Adam Lewis QC

Adam Lewis acts in a wide range of public law matters, both for and against public bodies.  He has developed a particular expertise in the application of public law principles at the boundary between public and commercial contexts, including EU law issues, VAT, telecommunications and charging for policing.  He has also worked on numerous matters involving the extension of public law principles to the activities of quasi-public bodies, such as sports governing bodies, whose decisions are not subject to CPR Part 54 Judicial Review but fall to be reviewed by reference to similar standards.  Since his publication of Sport: Law and Practice (Butterworths 2003, 2nd edition Tottel 2008) he has been at the forefront of the development of the law in this context, and several recent decisions in his cases have established important propositions.  He is standing Counsel to PhonePayPlus (formerly known as ICSTIS), the premium rate telephone and internet regulator, and regularly advises British Telecommunications in the context of its relationship with OFCOM.  

Other clients include Vodafone, Freeserve, Annington, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water, MyTravel, Severn Trent, Talksport, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Law Society, the General Medical Council, the Environment Agency, Dover Harbour Board, the Home Office, HM Customs & Excise, DEFRA, All Wales Consortium, Oxford University Press, Oxford Brookes University and the National Grid for Learning, as well as many local authorities and other public and sport bodies and those challenging their decisions. 

• PhonePayPlus v mBlox (pending PPP Tribunal)
  Currently representing the telephone and internet premium rate service regulator on a test case brought by mBlox in relation to the “mere conduit provisions” in the e-Commerce Directive.
• Football Agent v The Football Association  (FA Rule K arbitration, February 2010)
  He acted for the FA in a claim for damages brought against it by a football agent in relation to the way in which the FA had carried out its regulatory functions.   The Agent alleged that alleged breaches of quasi public law obligations to act lawfully (including in compliance with Data Protection legislation), rationally and fairly, sounded in damages.   The Award is pending.
• Greater Manchester Police v Wigan AFC (Chancery Division, Mann J 8-19 October 2007, 10 March 2008) [2007] EWHC 3095 (Ch); Court of Appeal 11 November 2008, 19 December 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1449
  Acted for Wigan AFC in its dispute with the GMP over the police’s powers in relation to the policing of football matches and ability to charge for that policing.  The case established the constraints on the actions of the police, a public body, when it comes to charging for such special police services.  The case draws an important distinction between when a body such as the police is acting in fulfilment of its public law obligations, and when it is acting in a private law capacity.   At first instance Wigan was held impliedly to have requested such policing as was regarded as necessary by the Chief Constable and could properly be characterised as falling outside the police’s public law obligations. On appeal it was held that because Wigan had set a limit on what it was prepared to pay for and was requesting, such an implication could not be made. 
• Also advised on similar issues in 2008 in the context of the Isle of Wight Festival.
• Severn Trent Water v British Telecommunications (pending, High Court)
  Acting for British Telecommunications in litigation involving the entitlement of one former public utility to charge another in relation to the past provision of drainage.  At a point in time when both Severn Trent and BT were in public ownership, drainage pipes were created between deep tunnels containing telephone lines and the sewerage system, in order to carry away surface water that collected in the tunnels.  Severn Trent now says that it is entitled to charge BT for the drainage of that water.  The issue in the case is whether there is such an entitlement. 
• MyTravel v European Commission (European Court of First Instance, April and May 2008, Judgment  9 September 2008)
  Appeared at two European Court of First Instance hearings for MyTravel in its action against the Commission for damages following the Commission’s wrongful blocking of MyTravel’s attempt (when it was called Airtours) to merge with First Choice. The action involved examination of the public law standards by which a governmental body such as the Commission must abide in taking a decision, and the degree of fault required to establish a right to public law damages. 
• R (Deepdock and others) v National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Minister for the Environment (Administrative Court, Wyn Williams J, 17 October 2007, permission refused, CA permission granted 2008) joined with Isle of Anglesey County Council and the Crown Estate Commissioners v National Assembly for Wales, NWNW Sea Fisheries Committee and others
  Appeared for mussel fishermen in the Menai Straits in two actions: an application for judicial review of the Minister’s grant of licence to a developer to deposit materials on the mussel fishery as part of its building of a marina, and declaratory proceedings as to the validity of the delegated legislation under which the mussel fishermen have rights. 
• Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (“ICSTIS”) v Allied Telecommunications (Administrative Court, Paul Walker J, September 2007) [2007] EWHC 2307 (Admin)
  Appeared for ICSTIS (now known as PhonePayPlus), the public law body responsible for the regulation of information provided by way of premium rate telephone and internet lines, on its successful application to establish that it is entitled to sue in private law not only for the fines that it has imposed on a regulated person, but also to recover monies that it has ordered another regulated person to withhold from the person fined.  The case has wider implications for other regulators in a similar position to PhonePayPlus.  A further stage of the matter is pending before the Companies Court. 
• Also regularly advises and appears for PhonePayPlus in hearings under its Code and on challenges brought against its decisions (nine matters in the past year).  Is currently representing PhonePayPlus in a test case brought by  mBlox in relation to the “mere conduit provisions” in the e-Commerce Directive.
• British Telecommunications
  Has recently advised BT on five different matters in relation to a broadband initiative with a local authority, the utility’s terms and conditions, its relationship with other network operators, and its possible courses of action where OFCOM has not addressed issues that it faces.  He is currently advising BT in relation to the development of services to customers provided through internet browsers. 
• West Sussex
  Has over the last year advised the local authority on its waste management contracts
• Dwain Chambers v British Olympic Association (Queens Bench Division, Mackay J, 9, 17 and 18 July 2008) [2008] EWHC 2028 (QB)
  Appeared for the British Olympic Association on the athlete’s applications for an expedited trial and for an injunction.  The athlete sought to establish (amongst other things) that the BOA’s byelaw making him ineligible for the Olympics for life as consequence of his having committed a doping offence was Wednesbury unreasonable.  The athlete contended that it was irrational in a public law sense for the BOA to refuse to select athletes who had served out their two year ban from all competition.  The injunction was refused on the grounds that irrationality was not established and of delay and effect on third parties.  See further under Sport.
• Stretford v FA (2007, 2008) and UKA’s rules on inappropriate sexual relationships (2007)
  He has recently successfully defended attempts in Court and in arbitrations to challenge rules of The Football Association and of UK Athletics as being incompatible with the Human Rights legislation (Article 6 right to a fair trial and Article 8 right to private life).  The cases involved analysis of the extent to which the rights are applicable to the decisions of quasi public law bodies such as sports regulators, horizontal effect, and whether the rights were breached in the circumstances of each case.  See further under Sport.
• Sheffield v FAPL (2007), Leeds v Football League (2008), Stretford v FA (2007-2009)
  In these arbitrations he established that a number of procedural public law principles apply in the context of review of the decisions of sports governing bodies.  In Sheffield, he established that the question of whether one person affected by the regulatory decision of the quasi-public body in relation to another person, is able to challenge the decision is to be determined by reference to public law principles on standing.  In Leeds, he established that the public law principles in relation to delay and effect on third parties as grounds for the refusal of relief, even where a case is made out on the substance, can be extended to the context of a sports governing body’s decision.  In Stretford, he established that public law principles as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies are relevant to the question of whether the legality of a sports governing body’s disciplinary process can be subjected to supervisory review before all appeals under the process have been exhausted.  See further under Sport.
• Royal Mail
  Advised the Royal Mail on compensation schemes.
• Fulcrum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (VAT and Duties Tribunal and European Court of Justice, Joined Cases C-354/03 C-355/03 C-484/03, [2006] Ch. 218)
  Appeared in the Tribunal and in the Court of Justice for Fulcrum in its successful action against the Commissioners in relation to their ability to withhold VAT repayments from traders accepted to be innocent of any involvement in a carousel fraud, but who were incidentally caught in the chain of supply.
• British Waterways Board v Thames Water Utilities
  Advised the British Waterways Board on its position in the light of an application to the Secretary of State made by Thames Water Utilities Limited, in which TWUL seeks a reduction in the amount that it pays BWB for the abstraction of water.
• BAA plc
  Advised on the implications for the airport owner of a possible take over.
• R (on the application of Unitymark and the NSFO) v DEFRA (Administrative Court and European Court of Justice) [2003] EWHC 2748 [2004]; Eu. L.R. 338 ECJ - [2006] E.C.R. I-2689; [2006] 2 C.M.L.R. 21
  Represented North Sea flat fish fishermen in their application for judicial review of the UK legislation implementing the EU cod fishing effort limitation legislation, before the High Court and the Court of Justice.
• R (on the application of Vodafone) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Administrative Court) [2005] EWHC 1581 (Admin)
  Acted for Vodafone in its application for judicial review of Customs’ decision to seek to recover VAT retrospectively despite having given rise to a legitimate expectation that its approach on a particular issue would not change.   Has also advised a number of clients on the discriminatory application of the VAT rules to them.

