Dan Tench

Dan Tench


CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
Cannon Place
78 Cannon Street
United Kingdom
Languages English, Spanish

Dan Tench is a litigator with particular expertise in judicial review, competition law, media law (including data protection, privacy and defamation) and sports law, undertaking many leading cases in all these areas (see under the “Experience” tab).

Dan has advised bringing and defending major judicial reviews and other administrative law challenges and on competition litigation cases. Many of his public law matters have involved issues of significant political controversy and he has exceptional experience in aligning an approach to litigation with broader political and media concerns. He has prepared senior individuals for appearances before (and attended with them at) Parliamentary Select Committees.

Dan has also substantial experience in advising claimants and defendants in defamation, privacy and other media litigation matters including general reputation management matters, securing injunctions and judgments in leading edge internet cases as well as bringing and defending claims for and against all types of traditional media. He has been involved in responding to many significant data security breach situations with a targeted strategy to minimise the damage, potential liability and disruption caused to the client. He acted for the claimants in the leading data protection case of Vidal-Hall & Ors v Google.

Dan has regularly written for and appeared on the national media including The Guardian, The Times, BBC and Channel 4 News. He also co-founded the Supreme Court Blog launched as a joint venture between Matrix Chambers and legacy firm Olswang.

Aside from his legal practice, Dan tutors a local student in further maths as part of one of the firm’s outreach projects. He was in The Lawyer's Hot 100 for 2012 and was The Times’ “Lawyer of the Week” in spring 2015.

more less

"Dan Tench heads the firm's public law offering and "combines his experience in media with cutting-edge public law challenges." He is further praised for his "very sound judgement" and "his 360-degree view towards problems."

Chambers, 2017

"Dan Tench maintains a diverse practice with a central focus on handling complex litigation proceedings in the areas of media, competition and sports law, in addition to data protection. Sources say he is "a very analytical and careful" lawyer with the "best mindset to pick his way through the thicket" of data protection law."

Chambers, 2017

"Dan Tench is considered a "guru" in the field of defamation and reputation management. Clients say: "He is ludicrously bright, with a pragmatic approach to problem-solving, which is a winning combination."

Chambers, 2017

"Dan Tench "is super smart and very good at applying the theoretical side of things to get a practical result," according to sources. He has acted in a large number of high-profile defamation and reputation management cases, including an action brought against Google regarding its use of tracking cookies to obtain information about Safari users."

Chambers, 2016

"Dan Tench maintains a wide-ranging litigation practice taking in media, administrative and human rights law proceedings, as well as privacy and data protection. Clients are forthcoming with their praise, saying: "Dan really takes the time to get into the detail and to look at things from a very company-focused perspective."

Chambers, 2016

"Dan Tench handles complex administrative law and judicial review cases. Sources say: "He is a bright lawyer who has very good judgement and is good strategically."

Chambers, 2016

Relevant experience

  • The Claimants in the judicial review of the UK Government’s proposals to apply betting and gaming duty to offshore gambling operators. The case resulted in a reference to the European Court of the European Union on issues which will determine the validity of the taxation legislation.
  • The UK Music industry successfully challenging the lawfulness of legislation to allow for the private copying of content without compensation to rightholders.
  • Tottenham Hotspur Football Club on its successful judicial review brought in respect of the Olympic Stadium
  • British Horseracing Authority on a judicial review of the Horseracing Betting Levy Board regarding the liability of betting exchanges to pay horseracing betting levy.
  • Three telecoms operators in their successful defence (as regards substance) and challenge (as regards interest) of a decision of Ofcom in relation to ethernet charges.
  • The Post Office in respect of its programme for selecting and closing sub post offices at part of its Network Change Programme, providing public law advice in respect of the Programme and defending on behalf of the Post Office six separate challenges by way of judicial review, all of which were defeated.
  • Wimbledon Football Club on its successful review of the refusal of the Football League to grant permission to relocate to Milton Keynes, one of the most significant sports law administrative challenges.
  • Ingenious Media on judicial review of HMRC in relation the decision of its Permanent Secretary to make disparaging disclosures regarding the Chief Executive of Ingenious Media to journalists (a case which is now going to the Supreme Court).
  • The Claimants in the leading data protection case of Vidal-Hall & Ors v Google.
  • News International in respect of a variety of matters concerning allegations of voicemail interception including accompanying Rupert and James Murdoch at their attendance before the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee in July 2011 and acting for News Group Newspapers on numerous claims for voicemail interception brought against the News of the World.
  • English PEN, Article 19 and Index on Censorship as interested parties in the Supreme Court resisting an injunction imposed to prevent the publication of an autobiographical book.
more less


