Home / People / Tim Riordan
Timothy Riordan

Tim Riordan

Senior Associate

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
1 South Quay
Victoria Quays
S2 5SY
United Kingdom
Languages English

Tim Riordan is a Senior Associate in the Litigation, Arbitration, Insurance and Employment Group dealing with Defendant Personal Injury and Costs matters.

more less


  • 2001 – LPC, Pg Dip, London Guildhall University
  • 2000 – Law Degree, LLB, London Guildhall University
more less


Show only
High Court ap­plies a "high test" for avoid­ing fixed costs in cases...
The High Court has ap­plied a “high test” when con­sid­er­ing wheth­er a claimant could re­cov­er more than fixed costs in a case that had been re­moved from the pro­tocol for low-value per­son­al in­jury claims in road traffic ac­ci­dents.
High Court gives guid­ance on pro­por­tion­al­ity in costs as­sess­ments
One of the corner­stones of Lord Justice Jack­son’s costs re­forms is that costs should be pro­por­tion­ate to the mat­ter at is­sue. In a rare High Court de­cision ex­amin­ing this test, Mar­cus Smith J has giv­en guid­ance on how it is to be ap­plied.
Pen­al­ties for not beat­ing claimant’s Part 36 of­fer in lit­ig­a­tion tempered...
In two cases fa­vour­able to the pay­ing parties, the courts have cla­ri­fied the ap­plic­a­tion of the 10% up­lift pay­able to a claimant that has beaten its own Part 36 of­fer. The courts con­sidered wheth­er an up­lift of less than 10% can be ordered and wheth­er in­terest.
Court of Ap­peal con­firms that a party seek­ing third party dis­clos­ure...
The Court of Ap­peal has over­turned a de­cision re­quir­ing a small com­pany to pay part of the costs of a third-party dis­clos­ure ap­plic­a­tion after it had not com­plied with an in­form­al re­quest for doc­u­ments.
In­dem­nity costs awar­ded after claim dis­con­tin­ued mid-tri­al
Claimants who dis­con­tin­ued their case four days in­to a six-week tri­al were ordered to pay the de­fend­ants’ costs on the in­dem­nity basis after their con­duct was deemed out of the norm. Back­ground Hosk­ing & An­or v Apax Part­ners LLP & Ors [2018] EWHC 2732 (Ch).
Money (That’s What I Want): Fail­ure to warn leads to deni­al of a non-party...
In an ac­tion for copy­right in­fringe­ment in a doc­u­ment­ary about a 1964 con­cert giv­en by The Beatles, the Court of Ap­peal over­turned a non-party costs or­der against a com­pany dir­ect­or. The ab­sence of an early warn­ing was a key factor in de­cid­ing that the dir­ect­or.
Re­vised pack­age travel reg­u­la­tions now in force - will you be af­fected?
On 1 Ju­ly 2018, the gov­ern­ment’s new Pack­age Travel and Linked Travel Ar­range­ments Reg­u­la­tions 2018 came in­to force. This fol­lows a sig­ni­fic­ant peri­od of con­sulta­tion with the travel in­dustry and April’s pub­lished re­sponses from the De­part­ment for Busi­ness,.
CFA can in­clude claims against parties not named in the agree­ment
The Court of Ap­peal has held that a con­di­tion­al fee agree­ment (CFA) that re­ferred to a claim against a named de­fend­ant also ap­plied to re­lated claims against oth­er de­fend­ants who were not named. In do­ing so, the court took in­to ac­count the poor draft­ing of.
Fixed costs awar­ded in a claim settled be­fore is­sue of pro­ceed­ings...
The Court of Ap­peal has held that a claimant who un­reas­on­ably fails to fol­low the Pre-Ac­tion Pro­tocol for Low Value Per­son­al In­jury (Em­ploy­er’s Li­ab­il­ity and Pub­lic Li­ab­il­ity) Claims (the “EL/PL Pro­tocol” or “the Pro­tocol”) will nor­mally only be able to re­cov­er.
Per­son­al in­jury dis­count rate likely to rise as the Civil Li­ab­il­ity...
The Civil Li­ab­il­ity Bill ("the Bill") had its first read­ing on 20 March 2018. Con­sid­er­able re­lief was felt across the per­son­al in­jury in­sur­ance in­dustry as the Bill paves the way to a rise in the dis­count rate for per­son­al in­jury claims.
Dis­hon­esty can be "fun­da­ment­al" even if it does not af­fect the ma­jor­ity...
A High Court judge has struck out a claim on the grounds of fun­da­ment­al dis­hon­esty even though the ma­jor­ity of the claim (by value) was hon­est and a county court re­cord­er had earli­er found the dis­hon­esty to be the res­ult of cov­er­ing up a “muddle” rather than.
Costs pro­por­tion­al­ity: not a blunt in­stru­ment but a sharp scalpel?
Two re­cent ap­peal de­cisions on the pro­por­tion­al­ity of costs un­der Leg­al Aid, Sen­ten­cing and Pun­ish­ment of Of­fend­ers Act 2012 (LASPO) have shif­ted the bal­ance back slightly in fa­vour of the re­ceiv­ing party, but still rep­res­ent a sub­stan­tial be­ne­fit to pay­ing.