• R v Chief Constable ex p. ITF [1997] 3 WLR 132, CA;  [1999] 2 AC 418 House of Lords
• Matra v Home Office, Rattee J 31st July 1998, unrep; [1999] 1 WLR 1646, [1999] EuLR 635 (CA)
• London Surfacing v London Borough of Barnet  (2003)
• Top High Developments v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1998] FSR 464
• Ridley v DEFRA (2003)
• Rodgers v Sheffield County Council
• President of the Republic of Liberia v Times Newspapers, Eady J 22 January 2001
• Anchor Foods Limited v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1999] 1 WLR 1139 ChD; [1998] V&DR 32; VAT and Duties Tribunal (T Wallace, Chairman), 27 January 1998, 24 November 1998, 4 May 1999, 27 May 1999, 8 March 2000, 18 July 2000, 25 January 2001, 19 October 2001, 4 July 2002; Divisional Court (Dyson J) 26 June 1998; Chancery Division (Neuberger J) 9 February 1999, 26 February 1999 ([1999] 1 WLR 1139), 20 April 1999, 8 July 1999, 18 October 1999, 21 February 2000, 30 March 2000; Court of Appeal  19 June 2000; House of Lords 24 July 2001.
• R v MAFF ex p. Quarantine Abolition Fighting Fund, Owen J, the Independent 15 October 1999
• General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel, Law Society intervening [2000] 1 WLR 272, Toulson J
• Jobsin.co.uk Plc v Department of Health, Collins J, 15 March 2001, Blofeld J, 8-10 May 2001, CA (Thorpe, Dyson, Astill LJJ), 11-13 July 2001, [2001] EWCA CIV 1241; [2001] EuLR 685
• R (on the application of Freeserve) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise, AOL interested party Moses J 25 September 2002, Evans Lombe J, 31 October 2003  [2004] STC 187 
• Bateman v Dwr Cymru Welsh Water  (2004)
• John Dee Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1995] STC 941
• R v Cardiff City Council ex p. Gooding Investments Ltd [1996] Env LR 288
• General Instrument v Commissioners of Customs & Excise judgment May 1998
• Colman v General Medical Council [1990] 1 All ER 489

Adam Lewis’ practice spans the full range of Community and Competition law matters, with particular focus on antitrust, merger regulation, state aid rules, consumer warranties, free movement, public procurement, trade and customs law and the commercial agents regulations.

Adam Lewis began to develop his Competition and EU law specialisms before he started practice at the Bar. Between 1985 and 1987 he worked at in particular Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, a United States law firm with an established EU law practice and a Brussels office. In 1991 and 1992 he took time away from Chambers to develop these specialisms further by working for the European Commission in the Cabinet of Sir Leon Brittan, then European Commissioner responsible for Competition and Financial Institutions. Thereafter he was based in Brussels for a year, working exclusively on EU law related matters together with two other members of Chambers in a firm that is now merged with White & Case.

He has a reference currently pending before the European Court of Justice in Michalias, which relates to the proper interpretation and transitional provisions of the EU jurisdictional legislation.

In April and May 2008 he appeared before the Court of First Instance on behalf of MyTravel in its claim for damages following the Commission’s unlawful refusal of approval of its planned merger, and its parallel action for release of information. Judgment was given in September 2008.

In 2006 he appeared before the European Court of Justice on behalf of North Sea fishermen in Unitymark and in a VAT carousel fraud case, Fulcrum.

He has extensive experience of matters involving the antitrust rules (EU and domestic) and the state aid rules.  He has regularly dealt with the application of these rules in the context of a number of domestic actions.  He is currently advising BT in relation to OFCOM’s regulation of the sector.  He represented Powerhouse and Marks and Spencer in recent Competition Committee proceedings.

Recently he has been involved in a large number of cases where the competition law and free movement rules have been relied upon to challenge the legality of the rules of sports governing bodies.  He has recently acted in two cases before CAS, Chelsea Football Club v RC Lens and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association and International Tennis Federation v Richard Gasquet, in each of which the issue was whether mandatory sanctions under sports governing body rules are compliant with EU competition law, as developed in Meca Medina.   In 2008 he acted successfully for the BOA in Dwain Chambers v BOA, in which the athlete also relied on the ECJ’s decision in Meca Medina in attempting to establish that the BOA’s ineligibility byelaw was in breach of Articles 81 and 82 and their domestic equivalents.  He regularly advises a number of sports governing bodies on the development of their rules in accordance with, and litigation threatened on the basis of, the competition and free movement rules, including in 2008-2009 the Football Association in relation to the Football Players Agents Regulations, the IRB in relation to various rules including the Rugby Player Release Rules, and Rugby World Cup in relation to the 2007 and 2011 tournaments.  In 2009 he advised the FA on the adoption of Anti-Doping Whereabouts Rules;  the Football League on its fit and proper person test, in the wake of Silvio Briatore’s ban from Formula One by FIA and questions as to the ownership of Notts County; and the Rugby Football League on its organisation.

He has recently appeared in three other major pieces of competition law litigation in the sports context: Adidas v International Tennis Federation [2006] EWHC 1318, International Sports Investment v International Rugby Board, and Rugby Football Union v Westminster Hospitality and Events Ltd, each of which involved a challenge to the compatibility of a sports governing body’s decisions with EU and domestic competition law.  He advised Newcastle United on a possible competition and free movement law challenge to the validity of the football player release rules.  He has also prepared a complaint to the OFT in relation to the validity of the football authorities’ “tapping up” rules.

He has also recently appeared on a number of VAT matters involving Community law, in particular appearing before the European Court of Justice in HMCE v Fulcrum in relation to carousel fraud and acting for Vodafone in judicial review proceedings. In 2006, he appeared before the European Court of Justice in Unitymark, which involved a challenge to the validity of EU fishing legislation.

In the context of public procurement, he is currently advising West Sussex extensively on a number of different aspects of public procurement law in relation to its various waste disposal contracts.  He has extensive recent public procurement experience, including in the contexts of Ministry of Defence Housing refurbishment and replacement, Submarine Escape Systems, Hospital Gases, Mapping Services, Health Care Provision as well as numerous local authority and other contracting authority developments.  He was Counsel in the important reported procurement cases Matra v Home Office, Rattee J 31st July 1998, unrep; [1999] 1 WLR 1646, [1999] EuLR 635 (CA) and Jobsin.co.uk Plc v Department of Health, Collins J, 15 March 2001, Blofeld J, 8-10 May 2001, CA (Thorpe, Dyson, Astill LJJ), 11-13 July 2001, [2001] EWCA CIV 1241; [2001] EuLR 685.

