Timothy joined Chambers in October 2016. Timothy undertakes a wide range of civil work, including:
- Commercial and Chancery
- Negligence and Personal Injury
He has appeared in the Queen’s Bench Division, Companies Court and Senior Courts Cost Office, and regularly appears in the County Court in London and nationwide.
Before joining the Bar, Timothy worked for a magic circle law firm as a paralegal in the Dispute Resolution department, primarily within the Commercial Disputes Group and International Arbitration Group. Before pursuing his legal studies, Timothy worked in publishing.
Commercial and Chancery
Timothy has experience of dealing with a wide range of commercial matters including contractual disputes and matters relating to the sale of businesses.
During 2014 and early-2015, Timothy was appeared as a junior in the Queen’s Bench Division for the trial of a matter concerning the imposition of trusts in Hawala banking in a claim brought against a CJA court-appointed receiver.
Also in 2015, Timothy was instructed as a junior in the Queen’s Bench Division on a complex assessment of damages following judgment in default.
Timothy was also instructed by the Serious Fraud Office to assist with a large scale disclosure exercise and to draft witness statements in support of the SFO’s defence to a multi-million pound damages claim.
During pupillage, he was instructed as a junior in the Chancery Division defending a high value fraud claim brought by pension trustees against investment and property developers.
As well as being instructed in a variety of civil and commercial matters as an advocate, Timothy accepts instructions to draft commercial pleadings.
Negligence and Personal Injury
Timothy regularly appears in trials and at interim hearings for claims brought following road traffic accidents on the Fast Track, in particular those relating to negligent actions of passengers. He is regularly instructed to draft pleadings, applications and witness statements in negligence cases. Timothy has experience of credit hire and fleet claims.
Timothy has court experience of EL/PL claims at Fast Track and Multi Track level. From 2012 to 2015 he regularly provided advice on personal injury claims against NOMS and the Ministry of Justice as a member of the Government Legal Division’s ‘Baby Barrister’ scheme.
He is regularly instructed on appeals in the County Court and High Court.
Timothy accepts instructions in a wide variety of aviation matters and has experience of representing carriers both at trial and in interlocutory hearings. Timothy’s aviation practice predominantly comprises of denied boarding and delay claims under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 and claims under the Montreal Convention for delay, damage and bodily injury. He is also regularly instructed to draft pleadings and interim applications in such claims. Timothy has also successfully defended contractual (non-Convention) claims for denied boarding and applications contesting jurisdiction.
In addition to claims pertaining to carriage by air, Timothy has acted in a number of cases brought against non-carrier businesses operating in the aviation sector, predominantly comprising of claims connected to airport operators or airport-based service providers.
In the Travel Law sphere, Timothy has handled ‘pure’ travel law claims as well as hybrid claims involving aviation issues.
Recent Notable Cases
Enniful v 1) Motor Insurer's Bureau 2) Husseyin  EWHC 1086 (QB) - instructed on behalf of the appellant/claimant. A recorder had been wrong to find that a claimant had filed an appeal against the striking out of her claim three days out of time. The amended appeal grounds were to be served within six weeks of "receiving" the striking out order. On its natural meaning that meant from the date of receipt and on that basis the claimant had filed on the deadline date.
Mirza & Ors v Sara Dayman  EWHC 1902 (QBD) – instructed by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department and led by Nicholas Cox (4 Stone Buildings) in the successful defence of a claim against a court-appointed CJA receiver relating to monies remitted as part of the Hawala banking system held in a bank account subject to a restraint order. The claimants alleged that sums paid as part of the Hawala banking system were subject to a trust. The High Court held that the property in the account was not subject to any trust and the defendant had been entitled to exercise her lien over the money. Further, the exercise of that lien did not constitute a breach of the claimants’ rights under article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
F v F (2016) Northampton County Court, Unrep – successfully represented a claimant in the recovery of a substantial unsecured loan made by the claimant to the defendant (who was the former wife of claimant’s late-husband). The defendant contended that the payment was for her interest in her former matrimonial home; however the court held that the payment by the claimant had been made by way of a loan.