Having originally trained as a civil barrister, Thom accepts instructions in many areas of civil and regulatory law. He is particularly interested in civil cases where issues arise of concurrent criminal liability. He has experience of the full spectrum of civil law practice, including property, landlord and tenant, personal injury and contractual claims, as well as licensing matters.

Thom is regularly instructed in civil claims against the police, including cases of unlawful searches and arrests.

He has recently been instructed in a number of cases relating to online privacy and harassment and has been able to bring his civil and criminal experience to bear on advising clients on how to secure the best possible outcome in a fast-changing legal landscape.

 

Notable Cases

GFH v Keystone Law and others (2016) High Court (Comm.)
Instructed by a firm of solicitors to resist various applications concerning service and disclosure.  The application was successfully resisted and Thom secured costs for the respondent firm. 

Reflect Geophysical v Seaport International Shipping Co LLC (2016)
Thom appeared as junior counsel in an international shipping arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules.  He was instructed on behalf of the respondent, a UAE-based shipping agent, in a contractual dispute which concerned evasion of the international sanctions against Iran by the Singapore-based claimant.

TUH v Charity Commission (2015)
Thom was instructed on a direct access basis by the trustees of a charity which was under investigation by the Charity Commission, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011.  Thom represented the trustees at the various interviews conducted during the inquiry, and provided written advice on matters of privilege.

BH v FK and others (2014) High Court (QBD)
Thom represented the applicant in a multi-handed case concerning the online harassment of a convicted sex offender by individuals within the jurisdiction and abroad. He drafted pleadings and appeared at an application for an interim injunction, which raised questions of the conflict between privacy and freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR and section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

London Borough of Camden v RP Ltd (2013) Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court
Thom represented the defendant company in a contested civil claim for business rates, brought by way of a summons in the magistrates' court.  The claimant local authority conceded their claim and were ordered to pay a significant sum towards the costs of the defendant, contrary to the rule in Perinpanathan.