Clients in EU cases include British Telecommunications, Glencore, Sony, Alenia Marconi, Ford, Colt, Vodafone, MCI Telecom, Annington, Telewest, Titleist, Get Mapping, Argos, De Beers, MyTravel, Powerhouse, Marks & Spencer, Ashfield Healthcare, British Oxygen, Eurotunnel Plus SA, a number of local authorities and a wide range of sporting bodies including UEFA, the FA, the International Tennis Federation, the International Rugby Board, Rugby World Cup Limited, the RFU, the WRU, the Football League, the All England Lawn Tennis Club and many others.

• PhonePayPlus v mBlox (pending PPP Tribunal)
  Currently representing the telephone and internet premium rate service regulator on a test case brought by mBlox in relation to the “mere conduit provisions” in the e-Commerce Directive.
  Michalias (July 2009 and pending reference pending European Court of Justice)
  Adam Lewis drafted the submissions that secured the first reference by the Supreme Court of Cyprus for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice.  He is currently drafting the observations and will appear before the European Court of Justice.  The case relates to whether the Cypriot or English Courts have jurisdiction over a dispute.  The reference made in July 2009 to the European Court of Justice is of issues relating to the proper interpretation and transitional provision of the relevant EU jurisdictional legislation.  It is pending and will be heard in 2010.
• MyTravel v European Commission (European Court of First Instance, April and May 2008, Judgment 9 September 2008)
  Appeared at two European Court of First Instance hearings for MyTravel in its action against the Commission for damages following the Commission’s wrongful blocking of MyTravel’s attempt (when it was called Airtours) to merge with First Choice. The action involved the development of the principles under which a Community institution is liable for damages arising out of its breach of EU law.  In particular, the question was at what point an administrative error, and misapplication of substantive EU law, by an institution is so significant as to warrant the award of damages under EU law.  The analysis in the case will have a significant effect on the extent to which EU institutions, and public law bodies generally, are financially accountable for their errors in the application of EU law.  Judgment was given on 9 September 2009.
• Chelsea Football Club v RC Lens and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association   (CAS 2009/A/1976, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, February 2010)
  Acted for Chelsea Football Club on its appeal before CAS against the FIFA decision to ban Chelsea from signing new players for two transfer windows, as a result of its signature of the 16 year old Gael Kakuta who had previously been at RC Lens.    The basis for the appeal was that (1) the player had no contract that could be breached and (2) in any event rules hindering a young player from moving club, and in any event such a ban on signing new players, is contrary to EC competition and free movement law, and French and Swiss law.   A stay of the ban was obtained from CAS pending trial, but the case settled when the evidence demonstrated that the player had no valid contract under French law with Lens.   
• In a separate case for Chelsea, in July 2009 obtained a final award from CAS ordering the player Adrian Mutu to pay €17 million in damages to Chelsea.   This is the first time that a player has been ordered to pay damages of this magnitude following a breach of contract, as opposed to the player moving clubs.    In the case, the Player alleged that the imposition of rules requiring the payment of such a high level of compensation was in breach of EU competition law.  CAS found against the player on this submission.  The player has appealed against the award to the Swiss Federal Court.  
• International Tennis Federation v Richard Gasquet  (ITF Tribunal, Tim Kerr QC chairing, 29-30 June, 15 July 2009; 10 November 2009, Court of Arbitration for Sport,  Lausanne, CAS 2009/A/1926, Award December 2009)
  Acted for the player, who had tested positive for cocaine, a substance banned in competition only, on his withdrawal from an event without playing in it. Testing on withdrawal was deemed under the rules to be testing in competition. Expert evidence obtained for the player demonstrated that only a tiny amount of the drug must have been inadvertently ingested in the 12 or so hours before testing.  It was established that it was more likely than not ingested through kissing a girl contaminated with cocaine, during the night before the sample was collected.  The player argued that he had acted with no fault or negligence, which would mean that no ban should be imposed.  That standard is however very rarely met, and he succeeded only in establishing that he had acted with no significant fault or negligence, reducing his ban from two years to one year.  But then in addition, he was able to persuade  the panel that a year’s ban was disproportionate and unlawful in the circumstances of the case, because the player had not in any normal sense been in competition  when the substance was inadvertently ingested, since he had already decided to withdraw from the event through injury without playing any part in it.   The panel substituted a sanction of 2½ months.  This was on the basis of the principle that WADA automatic sanctions must be dis-applied if disproportionate, which principle Adam Lewis had successfully advanced before CAS in Puerta v ITF, in which case an eight year ban had been reduced to two years.  Both the ITF and WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.  In particular they were concerned as to the dis-application of the mandatory sanctions.  The case was heard on 10 November 2009.   On the appeal, CAS was persuaded that far from increasing the sanction imposed, it should reduce it, on the basis that the Player was in fact correct that he had acted with no fault or negligence.   This represents one of the very few occasions on which CAS has ruled that a player satisfied this standard.   
• Dwain Chambers v British Olympic Association (Queens Bench Division, Mackay J, 9, 17 and 18 July 2008) [2008] EWHC 2028 (QB)
  Appeared for the British Olympic Association on the athlete’s applications for an expedited trial and for an injunction. The athlete sought to establish (amongst other things) that the BOA’s byelaw making him ineligible for the Olympics for life as consequence of his having committed a doping offence was contrary to Articles 81 and 82 and their domestic equivalents.  The athlete contended that the ECJ decision in Meca Medina established that the BOA was in a dominant position and that its rules constituted agreements, and that therefore the byelaw was unlawful if abusive or anti-competitive.  The athlete contended that the byelaw fell to be so characterised because it applied indefinitely, even after he had served out his two year ban for the doping offence, and its adverse effects on him were therefore disproportionate to the legitimate aims (if any) that it pursued.  The application was refused because a lack of proportionality had not been established.  See further under Sport.
• The FA’s Players Agent Regulations (2007- ongoing)
  Advises The FA in relation to the compliance of rules with free movement and competition law.  During 2007 he in particular worked together with The FA’s legal advisors and in-house lawyers on the development of new Players’ Agents Regulations (which came into force in September 2007), which were then and are still now the subject of threatened litigation by agents and the Law Society on these grounds.
• International Rugby Board Rules (ongoing)
  Advises the IRB regularly and extensively on changes to its rules.  The IRB continually develops its rules in order to strike the correct balance between the interests of the various participants in the sport: players, clubs, unions, competitions (such as the European Rugby Cup), international governing body (the IRB) and other international organisations (such as the Lions Committee), commercial partners and spectators.  As part of that development, the IRB ensures that its new rules comply with free movement and competition law, to which they are subject.  Adam works together with the IRB’s legal officer to develop rules that are so compliant while still achieving the necessary aims of the organisation.  During 2008 he has in particular been advising on the Rugby Player Release Rules.
• Advising various other sports governing bodies on compliance of their rules and regulations with EU competition law
  Since September 2008 he has advised a number of sports governing bodies on the compatibility of their rules and regulations with competition law.  He advised the FA on the adoption of Anti-Doping Whereabouts Rules;  the Football League on its fit and proper person test, in the wake of Silvio Briatore’s ban from Formula One by FIA and questions as to the ownership of Notts County and the Rugby Football League on its organisation.
• Rugby World Cup 1999, 2003, 2007and 2011 (ongoing)
  Represents, and has for many years represented, the organisers of the Rugby World Cup 1999, 2003,  2007 and 2011 (notification of the entire 1999 and 2003 arrangements for the Rugby World Cup to the European Commission and OFT for exemption under Article 81(3); and complaint by disgruntled trader, and in relation to 2007 and 2011, the preparation of the agreements and the tendering processes and liaison with regulatory authorities, in order to ensure that the system is compliant with competition law).
• Adidas v International Tennis Federation (Chancery Division) [2006] EWHC 1318 (Ch) and 2007
  Acted for the ITF in the challenge brought by Adidas to the legality of the tennis authorities’ decision that the Adidas “3-Stripes” constituted manufacturers’ identification and consequently had to comply with clothing size restrictions.  Adidas contended that the ITF was in a dominant position and that its decision was abusive as discriminatory, and therefore contrary to Article 82.  Adidas succeeded in obtaining interim relief suspending the decision.  Following preparation of the matter for trial, it subsequently settled.
• International Sports Investment v International Rugby Board (Chancery Division) (2007)
  Acted for the IRB in the challenge brought by ISI, an organiser of matches between national representative sides and scratch sides such as a World XV, to the IRB’s exercise of control over the calendar for international rugby as involving an anticompetitive agreement and an abuse of a dominant position.  After a number of interim hearings, the action settled.
• Rugby Football Union v Westminster Hospitality and Events Ltd (Chancery Division); Rugby Football Union v Eventco (Chancery Division) (2007)
  Acted for the RFU in its action for an injunction to restrain black market sale of tickets, which was met by Westminster by an allegation that the RFU’s attempt to prevent such sales is anti-competitive.  Interim injunction successfully obtained, but Westminster went into administration and the action came to a halt.  Has also acted in other black market ticket cases (including for the RFU against Eventco) over the last few years that have raised similar issues.
• Newcastle United Football Club v FA and FIFA (Michael Owen) (2007)
  Acted for Newcastle United Football Club in its threatened challenge to the compatibility of the football player release rules with competition law and free movement law, following the injury to Michael Owen for which there has not been adequate compensation from the FA and FIFA.  
• British Waterways Board v Thames Water Utilities (2007)
  Advised the British Waterways Board on its position in the light of an application to the Secretary of State made by Thames Water Utilities Limited, in which TWUL seeks a reduction in the amount that it pays BWB for the abstraction of water.  Case involves the competition law concept of essential facilities and the setting of prices for access to them.
• West Sussex Waste Disposal (ongoing)
  Regularly advises West Sussex on its complex public procurement of waste disposal facilities
• MoD Housing (2007)
  Advised on public procurement in the context of the renovation and replacement of MoD housing.
• Basildon Council’s Responsive Repairs Contract (2007)
  Advised on public procurement in the context of the local authority’s contract fro repairs.
• Ashley Cole (OFT)
  Acted for Ashley Cole in his complaint to the OFT that the football authorities’ rules preventing a player in contract from even talking to another club before the last month of his contract, are incompatible with the competition law rules. 
• British Telecom Plc (OFCOM)
  Acts for BT in relation to OFCOM’s regulation of the sector.
• R (on the application of Unitymark and the NSFO) v DEFRA (Administrative Court and European Court of Justice) [2003] EWHC 2748 [2004]; Eu. L.R. 338 ECJ - [2006] E.C.R. I-2689; [2006] 2 C.M.L.R. 21
  Represented North Sea flat fish fishermen in their application for judicial review of the UK legislation implementing the EU cod fishing effort limitation legislation.
• Fulcrum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (VAT and Duties Tribunal and European Court of Justice, Joined Cases C-354/03 C-355/03 C-484/03 [2006] Ch. 218 and pending)
  Appeared for Fulcrum in its successful action against the Commissioners in relation to their ability to withhold VAT repayments from traders accepted to be innocent of any involvement in a carousel fraud, but who were incidentally caught in the chain of supply.  A reference to the European Court of Justice made by Hart J was heard on 7 December 2004. Judgment was given in favour of Fulcrum in January 2006.  The matter is continuing with Fulcrum’s attempts to recover interest and a supplement.

