Attorney General Panel Counsel Appointments

We are delighted to announce that Niazi Fetto has be re-appointed to the Attorney General’s London A Panel of Junior Counsel, and Ruth Kennedy has been appointed to the C Panel.

The Attorney General’s panels of counsel consist of just over 400 junior counsel who undertake civil and EU work for all government departments. Further information can be found here:

Ruth’s appointment commences from 1 September 2020 for 5 years, and Niazi’s appointment will continue for the same period from this date.

Information on Niazi’s and Ruth’s practices can be found via the links below.


Clare Brown and Ruth Kennedy appear as Counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Today the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse commenced the virtual public hearing in the Lambeth Council investigation. The hearing will take place from 29 June – 10 July and 20 July – 31 July 2020.

The hearing will consider the experiences of victims and survivors to examine the scale and nature of the sexual abuse that may have taken place in children’s homes run by Lambeth Council. It will investigate whether there were child protection failures by public authorities, and consider the extent to which children’s vulnerabilities put them at greater risk of sexual abuse, and how this may have impacted the response of authorities. Evidence will be heard from a wide range of witnesses, including complainant core participants, former members of Lambeth Council, police officers and other public authorities.

Clare Brown and Ruth Kennedy appear as part of the team of counsel to the Inquiry in the Lambeth Council investigation, led by Rachel Langdale QC.


2TG Awarded Bar Council Certificate of Recognition – Wellbeing at the Bar

We are very proud to announce that we have been awarded with The Bar Council Certificate of Recognition – Wellbeing at the Bar.

The Certificate acknlowedges that we are “clearly committed to promoting wellbeing”, with The Bar Council commenting about us “creating mental health first aiders and putting support in place – as well as introducting initiatives like Chambers tea, to encourage collegiality”.

For further information about Wellbeing at the Bar and our case study, please follow this link: A copy of our certificate can be viewed here.

If you have any queries, please contact our Chambers Manager, Tracey Jones.


2TG Listed in Legal 500 EMEA

2TG are delighted to have once again been included in the Legal 500 EMEA directory, in recognition of its work in the UAE region.

Comments include ‘A top-notch set with many excellent barristers’  with client feedback including that the clerks are ‘very good’.

Timothy Killen is singled out as one of only 14 juniors at the Bar recommeded in the directory for his commercial work in the UAE region, with clients commenting that he is ‘an intelligent legal analyst and a gently persuasive advocate’.

For further information about our work in the region, please contact Lee Tyler or Paul Cray.



Civil Litigation in the time of Covid-19: Everything you need to know and consider

Please follow the link below to access a thorough guide provided by Isabel Barter, Jessica van der Meer and Luka Krsljanin concerning civil litigation in the time of Covid-19.

The guide provides an overview of how litigation is taking place in these unprecedented times. It covers: remote hearings and preparation thereof, remote conferences and remote JSMs. The guide is intended as a flexible non-prescriptive tool, not a protocol.

We hope you find it useful.

Civil Litigation in the time of Covid-19 (updated 3 April 2020)


Article by Charles Dougherty QC and Timothy Killen Published in the Journal of International Banking and Financial Law

Charles Dougherty QC’s and Timothy Killen’s article “Article 14 of Rome I and choice of law rules in cross-border assignments” has been published in the Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law.

Please click here for a full copy of the article.


Article by Nina Goolamali QC and Luka Krsljanin published by LawInSport

Playing football is simply not cricket – issues with athletes’ insurance against training and warm-up injuries following the Rory Burns case

The above article written by 2TG Sport members Nina Goolamali QC (Head of 2TG Sport) and Luka Krsljanin was published by LawInSport on 4 February 2020. The article examines some of the key points for teams and players to be aware of regarding liaibility for rehabilitation costs and the potential insurance implications of injuries sustained in training and warm up sessions, including:

  • Do team policies cover training injuries?
  • What does “training” include?
    • The importance of making specific disclosures
    • Official training vs. informal “kick-arounds
  • Liability for over-zealous or intentional tackles
  • The England Cricket Board’s insurance schemes
  • Summary

A full copy of the article can be viewed on the LawInSport website here or a PDF version can be downloaded here.

For more information about 2TG Sport, please click here.


Limitation under Rome II: Pandya v Intersalonika General Insurance Company

Limitation under Rome II: Pandya v Intersalonika General Insurance Company

Now more than a decade old, the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations continues to give rise to many arguments, including as to just how much of a foreign law the English court should apply. Tipples J’s judgment in Pandya v Intersalonika General Insurance Company, handed down on 28 January 2020, is the latest chapter in this ongoing discourse.

The judgment concerned a beguilingly simple preliminary issue: was the claim time-barred under the law of Greece?

Under Greek law, the relevant limitation period was 5 years. The Claimant filed her claim form shortly before this period was due to expire. However, in Greek law unlike English law it is a requirement that the document originating proceedings be both filed and served in order to stop limitation running.

The Claimant served the claim form six months after issue and after the expiry of the Greek limitation period. The experts instructed by the parties agreed that in a Greek court, the claim would be time-barred. However, the Claimant argued that the service requirement for interruption of limitation was procedural, and that under Article 1(3) of Rome II the English court should therefore ignore it, and treat limitation as interrupted with the commencement of proceedings according to English procedure, i.e. the filing of the claim form in the usual way.

Tipples J disagreed with the Claimant’s submissions. She found that as a matter of Greek law, both filing and service of the claim form were required in order to interrupt limitation, and that the requirement for service “cannot be severed, carved out or downgraded to a matter of mere procedure”; instead, that requirement must be applied under Article 15(h) of Rome II as a rule of prescription or limitation. Further noting that the Claimant’s position would in essence allow an extension of the limitation period by 6 months as a result of the forum the Claimant had chosen to issue in, she held that the Claimant’s interpretation of Rome II could not be correct, and dismissed the claim.

Though concerned with the specific requirements under Greek law, the judgment has significant implications for all lawyers dealing with foreign limitation periods and provides some welcome clarity. Many countries’ laws do not treat the filing of a claim form as sufficient to interrupt limitation: both claimants and defendants will need to apprise themselves of what the applicable law actually requires.

Lucy Wyles of 2TG, instructed by Irwin Mitchell, appeared for the successful Defendant, assisted by Alistair Mackenzie.