  • 1991 - Common Professional Examination, Law Society Finals (distinction); College of Law, London
  • 1988 - Natural Sciences, Social and Political Studies; Cambridge University, Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge
more less


Show only
March 2018
Fi­nal Count­down to GDPR
We­bin­ar Re­cord­ings
Pri­vacy and data pro­tec­tion claims can be heard in the Busi­ness List...
An ap­plic­a­tion by a de­fend­ant to trans­fer a claim from the Busi­ness List (Chan­cery Di­vi­sion) to the Me­dia and Com­mu­nic­a­tions List of the Busi­ness and Prop­erty Courts (Queen’s Bench Di­vi­sion) was re­fused on the basis that there was con­cur­rent jur­is­dic­tion in.
European Cit­izens’ Ini­ti­at­ive does not tie the Com­mis­sion’s hands
The Court of Justice of the European Uni­on (CJEU) has ruled that the European Com­mis­sion was en­titled to re­fuse to take any ac­tion on a le­gis­lat­ive pro­pos­al brought for­ward un­der the European Cit­izens’ Ini­ti­at­ive (ECI) pro­ced­ure provided for in EU Reg­u­la­tion.
High Court cla­ri­fies right to be for­got­ten
The High Court has con­firmed for the first time that the “right to be for­got­ten” by search en­gines, es­tab­lished by the CJEU in Google Spain SL v Agen­cia Es­pan­ola de Pro­tec­cion de Da­tos Case C-131-12 [2014] QB 1022, can in some cir­cum­stances in­clude the right.
Dis­clos­ure of Brexit eco­nom­ic im­pact pa­pers: R (on the ap­plic­a­tion...
In an un­re­por­ted judg­ment, a cam­paign group seek­ing dis­clos­ure of two Brexit eco­nom­ic im­pact pa­pers from the gov­ern­ment failed to demon­strate that its re­quest was ex­cep­tion­al so that it jus­ti­fied a de­par­ture from the nor­mal pro­cess of ob­tain­ing in­form­a­tion.
Coun­cil's use of a LLP in a pub­lic/private ven­ture chal­lenged
In Peters v Lon­don Bor­ough of Haringey, the Claimant, a res­id­ent of the Lon­don Bor­ough of Haringey (the “Coun­cil”) and a mem­ber of the cam­paign group “STOP HDV”, sought a ju­di­cial re­view of the Coun­cil’s de­cision in Ju­ly 2017 to cre­ate the Haringey De­vel­op­ment.
Parties must ob­tain court or­der for pre­lim­in­ary is­sues hear­ings
In a pre­lim­in­ary is­sues hear­ing on the mean­ing of the words com­plained of in a de­fam­a­tion ac­tion, the High Court has giv­en guid­ance on the pro­ced­ure to be ad­op­ted when parties seek rul­ing on a pre­lim­in­ary is­sue, which may have wider ap­plic­a­tion out­side of de­fam­a­tion.
Com­pens­a­tion pay­able by pub­lic bod­ies when rights in­fringed
The Su­preme Court con­firmed last week that com­pens­a­tion may be pay­able by pub­lic bod­ies where rights un­der the European Con­ven­tion on Hu­man Rights (the “Con­ven­tion”) are in­fringed, and harm is caused as a res­ult.
Gambling Com­mis­sion in­vest­ig­ates on­line casi­nos
The UK Gambling Com­mis­sion (the “Com­mis­sion”) an­nounced last week that it has writ­ten to all on­line casino op­er­at­ors which it reg­u­lates rais­ing con­cerns about the op­er­at­ors’ ap­proach to anti-money laun­der­ing and so­cial re­spons­ib­il­ity.