• Leyland DAF v Automotive Products plc [1994] 1 BCLC 245 (CA)
• Cardiff v Welsh Rugby Union; WRU v Swansea; notification of the WRU's rules to the European Commission and to the OFT; Complaint before the European Commission and the OFT 17 March 1998 and 29 July 1998 [1999] EuLR 195. 
• The Three Graces case R v Secretary of State for National Heritage and Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund ex parte John Paul Getty Museum [1997] EuLR 407
• R v Chief Constable ex p. ITF [1997] 3 WLR 132, CA; [1999] 2 AC 418 HL
  R v MAFF ex p. Quarantine Abolition Fighting Fund, Owen J, the Independent 15 October 1999
• Pothas v ECB
• Cairns v ECB
• Edwards v BAF and IAAF [1998] 2 CMLR 363
• Matra v Home Office, Rattee J 31st July 1998, unrep; [1999] 1 WLR 1646, [1999] EuLR 635 (CA)
• Jobsin.co.uk Plc v Department of Health, Collins J, 15 March 2001, Blofeld J, 8-10 May 2001, CA (Thorpe, Dyson, Astill LJJ), 11-13 July 2001, [2001] EWCA CIV 1241; [2001] EuLR 685
• Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Anchor Foods Limited [1999] 1 WLR 1139 ChD; [1998] V&DR 32; VAT and Duties Tribunal (T Wallace, Chairman), 27 January 1998, 24 November 1998, 4 May 1999, 27 May 1999, 8 March 2000, 18 July 2000, 25 January 2001, 19 October 2001, 4 July 2002; Divisional Court (Dyson J) 26 June 1998; Chancery Division (Neuberger J) 9 February 1999, 26 February 1999 ([1999] 1 WLR 1139), 20 April 1999, 8 July 1999, 18 October 1999, 21 February 2000, 30 March 2000; Court of Appeal  19 June 2000; House of Lords 24 July 2001.   
• Talksport v RAJAR
• Storecards (Competition Commission)
• Consumer Warranties (Competition Commission)

Adam Lewis QC has for some time been recognised as the leading expert on sports law at the Bar. He has appeared in many of the leading cases.   He co-edits the principal textbook, Lewis and Taylor, Sport: Law and Practice, 2nd Edition Tottel 2008.

He regularly advises national and international sports governing bodies, clubs and individual competitors, and appears on their behalf before the courts and tribunals (national and the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne) and regulatory authorities. For example recently alone he has acted for amongst others:

• Football: FIFA, UEFA, FA, FAPL, Football League, Gibraltar FA, Wembley Stadium, Liverpool FC, Chelsea FC, Newcastle United FC, Fulham FC, Wigan AFC, Sheffield Utd FC and Juventus, Nike, IMG, Octagon, Media Partners, various broadcasting rights holders, investors in football registrations, a number of smaller clubs and a number of players and an agent.
• Rugby: IRB, Rugby World Cup Limited, Six Nations Committee, Lions Committee, RFU, WRU, the Rugby Football League, Wasps, Bristol RFC, Widnes Vikings and Wales and Lions full back Lee Byrne.
• Cricket: ICC, ECB, BCCI, Neo Sports, the holder of the broadcasting rights in India, GCC, holder of the broadcasting rights from the ICC until 2007, a number of players, and Kookaburra the equipment manufacturer.
• Tennis: Richard Gasquet and Mariano Puerta, the International Tennis Federation, the Grand Slam Committee, the LTA, the All England Club and a number of other players.
• Formula One: FOM/FOA, the organisers of the Turkish Grand Prix, and BAR Honda.
• Athletics/Olympics: the British Olympic Association, UK Athletics, the former IOC Vice President Kim Un-Yong, and various athletes.
• Horse Racing: a number of jockeys and a stud farm.
• Gymnastics: Irina Viner, the Russian coach; and a judge subject to disciplinary proceedings.
• Boxing: Joe Calzaghe and Ricky Hatton, each world champion at their weight and the regulatory authority the BBBC.
• Judo: the BJA.
• Swimming: Speedo.
• Golf: Titleist; various sponsors.
• Sailing: an America’s Cup team. 

