the Claimant, in a claim for sums expended on the renovation / completion of a number of properties situated on a development site that had been purchased out of administration (with the money provided from the first defendant). Any agreement between the Claimant and Defendants for payment relied on an oral contract said to have been entered into in early 2011. However, no serious attempts to claim the monies was made until 2014. The Defendants asserted that not only had there never been an agreement to pay the Claimants for the works (as this was undertaken at their own risk) but the claim was also time barred. The Common law rule that the claim arose once the works were substantially completed and that had been late 2012.

The importance of the case lies in its consideration of (albeit obiter) the limitation issue. It was the Claimants position that quantification of the sum owed under Part 2 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts effectively acted as a condition precedent on the right to bring a claim – in same way that third-party certification applied to extend the effective limitation period for the claim in Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles [2005] EWCA 814.

The Court concluded that the Scheme did not affect the Common law rule that the claim arose once the works were substantially completed. The Scheme provided a process for determining the sum to be paid and when it should be paid, rather than acting as a condition precedent on the right to be paid at all.

Payne & Payne v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd. (Claim No. HT-2021-000449) – TCC: – Tim acted for the Claimants who were proprietors of a luxury new build property designed and built by the defendant and sold essentially off-plan via a marketing brochure. The property was alleged to be subject to numerous serious defects – including breaches of building regulations in relation to the radon ventilation system. Those defects had been rectified but over a number of years and with serious disruption to the lives of the claimants.

The claimants sought “blight” damages in respect of the property, together with damages for distress and inconvenience caused by the remedial works. All claims have now been settled via mediation.

PBS Bester AS v Bester Generation UK Ltd [2020] EWCA 404; [2020] 4 All E.R. 1101; [2020] B.L.R. 355; [2020] Bus. L.R. 1626: – This appeal arose out of the TCC’s refusal to grant PBS Energo summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s award of around £1.7 million, in circumstances where it later transpired that the appellant might have obtained the adjudicator’s award through misrepresentations (potentially fraudulent misrepresentations).

The CA confirmed the previous authority that where allegations of fraud were raised in the adjudication and failed and equally where fraud could / should have been raised in the adjudication but was not, then fraud could not then be raised in the enforcement proceedings.

The CA then had to address the effect (if any) of the TCC’s accelerated enforcement procedure under rule 9.2.4 (2^nd Ed TCC Guide) on CPR 24.2(4) – summary judgment. The Court concluded that the terms of the TCC Guide could not modify the clear wording of CPR 24, which provided that a defendant did not need to file a defence where summary judgment had been applied for prior to the deadline for the filing of a defence. Albeit the Court was of the view that where fraud was to be alleged it would be best if this allegation were to be set out in formal pleadings.

Redstock Homes Ltd v NHBC and Thatching Advisory Service (UK) Ltd. (Claim No. HT 2020-00306) – TCC – Tim was instructed on behalf of the Claimant (builder) in relation to a claim against TAS – as the suppliers of a proprietary fireproof Sorel cement board that was allegedly unfit for purpose- and NHBC who provided the their warranty to cover works undertaken by Redstock but it is alleged by Redstock had actually recommended / required the use of the TAS boards by Resdstock. NHBC counterclaimed against the Redstock and its directors for the costs of the remdial works undertaken in accordance with the terms of the NHBC cover. The central issue in the case is whether fireproof Sorel cement boards supplied by TAS were fit for purpose. All claims and counterclaims were settled via mediation.

Gosvenor London Ltd. v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd. [2018] EWCA Civ2695; [2019] Bus. L.R. 628; [2019] ICLC 26; [2019] B.L.R. 99; 182 Con. L.R. 38 – successfully acted for Aygun in resisting an appeal seeking to challenge Fraser J.’s first instance decision to add to the Wimbledon v Vago principles applying to stay applications in respect of adjudication enforcement claims and clarifying the applicability of evidence of fraud allegations in relation to granting such stays. A subsequent application to the TCC to lift the stay was also refused, not least because Gosvenor was by then in insolvent liquidation: [2019] EWHC 3619 (TCC).

Gosvenor London Ltd. v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd. [2018] EWHC 227 (TCC); [2018] Bus. L.R. 1439; [2018] B.L.R. 353; 177 Con. L.R. 127 – acted for Aygun in resisting a claim for enforcement of a substantial adjudication award where Fraser J. added new principle “g” to the long-standing Wimbledon v Vago stay jurisdiction and considered the evidence relevant to the Court granting a stay under the new principle – including allegations of fraud that could or should have been raised in the adjudication.

Brown & Brown v Complete Building Solutions Ltd. [2016] EWCA Civ 1; [2016] B.L.R. 98; [2016] 164 Con. L.R. 21 – representing the Appellants in an appeal against a summary judgment entered in respect of an adjudicator’s award under the HGCRA 1996 and Scheme for Construction Contracts. The Appellants having refused to meet the judgment sum as the adjudicator’s decision was – in their view – made in respect of a dispute that was the same or substantially the same as one previously unsuccessfully pursued by the respondent in an earlier adjudication – and was therefore barred under the terms of paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme.