Tom Hickman KC

Tom acted in this challenge to a decision to deprive a woman of her British citizenship. It concerns the scope of SIAC's powers on a deprivation appeal. The claim was heard by the Supreme Court in 2025 which refused the appeal and gave guidance on the scope of SIAC's powers on appeals from deprivation decisions.

Tom represented the Government of the Cayman Islands in this appeal to the Privy Council from a declaration of incompatibility granted by the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands which found that s.37 of the Immigration Transition Act, which provides for a points system for granting permanent residence conflicted with the Cayman Islands Bill of Rights.

Challenge by a civil service union concerning the circumstances in which they can be asked to breach international law in removing persons to Rwanda and the effect of the Civil Service Code.

This case, in which Tom acted in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, was a constitutional challenge to the Civil Partnership Act 2020. The Governor of the Cayman Islands in enacting and assenting to the CPA, was found to have acted within the scope of his reserved powers under section 81 of the Cayman Islands Constitution. The case concerned the nature of the executive power to legislate for "external relations".

This was a ground-breaking case on the application of the "commercial exception" to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, holding it applicable to persons subjected by diplomatic agents to conditions of servitude and modern slavery. Tom acted for the intervening party Kalayaan, a charity that works to protect victims of modern slavery. The charity intervened in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Tom represented the Investigatory Powers Commission at a hearing concerned with the scope of the Commission's duty to assist the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. 

Successful challenge before the Divisional Court to the legality of the Government’s policy to search, seize and retain data from the mobile phones of migrants arriving by small boat. The Court unusually gave a second, important, judgment on failings in the duty of candour, particularly at the pre-permission stage. 

Tom acted for MA and KH.

A claim brought by FF, a Bahraini refugee and torture survivor, who had compiled a dossier of evidence allegedly implicating Prince Nasser of Bahrain in torture during Bahrain’s 2011 pro-democracy uprising. Tom acted for the Claimant (with Isabel Buchanan).

Tom acted for the FDA civil service union in challenging the Prime Minister's decision that there was no breach of the Ministerial Code by the Home Secretary concerning allegations of bullying. The Court agreed with the FDA (contrary to the Government's case) that the Ministerial Code was justiciable and that bullying had to be understood objectively and not subjectively, in line with civil services policies. The Court dismissed the claim on the facts. 

Tom acted for the subject of an extradition request, concerning the meaning and effect of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the continuing effect of the Framework Decision on extradition on the application of that Act post Brexit.

This case was brought by a number of asylum seekers, challenging their accommodation at a Napier army barracks. The court upheld the challenge, finding that the accommodation was unsafe and unsuitable for housing asylum seekers and that for periods the claimants had been falsly imprisoned there. 

This was a high profile challenge to the deprivation of citizenship of Shamima Begum. The key issue was whether the appellant could have a fair hearing and the consequences if she could not. Tom acted in this stage of the proceedings, which went to the Supreme Court.

Tom appeared for the Claimants in this successful judicial review of the planned vigil on Clapham Common in memory of Sarah Everard. Tom also acted in an application for an interim declaration in the same case (reported at [2021] EWHC 661 (Admin)

Tom acted in this leading case on when a claimant is likely to obtain a benefit from a judicial review such as to bring him or her within the scope of the legal aid regime. 

This case concerned the fate of several refugee families who were shipwrecked in the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus in 1999. In 2018 the Supreme Court Ruled in favour of the Refugees that the Refugee Convention remained extended to the territory following Cypriot independence. The UK Government subsequently granted Tom's clients indefinite leave to remain in the UK. See: https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-refugees-marooned-for-20-years-can-finally-settle-in-uk

Tom acted  in this high profile case on the scope of the Data Protection and ePrivacy Directives and their application to Member States’ data retention regimes. The case was heard by a Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice on 12 May 2016, Tom appeared for the Law Society.

Tom acted for LG in this challenge to several Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures. Tom represented LG as lead appellant throughout the proceedings, including in respect of a challenge to a relocation measure and at trial in 2017. 

Tom acted for Chelsea FC in this claim by Adrian Mutu in the European Court of Human Rights. It is the first case in which the ECtHR has considered the CAS system and its compliance with human rights standards. Judgment was delivered in 2018. 

Tom acted for the claimant in this substantial case challenging the use of force by private immigration escorts. 

Tom acted for Big Brother Watch in an application at the European Court of Human Rights challenging the UK’s legislation governing the surveillance of communications and the implications of the Edward Snowdon disclosures about the use of TEMPORA and PRISM data. 

The Court of Appeal held that the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 is incompatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, in that it had interfered with ongoing legal proceedings challenging benefits sanctions by retrospectively validating those sanctions. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court had previously ruled that regulations introducing several ‘back to work’ schemes had been ultra vires the Jobseeker's Act 1995 (claims in which Tom also acted for the Claimants).

The Court of Appeal in Gedi held that the Secretary of State has no power to impose a curfew on immigration detainees. The case, in which Tom acted for the Claimant, has led to a change of Government policy and has major implications across immigration law.

Tom acted for the applicant in what is now the leading case on the extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights, its application to armed conflict and the relationship between the Convention and International Humanitarian Law.

Tom acts for CF in these proceedings concerning the abuse of process in proceedings under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigations Act 2011 and the scope of the minimum disclosure requirement.  

Tom acted for Mr Al Jedda in this case in which the Supreme Court upheld an order quashing the deprivation of his British citizenship.

Tom acted for the claimant in this application for disclosure of documents to support his criminal defence in criminal proceedings against him in Uganda for alleged involvement in the 2010 bombings in Kampala.

The Supreme Court upheld a claim for false imprisonment of two foreign national prisoners pending their deportation, for applying an unlawful and secret policy that differed from her published policy. The court also considered and rejected the availibiity of vindicatory damages in tort. Tom acted for the cliamants.

The Supreme Court found that detention of a foreign national prisoner was unlawful where the Secretary of State had failed to carry out reviews as required by the Secretary of State's published policy. The detainee was entitled to damages for false imprisonment. Tom acted in the Supreme Court for the claimant.

Tom represented Binyam Mohamed in the Court of Appeal where Mr Mohamed successfully obtained disclosure of information relating to his mistreatment and torture over which public interest immunity was claimed on national security grounds. 

Tom represented AF in the leading case on control orders and Article 6 of the ECHR which led to the quashing of the control order imposed on AF. The case has given rise to other important judgments on the control order regime and subsequent TPIM regime. 

The Supeme Court considered the jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to determine complaints under the HRA 1998 and whether the jurisdiction was exclusive. A former member of the Security Service challenging the refusal of the Director of Establishments of the Security Service to consent to the publication of material about the Security Service. By reason of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 s.65(2)(a), the court held that the tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords held that a non-derogating control orders which, among other things, imposed 18-hour curfews and prohibited social contact with anybody who was not authorised by the Home Office, amounted to a deprivation of liberty.

The case concerned the compatibilty of terrorism control orders with Article 6, ECHR. Important rulings were given at first instance, where the regime was declared incompatible with Article 6, in the Court of Appeal and ultimately in the House of Lords. Tom acted at each stage in the proceedings.

The case concerned the circumstances in which courts can limit the principle of open justice to allow evidence to be adduced in private. Tom acted for Millicom Services UK Ltd in in a successful challenge to a refusal to permit it to restrict public dissemination of evidence that could expose individuals to a serious harm.

Joint venture commercial dispute in the commercial court brought by the World Academy of Sport against the IPC for breaching a joint venture agreement for the provision of services to Olympic Games organising committees and national sporting associations. The claim settled before trial in 2024.

Multi-jurisdictional passing off / trade mark  litigation concerning the fourth most successful pharmaceutical product in the world, the Seretide asthma inhalers. The case concerned the colour and shape of Glaxo's seretide inhalers and their alleged distinctiveness and whether a rival product was misleading to consumers and industry participants.

The judgments concerned an application to use documents disclosed and used in preliminary hearings in UK proceedings in parrallel trade mark proceedings in Germany.

Concerned the admissibility of opinion evidence from trade witnesses going beyond factual evidence based on their own personal knowledge and experience, and statements from the claimants' employees amounting to expert opinion or statements of fact of which they had no personal knowledge.

Applications to amend counterclaims and for an adjournment of trial.

Tom acted in this contested application for an expedited trial of an alleged EU and UK trade mark and passing off dispute.

The judgments concerned an application to use documents disclosed and used in preliminary hearings in UK proceedings in parrallel trade mark proceedings in Germany.

Tom acted for the Government of the Cayman Islands in a challenge to the issue of import tax waivers and agreements to waive importation duties in the context of medical equipment. The challenge also related to the scheme for registering foreign medical doctors in the Cayman Islands. 