Adam’s sports law work covers the full range from the legality of governing bodies’ rules and actions to disciplinary and drugs related work to, and from player/club disputes to the commercial exploitation of sport through broadcasting, sponsorship and merchandising.

Recent highlights, among many, have included the following. 

Before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne:  International Tennis Federation and WADA v Richard Gasquet, CAS 2009/A/192.  At first instance he succeeded in limiting the player’s ban for a doping offence to 2½ months, on the basis of the principle that WADA automatic sanctions must be disapplied if disproportionate, which principle he had successfully advanced before CAS in Puerta v ITF.  On WADA’s and the ITF’s appeals in November 2009 he succeeded in convincing CAS to order that there should be no ban at all on the basis that the player had acted with no fault or negligence, a finding that is rarely made.   He successfully represented Chelsea in Chelsea Football Club and Kakuta v RC Lens and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, CAS 2009/A/1976, an appeal before CAS against the FIFA decision to ban Chelsea from signing new players for two transfer windows, as a result of its signature of the 16 year old Gael Kakuta who had previously been at  RC Lens.  CAS was persuaded to stay imposition of the ban pending trial, and the case was settled when the evidence demonstrated that the player had no valid contract with Lens.  Numerous CAS hearings, the last in September 2009, in Gibraltar Football Association v UEFA in relation to the GFA’s attempt to secure membership of UEFA.  Judgment is pending.  Success in July 2009 in establishing before CAS in Chelsea FC v Mutu (the third CAS hearing in the case) that the player is liable to the club for €17 million in damages for breach of contract.  Also has a number of other cases currently pending before CAS including Steven Appiah v Fenerbahce , Devyatovskiy v IOC and Tsikhan v IOC CAS 2009/A/1752 and 1753.   He has regularly appeared in CAS over the years in numerous cases, including Media Partners v Real Madrid in relation to the failed football Superleague project and Baxter v IOC.
 
In the English Courts or domestic tribunals:  He is currently representing the cricket governing bodies ICC, ECB and BCCI in relation to threatened litigation pending before the High Court.  In February 2010 he appeared for the FA in an FA Rule K arbitration brought against the association by an agent.  Also in February 2010 he acted for the Wales and Lions fullback in Lee Byrne v ERC in a successful challenge to an ERC decision that the player should be banned from the England v Wales 2010 Six Nations match.  He is currently acting for Rio in its High Court action Rio Football Services v Sevilla seeking recovery of funds invested in the registration of a player signed with the club.  In the first round in December 2009 he defeated the club’s application for a stay in favour of CAS arbitration.  Also in December 2009 he represented the club in Wasps v Premier League Rugby and had the charges against the club of refusing to play against Sale, dismissed.  He represented the athletics governing body in British Broadcasting Corporation Worldwide v UK Athletics, a High Court action brought by the BBC is respect of the international TV rights to athletics events held in the UK, which settled just before trial in November 2009.  He acted for the WRU in Cardiff Blues & Others (Welsh Regions) v WRU, a player release dispute, which also settled just before trial in September 2009, securing the release by the Welsh Regions of Welsh players for the autumn internationals.  He acted for the stadium in Wembley v Sporting Events Worldwide Ltd a High Court action in relation to ticketing that settled in 2009.  Success early in 2009 in obtaining substantial damages for the claimant club in Sheffield Utd v West Ham following West Ham’s  breach of the FAPL rules which led to Sheffield being relegated in West Ham’s place, including en route obtaining in 2008 an anti-suit injunction from the Commercial Court to restrain West Ham from making an appeal to CAS where no appeal lay.  That followed the innovative attempt in Sheffield United v FAPL to review the legality of the FAPL’s overly lenient disciplinary sanction imposed on West Ham United, in arbitral proceedings and before the High Court.  Success early in 2009 for the FA in defeating the long running litigation brought by the agent Paul Stretford (in the High Court, Court of Appeal, FA disciplinary tribunal and FA Arbitration) as to the compatibility of the FA disciplinary procedures with Human Rights law, where that issue should be resolved, and whether the agent was guilty as charged.  Success in the Court of Appeal in Wigan v GMP in December 2008 in overturning the High Court decision requiring the football club to pay charges for special policing at matches.   Dwain Chambers v BOA in 2008 in which he acted for the BOA in its successful defence of the athlete’s application for an injunction disapplying the BOA’s byelaw making athletes who have doped ineligible for the Olympics.  Acting for the authorities in Leeds v Football League in 2008 in their successful defence of the club’s attempt to overturn the substantial points deduction imposed as a condition of allowing a new company to take over the club when the former owner company went into administration.  Acting in 2008 for Neo Sports in its dispute with Star over Indian cricket broadcasting rights. Acting for the BOA in Christine Ohuruogu’s appeal against her ineligibility for Olympic selection and in defending Carl Myerscough’s threatened challenge to the legality of the BOA byelaw rendering athletes who have doped ineligible for selection.  The successful upholding in arbitral proceedings of UKA’s inappropriate sexual relationship rules against a Human Rights challenge.  The successful denying of interim relief to the club and the player in Sankofa and Charlton v FA.  Three major pieces of High Court litigation involving competition law in the sports context, Adidas v ITF (rules as to logos on clothing)  ISI v IRB (authorisation of rugby matches) and RFU v Westminster Hospitality (ticketing).  The collapse of Frank Warren’s High Court action against Ricky Hatton for whom he acted and the Court of Appeal’s refusal in 2009 on an oral hearing to grant Frank Warren’s Sports Network permission to appeal against the judgment obtained by Joe Calzaghe.  The threatened challenge on behalf of Newcastle United to the legality of FIFA’s and the FA’s player release arrangements, which led to the matter settling.  Acting for Liverpool FC on a number of recent matters.

Advising sports governing bodies on their rules and regulations: In 2009, advising the FA on the adoption of Anti-Doping Whereabouts Rules;  advising the Football League on its fit and proper person test, in the wake of Silvio Briatore’s ban from Formula One by FIA and questions as to the ownership of Notts County; advising the Rugby Football League on its organisation.  In 2008 advising the International Rugby Board on rules changes in particular in relation to the vexed question of player release; handling for the FA the various threats made by the Premier League clubs and by agents to challenge the legality of the Football Players’ Agents Regulations.

He is co-author of Lewis & Taylor, Sport: Law and Practice (2nd Edition, 2008), the leading sports law text.

He taught on the Kings College London Sports Law Course.

He sits as a UK Athletics Disciplinary Chairman and an RFU Appeal Board Chairman, and he was a member of the UK Sport Drug Free Sports Panel.  Sitting as a UK Athletics and RFU Chairman involves running both the written procedure and the oral hearing in sports disciplinary matters in the two sports. In each case the Chairman is accompanied by two wing members with experience of the sport.  The Chairman writes the judgment of the Panel.

As well as appearing regularly in the English Courts, he has appeared on many occasions before the Court of Arbitration for Sport and numerous sports’ doping panels and disciplinary bodies and sports arbitral bodies.  He has appeared before IOC Committees including the Medical Committee, the Disciplinary Committee and the Ethics Committee.

