Tom Tom

Barrister: Tom Rainsbury

Call:
2010

Appointments:
Attorney General's 'C Panel'

Education:
David Karmel Scholarship, Gray's Inn; Prince of Wales Scholarship, Gray's Inn; BVC, BPP Law School; LLM Law, University of Cambridge; LLB Law, University College London

Overview:

Tom is a talented junior with a broad civil litigation and public law practice.

He was appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown in 2016, a panel of barristers selected to advise and represent the UK government.

Combining an eye for detail with hard work, Tom has experience of working as part of a team on high profile and sensitive cases. His recent work includes obtaining and upholding the first Unexplained Wealth Order.

Tom appears in a wide range of courts and tribunals, including the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Before joining Chambers, Tom graduated from University College London with a First Class degree in Law. He holds a Masters in Law from the University of Cambridge. He was awarded the Prince of Wales Scholarship and David Karmel Scholarship by Gray's Inn. Tom has also worked at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Privacy Notice

Click here to download.

Civil:

Tom has a thriving and varied civil practice.

He regularly acts in claims involving allegations of professional negligence, clinical negligence and personal injury. He is adept at advising on quantum, including damages for injuries sustained at the end of life and damages arising from the deprivation of liberty.

He is developing a niche practice in professional negligence claims against criminal solicitors, which often raise unusual issues concerning abuse of process, limitation and loss of chance.

Tom also acts for public bodies in claims involving allegations of assault, misfeasance, unlawful detention, malicious prosecution, data protection and breach of human rights.

He has a growing practice in tax litigation. He is instructed in tax proceedings brought against HMRC, the Home Office and National Crime Agency. His experience includes penalties and surcharges, tax assessments, applications for injunctive relief, and customs and excise.

Recent cases

  • NCA v Ullah [2019] EWHC 521 – successful argument that ‘Points of Claim’ under a revised Part 8 procedure are a ‘statement of case’ within the meaning of CPR 2.3(1).
  • Times Newspapers & 6 Others [2019] – contested application in the Administrative Court for access to documents in the court file under CPR 5.4C and/or the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
  • SL v MOJ [2018] – successful application in the Queen’s Bench Division for an Extended Civil Restraint Order under paragraph 3.1 of CPR PD 3C
  • NCA v SD [2018] EWHC 1462 – successful application to set aside an order made by a High Court Judge under CPR 3.1(7) due to defendant’s failure to place important material before the court.

 

Public:

Tom is developing a growing practice in public law.

He regular acts and advises on issues such as judicial review, human rights, EU law, privacy law, and freedom of information.

Prior to joining Chambers, Tom was awarded the Human Rights Lawyers Association bursary and worked at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for 3 months.

Since commencing practice, Tom has been appointed to the Attorney General's C Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown, advising and representing the Government in a broad range of fields.

Alongside his general public law practice, Tom has also developed a specialist practice in restoration appeals. He has represented the Home Office in numerous appeals before the First Tier Tribunal, including: Grupa Euro-Mix [2016] UKFTT 0418 Tefvik [2016] UKFTT 711; PPHU Artex [2016] UKFTT 0542; Ipate [2017] UKFTT 164; Blanco [2017] UKFTT 375; S & K Global (TC/2012/09683, 23 July 2018).

Tom is also a regular contributor to the Administrative Court Digest.

Recent cases

  • Mrs A (Ruling on Anonymity) [2018] EWHC 2603 (Admin) – open justice principle – ECHR arts. 3 and 8 – whether an anonymity order under CPR 39.2(4) should be discharged by the Administrative Court.
  • Webster v MOJ [2017] EWHC 3626 – successful argument in the Chancery Division that a freestanding human rights claim could not be brought against judicial acts under s.9(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  • AG v HMRC [2017] UKUT 67 – whether Regulation 13 of the Working Tax Credit Regulations 2002 had the effect of depriving a social advantage contrary to EU Regulation 492/2011.
  • Goldsworthy v SSHD [2017] EWHC 2822 (Admin) – claim for judicial review against a decision to recall a prisoner under s.32(1) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
  • Carr v Norwich Magistrates’ Court [2017] – claim for judicial review against a decision by a magistrates’ court that a prosecution had been brought in time and that the judge should have recused himself.
  • SP v HMRC [2016] UKUT 286 – guidance from the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) on the assessment of tax credit penalties.
  • Marshall v CPS (2016) JP 180 – the duty to give reasons in the magistrates’ court – the ability to amplify reasons when stating a case to the divisional court.

 

 

 

POCA:

Tom has a specialist practice in proceeds of crime.

Tom is often instructed, as junior and sole counsel, to act in civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”). These are multi-track asset tracing claims which are brought in the High Court. They often have an international element and involve allegations of money laundering.

Tom has recently represented the National Crime Agency in the first case for an Unexplained Wealth Order. This involved arguments concerning the meaning of a ‘politically exposed person’, and whether such orders engage A1P1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the privileges against incrimination.

He has also been instructed in proceedings to detain ‘listed assets’ under the new powers in Chapter 3A of Part 5 POCA, following the seizure of 49 items of high-value jewellery from Christie’s Auction House.

Tom is experienced with ancillary matters which often arise in this field, such as freezing orders, exclusions, receivership, contempt, and investigative powers.

Recent cases

  • NCA v Davies [2019] – contested application in the Queens Bench Division to remove one property from a freezing order, and to grant exclusions for both living and legal expenses.
  • NCA v Ullah [2019] EWHC 521 – successful application for a civil recovery order in the Queen’s Bench Division against four properties valued in the region of £780,000.
  • NCA v Hajiyeva [2018] 1 WLR 5887 – instructed as junior counsel in the first application for an Unexplained Wealth Order under s.362A of POCA
  • NCA v Odewale [2018] – contested application in the Administrative Court to extend a freezing order under s.245B POCA in respect of three Patek Phillipe watches.
  • NCA v Al-Massari [2018] – successfully opposed an application for judicial review relief arising from a claim for outstanding tax liability under Part 6 of POCA (said to have arisen from a plot in respect of regime change in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

 

 

 

Contact us

For more information please call our clerks on
020 7832 0500 or Email »

Follow us

twitter   linkedin   rss

Subscribe to our updates

Subscribe email

Search