Tom represented the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in this landmark arbitration concerning relating to the identification of centralised doping and anti-detection systems adopted by Russia between 2011 and 2015. The arbitration concerned whether the failure of Russia to comply with reinstatement conditions could and should result in restrictions on Russian participation in international competitions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport imposed a two year prohibition on such participation. 

This commercial court case challenged the the rescission of a settlement agreement between Bernard Ecclestone and HM Revenue and Customs relating to the settlement of the investigation into the sale of the rights to F1 Racing. The issues include misrepresentation and fraud. Tom represented HMRC. 

Tom acted for Tate & Lyle Sugar concerning the allegedly wrongful diversion of a sugar cargo. The claim involved allegations of conversion, procuring breach of contract, deceit and conspiracy. This substantial commercial case settled before trial.

Tom is acting for Renault Formula 1 Team in a sponsorship dispute over the use of the YotaPhone brand. The claim is proceeding in the commercial court.

Tom acted for the high street retailer H&M, in successfully resisting an EU-wide injunction against the company for selling infringing brassieres contrary to a settlement agreement. Distinguishing Experience Hendrix, the court also refused to grant an account of profits.

Acted for HP Ltd in a trade mark infringement and conspiracy claim concerning the acquisition and sale of computer servers. 

Tom acted for a global multi-level marketing company concerning the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC and the prohibition on pyramid selling schemes. Tom is involved at an advisory and strategic level, including helping to co-ordinate legal teams in several jurisdictions. 

Tom acted for the defendant, a US data migration company, in long-running trade mark proceedings. The case has generated a number of important judgments and was the subject of a reference to the CJEU on the issue of the bad faith defence and the scope of the CJEU's ruling in IP Translator. An application for a reference on the compatibility of the "own name defence" with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was refused. Additional reported judgments include: [2017] EWHC 1769 (Ch), [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch) 3 (Ch), [2018] EWCA Civ 2004

Tom acted successfully for Fawaz Al-Hasawi in this £5m dispute over the sale of Nottingham Forest Football Club. A judgment reached in Mr Al-Hasawi's favour was upheld on appeal.

Claim by owner of hotel chain against an operating company for delivery-up of database information and documents and for breach of fiduciary duty. 

Tom acted for Gillingham FC in substantial contractual dispute concerning hospitality at the Club’s ground and hospitality facilities. The Club was awarded £1.4m in damages and costs in this contested high court action. 

Tom acted for the celebrated progressive rock and classical musician Rick Wakeman in a dispute over the validity of contract for copyright assignment. 

Substantial civil fraud claim against Vladimir Antonov, the former owner of a Lithuanian Bank. The judgment of Gloster J relates to various interlocutory issues, including confidentiality rings, the relationship between freezing orders in different jurisdictions, criminal proceedings and extradition proceedings, and the right against self-incrimination. 

Tom acted for the publishing company Rive Droit Music Ltd which was involved in earlier stages of this high profile litigation.

This was a challenge to the Prime Minister’s ability to issue a declaration triggering the UK’s withdrawal from the EU without authorisation from an Act of Parliament. This case was heard by a panel of 11 members of the Supreme Court, the first of two occassions the court has sat with a panel of 11. Tom acted as junior counsel to Gina Miller in a team led by Lord Pannick QC. 

Challenge to the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament in the lead-up to the UK's then scheduled exit from the EU. Tom acted with Lord Pannick QC for Gina Miller and succeded by a margin of 11-0 in the Supreme Court in having the Order in Council that directed the prorogation quashed. It is one of only two cases in which the Supreme Court has sat with a panel of 11 judges (the other being R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU).

The claim concerned the compatibility of a decision to impose award criteria and conditions in public procurements that prohibited the use of the claimant's products. The issue concerned the compatibility of that decision with the Procurement Act 2023 and the Public Contract Regulations 2015 as well as with public law principles.

Tom acted for GB News in this succesful challenge to two Ofcom decisions applying section 5 of the Broadcasting Code on due impartiality in the presentation of news. The Court found that Ofcom had misinterpretted sections 5.1 and 5.3 in finding that a politican was not entitled to read any item of news during a current affairs or other non-news programme without exceptional editorial justificstion. The Court also found that Ofcom's interpretation of the Code was not reasonably foreseeable and thus was not prescribed by law for the purposes of Article 10, ECHR. The High Court quashed both decisions.