• ICC, ECB and BCCI
  He acts for the cricket governing bodies in relation to threatened High Court litigation.
• Steven Appiah v Fenerbahce (Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, current)
  He is currently representing the player in his action against the club in relation to the quality of the medical care that he received and in defence of the club’s action against him claiming compensation for allegedly terminating his playing contract without just cause.
• Football Agent v The FA  (FA Rule K arbitration, February 2010)
  He acted for the FA in a claim for damages brought against it by a football agent in relation to the way in which the FA had carried out its regulatory functions.  The Award is pending.
• Devyatovskiy and Tsikhan v IOC  (CAS 2009/A/1752, January 2010)
  He is represented the two athletes on their appeals to CAS in Lausanne against IOC doping convictions at the Beijing Olympic Games.  Award is pending.
• Chelsea Football Club v RC Lens and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association  (CAS 2009/A/1976, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, February 2010)
  Acted for Chelsea Football Club on its appeal before CAS against the FIFA decision to ban Chelsea from signing new players for two transfer windows, as a result of its signature of the 16 year old Gael Kakuta who had previously been at  RC Lens.    The basis for the appeal was that (1) the player had no contract that could be breached and (2) in any event rules hindering a young player from moving club, and in any event such a ban on signing new players, is contrary to EC competition and free movement law, and French and Swiss law.   A stay of the ban was obtained from CAS pending trial, but the case settled when the evidence demonstrated that the player had no valid contract under French law with Lens. 
• Lee Byrne v ERC  (ERC Appeal Committee, February 2010) 
  Acted for the Wales and Lions full back Lee Byrne on his appeal against a ban for entering the field as a sixteenth player when playing for Ospreys, which would have resulted in the player missing England v Wales in the Six Nations.  Succeeded in having the ban on the player lifted.
• Rio Football Services v Sevilla (High Court, December 2009, and pending)
  Currently acting for Rio in its High Court action Rio Football Services v Sevilla seeking recovery of funds invested in the registration of a player signed with the club, which has sought a stay in favour of CAS arbitration, the hearing of which is pending.
• Wasps v Premier Rugby Limited   (PRL Appeal Committee, December 2010)
  Acted for the club in the successful defence of charges that it had refused to play a fixture at Sale contrary to the rules.  Litigation became known as “mudgate”, as Wasps had objected to the state of the pitch.
• International Tennis Federation v Richard Gasquet  (ITF Tribunal, Tim Kerr QC chairing, 29-30 June, 15 July 2009; 10 November 2009, Court of Arbitration for Sport,  Lausanne, CAS 2009/A/1926, Award December 2009)
  Acted for the player, who had tested positive for cocaine, a substance banned in competition only, on his withdrawal from an event without playing in it. Testing on withdrawal was deemed under the rules to be testing in competition. Expert evidence obtained for the player demonstrated that only a tiny amount of the drug must have been inadvertently ingested in the 12 or so hours before testing.  It was established that it was more likely than not ingested through kissing a girl contaminated with cocaine, during the night before the sample was collected.  The player argued that he had acted with no fault or negligence, which would mean that no ban should be imposed.  That standard is however very rarely met, and he succeeded only in establishing that he had acted with no significant fault or negligence, reducing his ban from two years to one year.  But then in addition, he was able to persuade  the panel that a year’s ban was disproportionate and unlawful in the circumstances of the case, because the player had not in any normal sense been in competition  when the substance was inadvertently ingested, since he had already decided to withdraw from the event through injury without playing any part in it.   The panel substituted a sanction of 2½ months.  This was on the basis of the principle that WADA automatic sanctions must be dis-applied if disproportionate, which principle Adam Lewis had successfully advanced before CAS in Puerta v ITF, in which case an eight year ban had been reduced to two years.
  Both the ITF and WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.  In particular they were concerned as to the dis-application of the mandatory sanctions.  The case was heard on 10 November 2009.   On the appeal, CAS was persuaded that far from increasing the sanction imposed, it should reduce it, on the basis that the Player was in fact correct that he had acted with no fault or negligence.   This represents one of the very few occasions on which CAS has ruled that a player satisfied this standard. 
• Chelsea FC v Mutu; FA v Chelsea FC (2007-2009 and pending, FAPL Appeal Committee, FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne CAS 2008/A/1644, FA Disciplinary Commission, Swiss Federal Court)
  Acts for Chelsea in its litigation before various football arbitral bodies against the player Adrian Mutu.  An award in the club’s favour on liability was obtained from an FAPL body and then upheld by CAS, after which the case moved on to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, which declined jurisdiction.  On appeal to CAS, he succeeded in having the DRC’s decision overturned.  When the matter came before the DRC it held (August 2008) that the player was liable to the club for €17 million in damages.  The player appealed for a third time to CAS, and the case was heard in May 2009.  In July CAS made an award in the Club’s favour upholding the DRC decision.  The Player then appealed to the Swiss Federal Court, which rejected the appeal in early 2010.
  Adam has also represented Chelsea in two recent sets of FA proceedings brought against the Club for private drug testing and in relation to Leeds players, and advised the Club in the context of Mikel.
• British Broadcasting Corporation Worldwide v UK Athletics (High Court, November 2009)
  Acted for the United Kingdom governing body for Athletics in an action brought against it by the BBC is respect of the international TV rights to Athletics events held in the UK.  The BBC alleged that it was entitled to the rights, UKA alleged that due to the international reorganisation of athletics, it was entitled to cease to provide the rights.   Cas settled just before trial in November 2009
• Cardiff Blues, Llanelli Scarlets, Neath Swansea Ospreys and Newport Dragons v Welsh Rugby Union (High Court, September 2009)
  Represented the Welsh Rugby Union in an action brought against it by the four Welsh rugby regional organisations over player release for the 2009 autumn internationals between Wales and Southern Hemisphere teams.  The four regions sought a declaration that the WRU was not entitled to release of players for the match against New Zealand at the beginning of November 2009.   The matter was set down to be heard in September 2009, and was fully prepared, but settled immediately before trial.  The players were released. 
• Gibraltar Football Association v UEFA (2003-September 2009, judgment pending, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne CAS 2007/O/1237)
  Numerous CAS hearings, the last in September 2009, in relation to the GFA’s attempt to secure membership of UEFA. Successfully represented the GFA in its first and second arbitrations against UEFA, in which the CAS ordered UEFA to grant provisional membership to the GFA.  On the third arbitration, GFA successfully established the jurisdiction of CAS, and UEFA’s appeal to the Swiss Federal Court, was rejected.  A substantive hearing before CAS took place in September. Award on the third arbitration is pending.
• Wembley v Sporting Events Worldwide Ltd (2009 High Court action, settled)
  Acted for the stadium in Wembley v Sporting Events Worldwide Ltd a High Court action in relation to ticketing that settled in 2009. 
• Sheffield United v West Ham (FA Rule K arbitration, Lord Griffiths chairing, 2007-2009;  Commercial Court Teare J  10 November 2008 [2008] EWHC 2855 (Comm))
  Acted for Sheffield in its success early in 2009 in obtaining substantial damages for from West Ham for breach of the FAPL rules which led to Sheffield being relegated in West Ham’s place.   The FA Rule K arbitral tribunal held first on a trial of preliminary issues that in principle damages are available to one club for breach of the FAPL rules by another club (2008).  It then held that West Ham was in breach and the breach caused Sheffield’s loss (2008).   West Ham then attempted to appeal to CAS, although no appeal lay.   Sheffield went to the Commercial Court for an injunction to restrain West Ham from making an appeal to CAS where no appeal lay.   Before the quantum hearing in 2009, the case settled, with Sheffield securing substantial compensation from West Ham. 
• Sheffield United v FAPL (arbitration, Commercial Court, 2007)
  Acted for Sheffield in its innovative attempt (before later successfully suing West Ham for damages) to persuade an arbitral tribunal to review an FA Premier League disciplinary decision in relation to West Ham, on the basis that it was overly lenient and had consequently led to Sheffield being demoted in place of West Ham. The arbitral tribunal held (2007) that it could review the decision at the suit of Sheffield, but that the decision was not so unreasonable as to fall outside the range of decisions open to the FAPL. There was also a subsequent challenge in the Commercial Court.
• Stretford v FA (Chancery Division) [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch); [2007] EWCA Civ 238 (CA) FA Rule K Arbitration, FA Regulatory Commission, FA Appeal Commission 2006-2009)
  Successfully brought to an end in 2009 the long running litigation between the FA and the agent Paul Stretford.  Originally successfully represented the FA in the Chancery Division and the CA in obtaining and retaining a stay of Paul Stretford’s High Court challenge to the compliance of the FA’s disciplinary process with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the context of the FA’s making of disciplinary charges against him in relation to the circumstances in which he became Wayne Rooney’s agent.  The matter also involved the application to sports governing body disciplinary action of the Meadow v GMC decisions (Collins J and CA) in relation to witness immunity from prosecution.  The CA determined that FA Rule K referring such challenges to arbitration was not itself contrary to Article 6.  Following the stay, Mr Stretford’s application fell to be heard by arbitration.  Adam Lewis successfully persuaded Sir Martin Nourse as the Chairmen of the Arbitral Panel that the arbitration challenging the Article 6 compliance of the system should not be heard until after the disciplinary charges had themselves been heard. The Regulatory Commission determined as preliminary issues that the validity of the FA’s substantive disciplinary structure could not be successfully impugned on Article 6 grounds (February 2008), and that the CA’s decision in Meadow meant that disciplinary proceedings could be pursued in respect of what a respondent had said as a witness in other criminal proceedings. When the substance of the charges was heard, Mr Stretford was found to be guilty as charged (Summer 2008).  Mr Stretford appealed to an FA Appeal Commission, and he appeal was rejected.   Mr Stretford resumed his challenge before the FA Rule K arbitration, but in 2009  that challenge was withdrawn.
• Adam Lewis has also recently advised the FA in relation to a number of other cases involving the disciplining of football agents or the agents’ examination, which are heading for arbitration.
• Greater Manchester Police v Wigan AFC (Chancery Division, Mann J 8-19 October 2007, 10 March 2008) [2007] EWHC 3095 (Ch); Court of Appeal 11 November 2008, 19 December 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1449
