Home / People / Dan Tench
Portrait of 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


Court of Ap­peal gives guid­ance on the ser­i­ous harm re­quire­ment in Banks...
Back­ground sum­ma­ry­On 28 Feb­ru­ary 2023, the Court of Ap­peal handed down its judg­ment ([2023] EW­CA Civ 219) in Ar­ron Banks’s ap­peal in re­spect of his li­bel claim - which was un­suc­cess­ful at first in­stance...
Pro­tec­tion from protests
Protest on the streets, protest on­line, even lit­ig­a­tion used as a vehicle for protest.Protest­ors tar­get­ing a busi­ness may be stand­ing in a crowd, hold­ing a plac­ard or shout­ing slo­gans. But they may also be be­hind a com­puter screen or pur­su­ing a claim against the busi­ness through the courts. They may even be work­ing in­side the busi­ness, pre­par­ing to com­prom­ise its sys­tems or leak con­fid­en­tial in­form­a­tion.Wheth­er they are act­iv­ists, em­ploy­ees or cus­tom­ers, all these protest­ors may present a sub­stan­tial chal­lenge and a real threat to busi­nesses, in areas in­clud­ing its se­cur­ity, repu­ta­tion and bot­tom line. 
Risk Es­sen­tials: Sea­son of Protest
Protests are every­where. There are protests on the streets and out­side busi­ness premises. There are protests on­line. Your work­force is protest­ing. Even lit­ig­a­tion is be­ing used as a means of protest...
Dis­putes 101: In­tro­duc­tion to Civil Lit­ig­a­tion
Wel­come to the Dis­putes 101: CMS Au­tumn We­bin­ar Series for 2022 This series will take place over 11 weeks, every Tues­day from 6 Septem­ber – 29 Novem­ber at 2pm - 3pm. Part­ners and as­so­ci­ates from...
Dis­putes 101: Au­tumn we­bin­ar series and re­cord­ings 2022
me­di­um Avail­able On-De­mand – Dis­putes 101: CMS Au­tumn We­bin­ar Series for 2022 Now in its third year, our we­bin­ar series took place over 11 weeks, from 6 Septem­ber – 29 Novem­ber 2022, Tues­days at 2pm...
CMS In­ter­na­tion­al Dis­putes Di­gest - 2022 Sum­mer Edi­tion
Wel­come to the sum­mer edi­tion of the In­ter­na­tion­al Dis­putes Di­gest, a bi-an­nu­al pub­lic­a­tion that high­lights, ex­plores and ana­lyses the latest trends in the glob­al dis­pute-res­ol­u­tion sec­tor.Al­though the...
In Dis­pute
The risks of los­ing and hav­ing to pay the hefty costs of lit­ig­a­tion are well known. But lit­ig­a­tion can have vastly great­er con­sequences for the repu­ta­tions of the in­di­vidu­als and or­gan­isa­tions in­volved in the dis­pute.  This page has re­sources that ad­dress the key points of repu­ta­tion­al risk dur­ing lit­ig­a­tion and what can be done to mit­ig­ate them.Re­cord­ing of Repu­ta­tion in lit­ig­a­tion pan­el dis­cus­sion multi-me­dia we­bin­ar - 22 June 2022 Chaired by Clive Cole­man (former BBC Leg­al Af­fairs Cor­res­pond­ent and now Seni­or Part­ner at Malt­in PR), with CMS ex­perts Tam­sin Blow and Louise Boswell and Lit­ig­a­tion PR ex­pert Tim Malt­in (Man­aging Part­ner at Malt­in PR).
In­vest­ig­at­ive Journ­al­ist, Car­oline Cad­wal­ladr, suc­cess­fully de­fends li­bel...
Back­ground Sum­mary Judg­ment was handed down on 13 June 2022 in the li­bel claim Banks v Cad­wal­ladr ([2022] EWHC 1417 (QB)), in fa­vour of freel­ance journ­al­ist Car­ole Cad­wal­ladr. A five-day tri­al took place...
On­line gambling law and reg­u­la­tion in the United King­dom
The fu­ture of sports data: Live Data - part 1
The trouble with re­ly­ing on breach of con­fid­ence and un­law­ful means con­spir­acy (the case of TRP v SIS) The pre­vi­ous art­icles in our The Fu­ture of Sports Data series fo­cused on ath­letes’ data.  In this...
All’s fair in foot­ball and ar­bit­ra­tion: Court of Ap­peal or­ders pub­lic­a­tion...
The re­cent judg­ment handed down by the Court of Ap­peal (the “CoA”) in Manchester City Foot­ball Club Ltd v The Foot­ball As­so­ci­ation Premi­er League Ltd & Oth­ers [2021] EW­CA Civ 1110 saw the Court of...
Dis­putes 101 - Reg­u­lat­ory Ac­tion and Pub­lic Law Claims
Wel­come to the Dis­putes 101: CMS Au­tumn We­bin­ar Series This series will take place over 11 weeks, every Wed­nes­day from 8 Septem­ber – 1 Decem­ber 2021 at 2-3pm. Part­ners and as­so­ci­ates from CMS’ lit­ig­a­tion...