Legal 500 2020
“Impressive advocate with an extremely high success rate.”
Chambers & Partners 2020
“Very approachable and down to earth, and has lots of trial experience.” “He’s extremely good: very straightforward and excellent value for money.”
Directories 2017 – 2019
“He’s tenacious, practical and always works hard to achieve a positive result. He’s very well regarded for his advice and the outcomes he achieves are first-rate.”
‘A brilliant cross-examiner and trial advocate.’
“He is an excellent advocate who has conducted a number of trials. He’s a pleasure to work with.”
William has acted in some of the most significant cases of recent years.
PRIVACY & BREACH OF CONFIDENCE
Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Ground-breaking claim for misuse of private information arising out of the broadcast of an episode of Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away! which showed the Claimants being evicted from their home. William was the trial advocate for the Claimants, who were awarded damages.
Gareth Bull v Donna Desporte Acted at trial for the Claimant, a winner of the Euromillions lottery, in order to prevent the publication of private information contained in his former lover’s memoir. Injunction granted and damages awarded.
MailOnline: Euromillions winner who scooped £41m jackpot wins £12,000 privacy damages against his ex-lover who wrote kiss-and-tell book saying he chatted her up with the line: ‘I won the lottery, Google me’
Paul Burrell v Max Clifford Trial advocate for the Claimant. Successful claim for damages arising out of a misuse of private information whereby Max Clifford had forwarded a letter written in confidence to him by Mr Burrell to Rebekah Brookes, who was at the time the Editor of the News of the World.
AVB v TDD Trial counsel for the Claimant in a claim for misuse of private information, breach of confidence and harassment. Injunction granted at the conclusion of the trial re misuse of private information and breach of confidence.
Evening Standard: Top City lawyer in his sixties wins injunction battle with prostitute
Successful claims for Paul Gascoigne for misuse of private information against the Sun and the Daily Star.
Acted for a number of News of the World and Mirror Group phone hacking claimants including Nigel Farage and Paul Burrell.
Martin Lewis v Facebook Acted for Martin Lewis, the Money Saving Expert, in groundbreaking claim against Facebook for the publication of adverts showing showing fake endorsements supposedly given by Mr Lewis, usually for bitcoin investment schemes. Record-breaking settlement achieved by which Facebook agreed to donate £3m to Citizens Advice to set up a new UK Anti Scams Action Project.
Sky News: Martin Lewis settles lawsuit against Facebook over scam ads: “this case may set an uncomfortable practical precedent for Facebook. By agreeing to take, as it puts it, “a leadership role”, the social network has accepted some measure of responsibility for the content its users see. To see how that could make life difficult for Facebook, it’s worth considering a fact that went unmentioned in the cosy press conference held to announce the news. As well as donating £3m to Citizens Advice, Facebook settled with Martin Lewis for what he says is “a six-figure sum” covering his costs, making it, in his eyes, “a definite win”.”
Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins Trial advocate for the Claimant. Katie Hopkins ordered to pay damages for defamatory tweets. First time that the requirement for a claimant to prove serious harm to reputation (further to s.1 Defamation Act 2013) considered in respect of libels published on Twitter.
FlyMeNow v Quick Air Charter Trial advocate for the Defendant. Words complained of found to be partially true and, due to other mitigating factors, Claimant only awarded derisory damages of £10 and ordered to pay nearly all of the Defendant’s costs.
Flood v Times Newspapers Junior Counsel for the Claimant. The leading case on the public interest defence under the Defamation Act 2013. It is probably the most complex and long-running case in the history of libel litigation. In addition to the Reynolds and quantum trials, two Court of Appeal and two Supreme Court appeals, there were nine other hearings. The relevant article was first published in June 2006 and the claim did not conclude until the Supreme Court handed down its second judgment in the case in April 2017.
Appointed as amicus curiae by the Privy Council for the purpose of an appeal in Pinard-Byrne v Linton, an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Dominica concerning a Reynolds/public interest defence.
INTERIM AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS IN PRIVACY AND HARASSMENT
MNO v TDD Breach of confidence injunction application against plot arising from massive data theft/breach.
ADA v AXA Without notice application to prevent publication of a mass circulation email containing medical information.
AVB v TDD Without notice application followed by a contested Return Date at which injunction to prevent publication of private information and harassment granted.
TKA v XKA Without notice application to obtain injunction to protect a child from being harassed by neighbours.
ABK v KDT & FGH Without notice injunction in revenge porn case.
William accepts instructions on a direct access basis.
CEDR accredited mediator
Contributor to Blackstone’s Guide to the Defamation Act 2013
William has given presentations to the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee on the current state of English defamation law and to the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies on jurisdiction/applicable law in defamation claims.
He wrote the Bar Council’s Law Reform Committee’s paper submitted to Parliament in regard to the formulation of the Defamation Bill.
He appeared in two editions of the BBC documentary series See You in Court regarding his involvement in the case of Paramaswaran Subramanyam, the Tamil hunger striker, and advising Lembit Opik not to sue the Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle.
He was a panellist with David Aaronovitch, Peter Oborne and David Allen Green at the Frontline Club in a discussion re Celebrities, super-injunctions and phone hacking.
William has appeared on Sky News on several occasions in order to discuss privacy injunctions.