  Acted for Wigan AFC in its dispute with the GMP over the police’s powers in relation to the policing of football matches and ability to charge for that policing.  The case established the constraints on the actions of the police, a public body, when it comes to charging for such special police services.  The case draws an important distinction between when a body such as the police is acting in fulfilment of its public law obligations, and when it is acting in a private law capacity.   At first instance Wigan was held impliedly to have requested such policing as was regarded as necessary by the Chief Constable and could properly be characterised as falling outside the police’s public law obligations. On appeal it was held that because Wigan had set a limit on what it was prepared to pay for and was requesting, such an implication could not be made. 
• Application of the Football League fit and proper person test: Silvio Briatore; Notts County
  He has advised the Football League on its fit and proper person test, in the wake of Silvio Briatore’s ban from Formula One by FIA and questions as to the ownership of Notts County.
• Rugby Football League
  In 2009 he has advised the Rugby Football League on its organisation.
• FA and UK Sport, anti-doping rules
  He is currently advising the FA in relation to its adoption of the whereabouts rules under the WADA code.
• Rio  Football Services v Olympiacos (current CAS)  
  He is currently acting in another matter involving the recovery of monies by Rio Football Services, an investor in football player registrations, this time in CAS.
• Sports Network v Joe Calzaghe  (17 June 2009  Court of Appeal )
  Appeared for the boxer at the oral hearing of Frank Warren’s Sport Network’s application for permission to appeal, which was refused.
• Dwain Chambers v British Olympic Association (Queens Bench Division, Mackay J, 9, 17 and 18 July 2008) [2008] EWHC 2028 (QB)
  Represented the British Olympic Association in its successful defence of an injunction application brought by Dwain Chambers (July 2008).  Under the BOA rules, Dwain Chambers was made indefinitely ineligible to compete for Great Britain in the Olympic Games because he had previously tested positive for a banned substance.  The athlete wanted to compete at the imminent Beijing Olympics and so sought an expedited trial as to the legality of the byelaw, alleging that it was in breach of the competition law rules, Wednesbury unreasonable and in unreasonable restraint of trade.  When the application for expedition was resisted on grounds of delay, effect on third parties and the impracticality of a full trial being held immediately, the athlete sought an injunction to prevent the BOA from applying the ban to him.  Refusing his application, Mr Justice Mackay said that Mr Chambers did not have a strong argument on the merits (under any of the arguments advanced), the balance of convenience was strongly against the application since he was seeking to displace the status quo and exclude another athlete, and his application should also fail because it was made after considerable delay and would have an effect on third parties.
• Leeds v The Football League (arbitration Sir Philip Otton, Peter Leaver QC, Peter Cadman) (2008)
  Acted for the Football League in Leeds’ challenge by way of FA Rule K arbitration to the legality of the League’s substantial points deduction imposed as a condition of allowing a new company to take over the club when the former owner company went into administration.  The tribunal rejected Leeds’ case (2008).  The decision was in compliance with the rules, was not arbitrary, and in any event relief would be refused on grounds of delay and effect on third parties.
• Neo v Star (2008)
  Acted for the Indian broadcaster Neo in its dispute with News International’s broadcaster Star n relation to the broadcasting of cricket in India.   Case settled.  Also advised CSI in relation to South African cricket rights.
• Christine Ohuruogu v BOA (Arbitration November 2007)
  Acted for the BOA in Christine Ohuruogu’s appeal against her ineligibility for Olympic selection.
• Carl Myerscough v BOA (2008)
  Acted for the BOA in Carl Myerscough’s challenge, now abandoned, to the validity of the BOA byelaw precluding selection of athletes who have doped, in the absence of mitigating factors.
• International Rugby Board Rules (ongoing)
  Advises the IRB regularly and extensively on changes to its rules.  The IRB continually develops its rules in order to strike the correct balance between the interests of the various participants in the sport: players, clubs, unions, competitions (such as the European Rugby Cup), international governing body (the IRB) and other international organisations (such as the Lions Committee), commercial partners and spectators.  As part of that development, the IRB ensures that its new rules comply with free movement and competition law, to which they are subject.  Adam works together with the IRB’s legal officer to develop rules that are so compliant while still achieving the necessary aims of the organisation.  During 2008 he has in particular been advising on the Rugby Player Release Rules.
• The FA’s Players Agent Regulations (2007- ongoing)
  Advises The FA in relation to the compliance of rules with free movement and competition law.  During 2007 he in particular worked together with The FA’s legal advisors and in-house lawyers on the development of new Players’ Agents Regulations (which came into force in September 2007), which were then and are still now the subject of threatened litigation by agents and the Law Society on these grounds.  In 2009 he advised on the Premier League clubs’ threat to challenge the regulations.
• Sankofa and Charlton v FA (Commercial Court, Simon J 2007)
  Successfully represented the FA in resisting the application of a club for an injunction under section 44 Arbitration Act 1996 to restrain the FA from implementing a Disciplinary Commission ban on a footballer playing. 
• Coach A v UK Athletics (SDRP) (2007)
  Representing UKA on a coach’s appeal to a Sports Dispute Resolution Panel tribunal against his suspension for an inappropriate sexual relationship with an athlete under his coaching disciplinary proceedings against a coach.  The coach’s challenge to the validity of the rules failed.
• Rugby World Cup 1999, 2003, 2007and 2011 (ongoing)
  Represents, and has for many years represented, the organisers of the Rugby World Cup 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011 (notification of the entire 1999 and 2003 arrangements for the Rugby World Cup to the European Commission and OFT for exemption under Article 81(3); and complaint by disgruntled trader, and in relation to 2007 and 2011, the preparation of the agreements and the tendering processes and liaison with regulatory authorities, in order to ensure that the system is compliant with competition law).
• Adidas v International Tennis Federation (Chancery Division) [2006] EWHC 1318 (Ch) and 2007
  Acted for the ITF in the challenge brought by Adidas to the legality of the tennis authorities’ decision that the Adidas “3-Stripes” constituted manufacturers’ identification and consequently had to comply with clothing size restrictions.  Adidas contended that the ITF was in a dominant position and that its decision was abusive as discriminatory, and therefore contrary to Article 82.  Adidas succeeded in obtaining interim relief suspending the decision.  Following preparation of the matter for trial, it subsequently settled.
• International Sports Investment v International Rugby Board (Chancery Division) (2007)
  Acted for the IRB in the challenge brought by ISI, an organiser of matches between national representative sides and scratch sides such as a World XV, to the IRB’s exercise of control over the calendar for international rugby as involving an anticompetitive agreement and an abuse of a dominant position.  After a number of interim hearings, the action settled.
• Rugby Football Union v Westminster Hospitality and Events Ltd (Chancery Division); Rugby Football Union v Eventco (Chancery Division) (2007)
  Acted for the RFU in its action for an injunction to restrain black market sale of tickets, which was met by Westminster by an allegation that the RFU’s attempt to prevent such sales is anti-competitive.  Interim injunction successfully obtained, but Westminster went into administration and the action came to a halt. Has also acted in other black market ticket cases for the RFU (including against Eventco) and for UEFA, FIFA, FAPL, IRB, RFU, and the All England Club.  These actions are against individual re-sellers and touts, on occasion involve actions against “persons unknown”, and may involve applications for Norwich Pharmacal relief against websites such as eBay.
• Newcastle United Football Club v FA and FIFA (Michael Owen) (2007)
  Acted for Newcastle United Football Club in its threatened challenge to the compatibility of the football player release rules with competition law and free movement law, following the injury to Michael Owen for which there has not been adequate compensation from the FA and FIFA.  
• Ashley Cole (OFT) (2005)
  Acted for Ashley Cole in his complaint to the OFT that the football authorities’ rules preventing a player in contract from even talking to another club before the last month of his contract, are incompatible with the competition law rules.  Also acted for Ashley Cole’s agent, Jonathan Barnett, on the validity of the equivalent rule in the players’ agents rules. 
• Football League - fit and proper person, transfer window, players’ agents
  Regularly advises the Football League in relation to the compatibility of existing or proposed rules of the sport with competition and free movement law.  Recently he has advised in relation to rules on the “fit and proper person” test for involvement with a club, as to whether FIFA’s football transfer window system complies with EU free movement law, in the light of the Bosman decision, and as to the compatibility of the various sports bodies’ developing rules on players’ agents.  He has also advised a number of sports governing bodies on the impact of the Kolpak ruling.
• Sports Network, Frank Warren v Ricky Hatton (QB Division) (2005-2006)
  Represented Ricky Hatton, the world light welterweight champion, in Frank Warren’s attempt to obtain an injunction to stop the boxer fighting for another promoter.  No injunction was obtained.  Frank Warren continued to pursue an action in damages, but the matter was settled shortly before trial in October 2006.
• ITF v Puerta (ITF Disciplinary Panel, CAS) CAS 2006/A/1025; I.S.L.R. 2006, 4(NOV), SLR149-174
  Appeared for the player in the doping disciplinary proceedings brought by the ITF following the player’s testing positive after the French Open Final in 2005.  Drafted the appeal brief to CAS but was unable to appear.  On the basis of the player’s submissions, CAS applied the proportionality principle to disapply the normal WADA measure, and reduced the player’s ban from 8 years to two. 
• FIFA v Liverpool FC; FA v Liverpool FC (2006- ongoing) (FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, FA Disciplinary Commission)
  Acts for Liverpool in relation to proceedings brought by FIFA against the club in relation to the transfer of Harry Kewell.  He successfully persuaded the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber that it did not have jurisdiction over the club.  He has also advised Liverpool in connection with FAPL distribution of television monies following the postponement of a match for the Club to play in the World Club Championship.
• Juventus
  He acted for the Italian Club in its attempts to enforce a CAS Award against an English Club.
• Turkish Grand Prix, US Grand Prix
  Acted for the organisers of the Turkish Grand Prix in relation to FIA’s disciplinary proceedings against them for allowing the President of Turkish occupied Cyprus to present an award.  Acted for Formula One Management following the US Grand Prix debacle, in relation to actions brought against FOM and the position as between FOM and the teams.
  

