Source: https://www.lambchambers.co.uk/who-can-help-you/barristers/dr-tim-sampson
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:53:30+00:00

Document:
Tim regularly acts in construction disputes – in particular adjudications (both under the Scheme for Construction Adjudication and under ad hoc rules) including multi-million-pound interim application “smash and grab” claims and TCC enforcement proceedings including appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd  EWCA Civ 2695 – successfully acted for Aygun in resisting an appeal seeking to challenge Fraser J.’s first instance decision to add to the Wimbledon v Vago principles applying to stay applications in respect of adjudication enforcement claims and clarifying the applicability of evidence of fraud allegations in relation to granting such stays.
Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd  EWHC 227 (TCC);  Bus. L.R. 1439;  B.L.R. 353; 177 Con. L.R. 127 – acted for Aygun in resisting a claim for enforcement of a substantial adjudication award where Fraser J. added new principle “g” to the long-standing Wimbledon v Vago stay jurisdiction and considered the evidence relevant to the Court granting a stay under the new principle – including allegations of fraud that could or should have been raised in the adjudication.
Brown & Brown v Complete Building Solutions Ltd.  EWCA Civ 1;  B.L.R. 98;  164 Con. L.R. 21 – representing the Appellants in an appeal against a summary judgment entered in respect of an adjudicator’s award under the HGCRA 1996 and Scheme for Construction Contracts. The Appellants having refused to meet the judgment sum as the adjudicator’s decision was – in their view – made in respect of a dispute that was the same or substantially the same as one previously unsuccessfully pursued by the respondent in an earlier adjudication – and was therefore barred under the terms of paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme.
Cuddy v Andrew t/a Paul Andrew Builders (before Recorder Waksman – sitting at the Central London CC (TCC) 2006) representing the Defendant in a three-day trial in respect of a claim alleging unfinished and / or defective works and his counterclaim for money owed for variations t the works in circumstances where the Defendant had filed no pleadings prior to trial.
Tim has been instructed in IPR cases before the Chancery Division of the High Court, the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (IPEC), as well as representing clients before the UK Trade Mark Office, the EUIPO and CJEU, as well as the European Patent Office. Tim also lectured in IP law on Cambridge University’s Masters in Bioscience Enterprise MPhil course for 5 years between 2003 and 2007.
Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd v Red Bull GmbH – (Case C-206/15 P: 2015) -represented the applicants in their application for permission to appeal to the CJEU in circumstances where the applicants had not taken part in proceedings before the General Court in respect of trade mark Opposition proceedings that has be resisted to that point in time by OHIM.
“SAVE AN ORPHAN” (UK Trade Mark Opposition No.: 2628031 (2013)) – represented the Opponent in opposition proceedings in respect of the Save an Orphan trade mark.
Weight Watchers Ltd & Others v Love Bites & Others  EWPCC 11,  E.T.M.R. 27: represented the Defendants in respect of allegations of trade mark infringement where the PCC (now the IPEC) exercised its power to give a preliminary non-binding judgment in a trade mark case for the first time.
Sun Mark v Red Bull – 2011 – instructed by Sun Mark on three related cases in involving Sun Marks’ trade mark disputes with Red Bull GmBH. (a) judicial review proceedings brought against the UKIPO and Red Bull as an interested party alleging that the UKIPO had improperly granted trade marks to Red Bull that had been applied for in bad faith bad faith (led by Aidan Robertson QC) (b) Drafting amended grounds of appeal and appeal skeleton in respect of the ruling of Arnold J. in Claim No. HC10 CO173 finding Sun Mark had infringed certain Red Bull trade marks (led by John Baldwin QC) and (c) trade mark office proceedings for the revocation of two Red Bull trade marks (No. 790389 & 824548) – all three claims were eventually compromised.
Shafi and Others t/a Chiswick Cars v. Khan and Others t/a New Chiswick Cars 2007 H.C. – claim for passing off in respect of minicab services the Defendants settled immediately prior to the hearing.
Executive Grapevine International Limited v Wall & Others  EWHC 4152 (Ch); – Chancery Division of the High Court before Norris J.: represented the Claimant in its claim for infringement of database rights by an ex-employee who had stolen copies of the company’s marketing databases and sold them via e-Bay.
Raminder Ranger v House of Lords Appointments Commission  EWHC 45 (QB);  1 WLR 4324 – representing Dr Ranger in his Part 8 claim against HOLAC for access under the Data Protection Act for access to letters held by the Commission that allegedly contained information pertaining to his application for membership of the House of Lords.
Opposition to EP 1 021 120 B1 by HOOVER Ltd. (GB). – Acting for the opponent in oral opposition proceedings at the EPO in Munich.
Opposition to EP 1 161 405 by BIAGRO Inc. / Opposition to EP 743931 by MANDOPS (UK) Ltd. – joined cases heard before the EPO.
Hyams v Cooling (High Court Chancery Division – Claim No.: HC CO2434 in 2009) – advising the Claimant in respect of settling injunctive proceedings arising out of claims over the copyrights in certain works and photographs.
Acoustic Building Supplies Ltd. v. Durabella Acoustics 2006 - advising the Defendant on design right infringement proceedings in respect of sound proof floor tiles.
Red Girl Records v. Richard Murdoch advising Defendant on possible infringement issues in respect of distribution and sale of “free” promotional records.