This was a major subsidy control challenge concerning the decision to support to the collapsed energy company Bulb, to allow it to be transferred to Octopus Energy, with a potential cost of several billion pounds. The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court in holding that the Secretary of State's decision to approve a sale to Octopus together with support for Bulb's unhedged position on the wholesale energy market were lawful decisions both applying public law principles and subsidy control rules. The M&A process conducted by the special energy administrators, which was the focus of the challenge, was found to have been adequate and fair. Tom acted for Bulb and the special energy administrators.

Cayman Islands judicial review of decisions of the Central Planning Authority concerning a development over land populated by the protected blue iguana. The case concerned issues of planning law and the relationship between the Cayman Islands' environmental statutes and the central planning system.

The first judicial review under the National Security and Investment Act 2021. The case concerned a decision of the Secretary of State requiring the claimant to divest itself of its ownership in a telecommunications company without compensation due to a risk associated with the Russian origins of the ultimate beneficial owners. The claim raised issues as to the process to be conducted under the act, to proportionality and as to compensation for dispossession.

Challenge by a civil service union concerning the circumstances in which they can be asked to breach international law in removing persons to Rwanda and the effect of the Civil Service Code.

The BGMA challenged the refusal to allow them to participate in agreeing the voluntary agreement for pricing of pharmaceutical products.

Tom acted for the Canal and River Trust in this successful appeal which established that the charity is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Concerned substitution of a claimant in judicial review proceedings

Tom represented HM Treasury in a challenge by UK gilts holders to align the RPI index of consumer priced with CPIH. The decision affected all persons with pensions or legal instruments linked to RPI. The Claimants estimated the effect on their gilts would be around £100billion. Tom acted for HM Treasury and UK Statistics Authority in successfully defending the judicial review proceedings.

This was a high profile challenge to the deprivation of citizenship of Shamima Begum. The key issue was whether the appellant could have a fair hearing and the consequences if she could not. Tom acted in this stage of the proceedings, which went to the Supreme Court.

Tom acted for Kellogg in a challenge to regulations that restrict the sale, placement and promotion of food and drink in supermarkets and on websites. The challenge related to the vires of aspects of the regulations and to distinction between breakfast cereals and other dehydrated foodstuffs, which requires the nutrient profile of breakfast cereals to be assessed on their dry qualities rather than as they are commonly eaten, with milk.

This case, in which Tom acted in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, was a constitutional challenge to the Civil Partnership Act 2020. The Governor of the Cayman Islands in enacting and assenting to the CPA, was found to have acted within the scope of his reserved powers under section 81 of the Cayman Islands Constitution. The case concerned the nature of the executive power to legislate for "external relations".

Tom represented the Investigatory Powers Commission at a hearing concerned with the scope of the Commission's duty to assist the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. 

Tom acted for the Government of the Cayman Islands in a challenge to the issue of import tax waivers and agreements to waive importation duties in the context of medical equipment. The challenge also related to the scheme for registering foreign medical doctors in the Cayman Islands. 

Tom represented the Lord Advocate in a reference to the Supreme Court under the Scotland Act 1998 on the question of whether holding an advisory referendum in Scotland on independence relates is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Scottish Parliament has no competence to hold such a referendum.

Successful challenge before the Divisional Court to the legality of the Government’s policy to search, seize and retain data from the mobile phones of migrants arriving by small boat. The Court unusually gave a second, important, judgment on failings in the duty of candour, particularly at the pre-permission stage. 

Tom acted for MA and KH.

Tom acted for the FDA civil service union in challenging the Prime Minister's decision that there was no breach of the Ministerial Code by the Home Secretary concerning allegations of bullying. The Court agreed with the FDA (contrary to the Government's case) that the Ministerial Code was justiciable and that bullying had to be understood objectively and not subjectively, in line with civil services policies. The Court dismissed the claim on the facts. 

Challenge to the traffic light system for categorising countries for the purposes of the Covid-19 travel restrictions. The challenge sought the publication of information that explained the basis for categorising countries as green, amber and red. 

This case was brought by a number of asylum seekers, challenging their accommodation at a Napier army barracks. The court upheld the challenge, finding that the accommodation was unsafe and unsuitable for housing asylum seekers and that for periods the claimants had been falsly imprisoned there. 

Tom appeared for the Claimants in this successful judicial review of the planned vigil on Clapham Common in memory of Sarah Everard. Tom also acted in an application for an interim declaration in the same case (reported at [2021] EWHC 661 (Admin)

Challenge to decisions of the Gambling Commission in relation to fairness and due process. Permission was granted at a hearing after which the case settled. 

Judicial review of decision by the ASA that a ‘lookalike’ passport website is misleading. Tom acted for the Advertising Standards Agency.