• Alain Baxter v IOC
• Walker v UKA and IAAF (Toulson J, 3 July 2000 and Hallett J, 25 July 2000); IAAF v UKA
• FA v Fulham FC
• Wimbledon FC v the Football League
• Newcastle v Football Association of Wales
• Sunderland AFC v Uruguay Montevideo, Blofeld J (March 2001)
• Olympique Lyonnais v Al Fayed and Fulham, Burnton J, 4 March 2003
• Wimbledon v Birmingham
• Fulham v Valencia
• Patrick Vieira
• Yaya Toure
• De Lucas
• Camara 
• Dennis Roach v Football Association (2002)
• FA v Club D
• Metro Sports v FA 
• CSI Octagon
• Hospitality Group v the Football Association, Scott VC (High Court 1996). 
• Scott & Jones v Football Conference (High Court 2002). 
• MTV v FOM
• Phoenix v FIA, FOM and FOA Morritt VC (22 May 2002)
• Economist v FOM
• Moodie v Honda Motorcycle Racing
• Myerscough v British Olympic Association  (2004)
• Edwards v BAF and IAAF [1998] 2 CMLR 363
• Rugby World Cup Limited 1999 and 2003
• Lions Committee 2001 tour. 
• Cardiff RFC v Welsh Rugby Union, Buckley J, 17th March 1998; Eady J, 29th July 1998 [1999] EuLR 195
• Aberavon v WRU, (2002)
• Ynysybwl v WRU (2002)
• Sporting Exchange v Levy Board).
• Graham Bradley v Jockey Club [2003] I.S.L.R SLR-71. 
• Jockeys' Association of Great Britain. 
• Pothas v ECB
• Cairns v ECB 
• Global Cricket Corporation v ICC
• Global Cricket Corporation v SET
• Global v Buena Vista
• Grand Slam Committee
• All England Lawn Tennis Club v X
• ITF v B 
• RPT v LTA
• LTA  v A
• IMG
• Vivien Saunders v St Andrew's

Publications:                                   

Lewis and Taylor, Sport: Law and Practice, 2nd edition Tottel, 2008, the principal UK sports law text. Regularly speaks at conferences on sports law and contributes to periodicals. 

Lecturing:

Lectures on the Kings College London Sports Law course.