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
On­line op­er­at­ors pay £14m and per­son­al li­cence hold­ers sanc­tioned...
Over­viewOn 29 Novem­ber, the UK Gambling Com­mis­sion (the "Com­mis­sion") an­nounced that on­line casino com­pan­ies and their seni­or man­age­ment had been sub­ject to wide­spread ac­tion as part of an on­go­ing in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to the way the in­dustry com­bats prob­lem gambling.
Eur­omil­lions bet­ting pro­hib­i­tion up­held
The High Court has up­held a pro­hib­i­tion on of­fer­ing bets on the out­come of a non-UK Eur­oMil­lions draw to UK con­sumers. The court found that the pro­hib­i­tion pur­sued le­git­im­ate aims that could only be achieved by an out­right ban, and fol­lowed a fair and law­ful.
Gambling Com­mis­sion fines Daub Al­der­ney £7.1m for anti-money laun­der­ing...
On 13 Novem­ber 2018, the Gambling Com­mis­sion ("Com­mis­sion") an­nounced its find­ings that on­line gambling busi­ness Daub Al­der­ney t/a Stride ("Stride") had breached con­di­tions of its li­cence re­lat­ing to anti-money laun­der­ing meas­ures ("AML") and had failed to.
22 Jan 19
CMS Gambling Con­fer­ence 2019
Class ac­tion for data breach is "of­fi­cious lit­ig­a­tion": court sets...
In Lloyd v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 2599 (QB), the High Court has set out clear lim­its for the bring­ing of class ac­tions in the con­text of data pro­tec­tion. Back­ground The claimant, Richard Lloyd, sought to bring a class ac­tion against Google on be­half of iPhone.
Gambling Com­mis­sion fines Mark Jar­vis Lim­ited £94,000 for cus­tom­er...
On 15 Oc­to­ber 2018, the Gambling Com­mis­sion (“Com­mis­sion”) an­nounced its find­ings that the in­de­pend­ent book­maker, Mark Jar­vis Lim­ited (“Mark Jar­vis”), breached the Com­mis­sion’s So­cial Re­spons­ib­il­ity Code (“SRC”) after fail­ing to pro­tect a cus­tom­er who was show­ing.
Gambling Com­mis­sion fines Paddy Power Bet­fair £2,200,000 for so­cial...
On 16th Oc­to­ber 2018, the Gambling Com­mis­sion (“Com­mis­sion”) an­nounced it had reached a reg­u­lat­ory set­tle­ment of £2,200,000 with Paddy Power Bet­fair (“PPB”) over fail­ure ad­equately to in­ter­act with cus­tom­ers who were dis­play­ing signs of prob­lem gambling and.
Gambling Com­mis­sion fines Rank Group £500,000 for fail­ing to pro­tect...
On 10th Oc­to­ber 2018, the Gambling Com­mis­sion an­nounced that it had agreed a fin­an­cial pay­ment in lieu of pen­alty with land- and on­line-based casino op­er­at­or The Rank Group PLC t/a Gros­ven­or Casi­nos (“Rank”) £500,000 fol­low­ing an in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to Rank’s fail­ure.