Tom acted for the Government in successfully defending this challenge to the 2015 Local Government Settlement and the structure of the Local Government Grant, issues of major significance and sensitivity.

Tom acted in this challenge to the decision of the Turks and Caicos Island Airports Authority to grant permission for the development of a second Fixed Based Operation at the airport. Tom argued the case before the Chief Justice.  

Acted for the General Medical Council in proceedings concerning the suspension of a doctor pending a criminal prosecution. The judgment was a significant development of the law on interim suspensions. 

This was a judicial review of an ASA decision and that of the Independent Reviewer upholding the lawfulness of Tesco’s Price Promise scheme, on domestic and EU law grounds. Tom successfully defended the claim. COncerned the interpretation of Directives 2005/29/EC and 2006/114/EC (consumer protection and advertising).

Tom successfully defended Manchester City Council from this challenge to the Council’s budget for allegedly failing to comply with procedural requirements including the public sector equality duty.

Acted for aircraft leasing company in this challenge to the detention of an aircraft at Glasgow airport under the Fleet Lien power. 

This was a challenge to the recognition by international law and the common law of special mission immunity. It is a leading case on reception of customary international law into domestic law. 

Tom acted for the Secretary of State for Transport in successfully defending this judicial review challenge to the charging regime for the Heathrow Spur as part of the Crossrail project. 

This was a challenge to the new press regulatory regime under the Royal Charter on the Regulation of the Press. Tom acted for the independent press regulator IMPRESS.

Tom acted for LG in this challenge to several Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures. Tom represented LG as lead appellant throughout the proceedings, including in respect of a challenge to a relocation measure and at trial in 2017. 

Tom acted for the claimant in this substantial case challenging the use of force by private immigration escorts. 

Tom acted for Ali Campbell, Astro and Mickey in this passing off and band dispute between two competing versions of UB40. 

Tom acted for the writer of the screenplay, Florence Foster Jenkins, in a copyright dispute over a claim of joint authorship. 

Tom acted successfully for Fawaz Al-Hasawi in this £5m dispute over the sale of Nottingham Forest Football Club. A judgment reached in Mr Al-Hasawi's favour was upheld on appeal.

Tom acted in a dispute over the rights to a Mini racing championship.  The claim settled before trial (2016).

Tom acted for the celebrated progressive rock and classical musician Rick Wakeman in a dispute over the validity of contract for copyright assignment. 

Tom acted for MC Harvey in a claim brought by Cheryl Cole in breach of privacy and defamation iconcerning an interview given by MC Harvey in 2011 in which he discussed a relationship with Cheryl Cole. The claim was pursued in the Chancery Division. It settled in 2013 following a preliminary hearing.

Tom acted for the publishing company Rive Droit Music Ltd which was involved in earlier stages of this high profile litigation.

Tom acted for the subject of an extradition request, concerning the meaning and effect of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the continuing effect of the Framework Decision on extradition on the application of that Act post Brexit.

Tom acted  in this high profile case on the scope of the Data Protection and ePrivacy Directives and their application to Member States’ data retention regimes. The case was heard by a Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice on 12 May 2016, Tom appeared for the Law Society.

Tom acted for the claimant in a challenge to the regime for removal of passports, based on Directive 2004/38/EC (free movement). A preliminary judgment established the applicability of EU law to the removal of passports.

Tom acted for a global multi-level marketing company concerning the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC and the prohibition on pyramid selling schemes. Tom is involved at an advisory and strategic level, including helping to co-ordinate legal teams in several jurisdictions. 

Acted for a multinational company in this challenge (which ultimately settled before a reference was made to the CJEU) to the interpretation and vires of an EU Directive.

Tom acted in various stages of this challenge to EU Zimbabwe sanctions including in relation to a damages claim.

Tom acted for the defendant, a US data migration company, in long-running trade mark proceedings. The case has generated a number of important judgments and was the subject of a reference to the CJEU on the issue of the bad faith defence and the scope of the CJEU's ruling in IP Translator. An application for a reference on the compatibility of the "own name defence" with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was refused. Additional reported judgments include: [2017] EWHC 1769 (Ch), [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch) 3 (Ch), [2018] EWCA Civ 2004

Tom acted in an dispute between a leading football club under the Premier League rules relating to the use of VAR. Arbitration proceedings were compromised.

Joint venture commercial dispute in the commercial court brought by the World Academy of Sport against the IPC for breaching a joint venture agreement for the provision of services to Olympic Games organising committees and national sporting associations. The claim settled before trial in 2024.