On the 10th November 2016 the CJEU held that a European trade mark for the three-dimensional representation of a puzzle (essentially a Rubik’s cube) could not continue to be registered as an EU trade mark as it offended against Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Trade Mark Regulation 40/94.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down an important decision on the 16 July 2015 dealing with the thorny issue of the balance to be struck between the rights of patent proprietors of patents that have become part of a European standard and the rights of third-parties who have not concluded an agreement with that patent holder for the use the protected technology – but have used it in any event to comply with the requirements of the EU standard.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks (HK) v BSB has upheld the longstanding principle that to bring an action in passing off the Claimant must have more than a reputation in the UK - it must have actual paying customers and that the application of this principle is not altered by the fact that the service in question is one that is known to individuals living in the UK.
Bank Mellat v. Sec. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (CO / 1733 / 2014) – instructed by Bank Mellat (led by Aidan Robertson QC) in respect of an application for Judicial Review of the Bank’s claim that the FCO is acting contrary to the rule of law in not complying with the substance of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat (No.2) 2013.
Vincent Tchengiuz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (2013 / 2014) – instructed to work with the disclosure team (using the EPIC system)in relation to the JR proceedings brought by Mr Tchenguiz against the SFO.
Euro Palace v British Gas Business Services Limited (before Simon J. High Court QB Division 2011) – representing the Applicant at a hearing for an emergency injunction to restore power to it supermarket which had been disconnected causing the shop’s refrigeration systems to shut down.
McClean v Mangat & Walia – Petition No.: 8130 of 2003 (High Court – Companies Court (2011 hearing)) before Mr Nicholas Strauss QC sitting as a deputy judge of the HC: representing the Claimant in a two day trial in respect of his allegation of “unfairly prejudicial conduct” (s.459 of the ) Companies Act) based upon revenue stripping by the two respondent directors and then to determine the appropriate valuation of his 25% shareholding.
Haddad v The University of Bradford (before HHJ Spencer QC – sitting at the Bradford CC 2010) representing the Claimant in his claim that the course content, supervision and facilities provided by the Defendant during the course of his PhD studentship failed to meet the requirements of his funding body (in effect the Iranian Government) and this amounted to a breach of contract – the claim was rejected and the Court of Appeal refused permission to Appeal.
Andrew Pinnell v Asad Ali Meerza (High Court Chancery Div. Case No. 936 of 2010) drafting the grounds of appeal and appeal skeleton in respect of an appeal from Registrar Baister giving the Respondents the unfettered permission under s.285 of the Insolvency Act to continue proceedings against the Appellant.
Re Dorset House (Claim Lon / OOBK / LSC/2011/0620 and LAM / 2011 / 0019) before the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal 2011 / 2012; instructed on behalf of the liquidators of the freehold company (as junior counsel) who were seeking to recover circa £2.5 million in service charge arrears to discharge debts to the construction company who had installed a new hearting / water system into the block of over 100 flats.
Commercial: Joint Tortfeasorship in IPR claims – Still a “Grenade” in the Tail for Directors?
At the beginning of August the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in MT HØJGAARD A/S (‘MTH’) v E.ON – reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstating the first instance order of Edwards-Stuart J.
Broxbourne Council v Dichiara (before the Hertford Magistrates Court – 2005) representing the Defendant in a successful challenge to a s.215 Notice issued under the Town and County Planning Act 1990.
Environment Agency v. Riverfield Fishfarms 2007 (lead by Stephen Hockman QC) representing the Defendant in a dispute as to the meaning and enforceability of a Section 30 licence issued under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to allow the introduction of albino carp into an inland waterway.
Environment Agency v Fadel & Fadel (Manchester Magistrates Court – 2011) advising the Defendants in respect of a prosecution under Regulations 12 and 41(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting Regulation (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 arising out of an allegation that the Defendants were operating an illegal car salvage works.
Wellingborough BC v Poojas Caterers & Others (before the Wellingborough Magistrates Court – 2011) – representing the Defendants at a sentencing hearing following admissions of serious breaches of food hygiene regulations that could have justified a period of imprisonment.
On the 22 January 2015 the CJEU delivered its judgment in Arts & Allposters International BV v StichtingPicoright, a decision that directly addresses the question the limits of copyright protection afforded to copyright works first marketed in the EU that have subsequently been the subject of an unauthorised shift in its physical form prior to onward sale in the EU.
Tim’s practice concludes both contentious and non-contentious construction law and all aspects of UK and European intellectual property law (copyrights, trademarks and brand rights, rights in designs and patents) as well as more general Chancery and commercial litigation; in particular in relation to cases with highly technical and expert evidence. He also advises on and drafts commercial contracts, licensing and franchising agreements, and software licensing agreements.
Tim is regularly instructed in disputes in the High Court (including the TCC and IPEC, the Chancery Division, and the Queen’s Bench Division), UKIPO (in particular trade mark opposition and cancellation proceedings), arbitrations (under LCIA rules) and serious multi-track disputes in the County Court. He is also regularly involved in construction disputes referred to adjudication and the enforcement of such decisions at both first instance in the TCC and on appeal to the Court of Appeal. Tim is also instructed in relation to represent parities in formal mediations across all of his practise areas.
In addition, Tim also lectures and writes on his specialist areas of legal practise and for a number of years has taught on professional training courses run by BPP University.
Select from Areas of Expertise for further details.
The TCC and Court of Appeal have recently handed down several important judgments in relation to the application of the Court’s stay jurisdiction in relation to enforcement proceedings brought in respect of an unpaid adjudicator’s award.
The introduction of the statutory regime imposing compulsory and rapid adjudication under the terms of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (‘the Act’)..

References: EWCA 
 EWCA 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 CJEU