Tom acted in a dispute concerning an overseas national cricket association in a very high value commercial dispute over broadcasting rights relating to the national team. 

Tom represented the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in this landmark arbitration concerning relating to the identification of centralised doping and anti-detection systems adopted by Russia between 2011 and 2015. The arbitration concerned whether the failure of Russia to comply with reinstatement conditions could and should result in restrictions on Russian participation in international competitions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport imposed a two year prohibition on such participation. 

In 2016, Tom advised a national broadcaster on a contractual dispute concerning rights to a major football tournament.

Tom is acting for Renault Formula 1 Team in a sponsorship dispute over the use of the YotaPhone brand. The claim is proceeding in the commercial court.

Tom acted for Chelsea FC in this claim by Adrian Mutu in the European Court of Human Rights. It is the first case in which the ECtHR has considered the CAS system and its compliance with human rights standards. Judgment was delivered in 2018. 

Tom represented Chelsea Football Club in its appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport from the decision to ban the Club from signing players for two transfer windows. The ban was lifted. Tom was junior Counsel to David Pannick QC and Adam Lewis QC. He has subsequently advised Chelsea FC on associated matters and represented them in the Mutu case before the European Court of Human Rights.

Tom acted for Gillingham FC in substantial contractual dispute concerning hospitality at the Club’s ground and hospitality facilities. The Club was awarded £1.4m in damages and costs in this contested high court action. 

This commercial court case challenged the the rescission of a settlement agreement between Bernard Ecclestone and HM Revenue and Customs relating to the settlement of the investigation into the sale of the rights to F1 Racing. The issues include misrepresentation and fraud. Tom represented HMRC. 

Tom acted successfully for Fawaz Al-Hasawi in this £5m dispute over the sale of Nottingham Forest Football Club. A judgment reached in Mr Al-Hasawi's favour was upheld on appeal.

Concerned the Connection and Use of System Code and a decision of GEMA to adopt a staged approach to compliance. The court also found that congestion management costs could be taken into account when transmission charges were set were not limited to those incurred by network operators attributable to the management of congestion on interconnectors governing international trade between EU Member States. Tom acted for the CMA.

This was a major subsidy control challenge concerning the decision to support to the collapsed energy company Bulb, to allow it to be transferred to Octopus Energy, with a potential cost of several billion pounds. The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court in holding that the Secretary of State's decision to approve a sale to Octopus together with support for Bulb's unhedged position on the wholesale energy market were lawful decisions both applying public law principles and subsidy control rules. The M&A process conducted by the special energy administrators, which was the focus of the challenge, was found to have been adequate and fair. Tom acted for Bulb and the special energy administrators.

Tom acted for the CMA in this judicial review of a CMA decision determining gas price control issues. The case raised issues of the appropriate scope of the CMA's jurisdiction in gas price control matters.

This was a ground-breaking case on the application of the "commercial exception" to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, holding it applicable to persons subjected by diplomatic agents to conditions of servitude and modern slavery. Tom acted for the intervening party Kalayaan, a charity that works to protect victims of modern slavery. The charity intervened in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

This case concerns the application of the commercial exception in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in the context of modern slavery. Tom is acting for the intervening party Kalayaan in the Supreme Court. 

This was a challenge to the recognition by international law and the common law of special mission immunity. It is a leading case on reception of customary international law into domestic law. 

Tom acted for Ms Estrada in successfully resisting a diplomatic immunity claim by the Defendant who had been appointed permanent representative of the IMO in London.

This case concerned the limits of the court's jurisdiction to determine whether a diplomat is in fact engaged in diplomatic activities. The case also involved issues of sovereign immunity. 

Tom acted for the Claimant in this claim concerning the scope of Head of State immunity of the former King of Saudi Arabia. 

Acting for the Claimant, the court made a declaration that Prince Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa is not entitled to immunity from suit in the UK.

In a landmark ruling, the Grand Chamber required the Turkish Government to pay the Cypriot Government EUR 30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damages for surviving relatives of missing persons and EUR 60,000,000 for the damage suffered by the enclaved residents of the Karpas peninsula arising out of the military activities northern Cyprus in 1974 and territorial division of the country. 

Tom acted for the applicant in what is now the leading case on the extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights, its application to armed conflict and the relationship between the Convention and International Humanitarian Law.

This case concerned the scope of diplomatic immunity for human trafficking and modern slavery and the scope of the commercial exception under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Tom acted for the charity Kalayaan.