Tom Tom

Barrister: Tom Restall


Deputy District Judge; Attorney General's Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown

Keble Advanced Advocacy Course; Queen Mother Scholarship, Middle Temple; Graduate Diploma in Law, City University; MA Hons, Jesus College, Oxford University


Tom enjoys a busy and varied civil practice.

His principal practice areas are:

  • Personal injury and clinical negligence
  • Property, professional negligence and general commercial / chancery
  • Employment
  • Child protection

He is regularly instructed in claims over £100,000 as well as more modest value cases, and those of personal, rather than financial, importance.

His broad practice means that he has experience dealing with - and cross-examining - a wide range of people, from experts, professionals and business people, to vulnerable witnesses.

He is considered to be highly analytical and focused, yet personable and good with clients. He has developed significant advocacy expertise, having appeared in court/tribunal about 1000 times. He seeks to give clear, practical and realistic advice.

He has been appointed a member of the Attorney General's Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown.


Tom draws on broad legal experience. His past work includes judicial review in the Administrative Court, criminal advocacy in the Crown Court and advising the Metropolitan Police on disclosure in the 'phone hacking' cases. Before pupillage he was Judicial Assistant to the Head of Civil Justice Sir Anthony Clarke MR (now Lord Clarke JSC) and Lady Justice Arden in the Court of Appeal, where he worked on cases ranging from terrorism and immigration matters to high value commercial litigation.

Tom has a degree from Oxford University (he was one of two in his year to go to Oxbridge from his comprehensive state school).

He has previously lived and worked in Australia and Kazakhstan.

Privacy Notice

Click here to download.

Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence and Inquests:

Tom has considerable experience in personal injury litigation. He regularly acts in substantial multi-track cases and he appears at inquests (including Article 2 inquests). He is a member of the Personal Injury Bar Association.

He co-authors the ‘Personal Injury and Death’ chapter in the well-known Civil Court Practice (the Green Book) published by LexisNexis Butterworths. He is a contributing author to the APIL Guide to RTA Liability (3rd ed.).

Tom has a growing clinical negligence practice and he is a member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association.

Tom keeps up-to-date with civil procedure more generally. 'The Lawyer' has published opinion and analysis articles by him on the Jackson reforms (‘Feeling the judicial chill’) and the Court of Appeal decision in Denton (‘Mitchell Revisited: the sting in the tail’), and he provides lectures to solicitors on developments in the law.

Tom’s work has included:

Civil Cases

  • R v MOD: Representing the Ministry of Defence in ongoing High Court claim relating to a Board and Search exercise by Royal Marines in the Arabian gulf. Schedule of Loss totals £1.5m. Listed for 6 day trial.
  • Walsh v CP Hart [2020] EWHC 37 (QB): Acted for the Claimant, against a QC for the Defendants, at trial before the Designated Civil Judge and on appeal to the High Court. The Claimant had fallen from the back of a lorry and sustained a moderate-severe brain injury. The appeal concerned the meaning of “reasonable practicability” and whether the Supreme Court in Baker v Quantum Clothing had changed the test, the proper application of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and the adequacy of the Defendants’ risk assessment and pre-accident measures. Appeal successful and judgment entered for the Claimant.
  • B v L: Chronic pain claim for over £750,000, 8 experts involved. Represented the Claimant, a serving police officer, who was facing allegations he had actively attempted to mislead the experts and the court, based on surveillance and other evidence.
  • H v K: Serious high speed RTA leading to multiple claims and 6-figure losses; represented the highways authority facing a Part 20 contribution claim.
  • M v K: Acted for claimant in claim for over £400,000 relating to neuropathic pain, PTSD and somatoform pain disorder.
  • A v M: Acted for the claimant who sustained potentially life-threatening chest injuries, two distinct chronic pain conditions and an ongoing psychiatric condition. 2-day trial with conflicting oral evidence from the parties' pain consultants and written evidence from a further 5 experts. The court preferred the claimant’s pain expert and awarded the Claimant over £200,000.
  • Spencer v Bishop Wand School: Appeal on the correct application of the COSHH Regulations. Successfully defended the appeal on behalf of the claimant science teacher.
  • F v H: Complex brain injury case with 12 experts. Case settled for over £200,000 gross.
  • Roci v Bagshaw: 3 day RTA trial, allegation that the collision was fraudulently induced as a result of a conspiracy between the 3 claimants.


  • Re Mohammed Shabol Ahmed (dec’d):   Represented HM Prison Service at the 7-day jury inquest into the death of a prisoner who died after taking illicit new psychoactive substances. National media reporting includes:
  • Re Williams: 3-day inquest into death in custody. 5 interested parties.
  • Re Multani:Represented HM Prison Service at the 2-day inquest into the alcohol-related death of a new prisoner.
  • Re McCrohan: Represented the family at the 2-day inquest before the Senior Coroner into the death of a voluntary psychiatric patient. Issues included the applicability of Article 2 ECHR in light of the Supreme Court decision in Rabone.

Business & Property:

Tom has a particular interest in business and property work and is regularly instructed in such cases. His experience extends to contractual disputes, residential and business landlord and tenant cases, neighbour disputes, beneficial interests in land cases, estate agency and letting agency commission claims, lease / licence issues and building disputes. Tom is a member of the London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association.

Tom is editor of the Landlord and Tenant Reports, published by Sweet & Maxwell.

Tom also practises in professional negligence work in cases involving a variety of different professionals. His current and recent instructions include claims against engineers, architects and solicitors. He is a member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association.

Tom keeps up to date with civil procedure more generally. 'The Lawyer' has published opinion and analysis articles by him on the Jackson reforms, most recently on the Court of Appeal decision inDenton / Decadent / Utilise (July 2014). Click here to read this article.

Example Cases

  • Michael v Lillitos [2019] EWHC 2716 (QB): Appeal against refusal of relief from sanctions in a landlord and tenant claim.
  • STC v F: High Court professional negligence claim for £800,000 against mechanical and electrical engineers and investment surveyors
  • G v C: TOLATA dispute over co-ownership of family home worth c. £350,000 - £400,000, listed for 2 day trial, settled at the door of court.
  • Ford v Olive Tree International Property: Multi-track trial concerning an international property purchase. Involved contractual issues, agency law, trusts law and the applicability of the law of Cape Verde.
  • French v Fletcher: Acted for judgment creditors seeking to enforce against former tenant. 2 day trial on beneficial ownership issue before the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (just prior to incorporation into the First Tier Tribunal).
  • Re S: On-going solicitors' negligence case in respect of complex and unusual residential conveyancing transaction.
  • Re A: £100,000+ civil fraud claim against former employee.
  • Re M: High Court claim under Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against estate worth £500,000
  • Kennedy v Chapman: Appeal against a possession order
  • Re S: £600,000 breach of contract claim against local authority.
  • Cosmichome v De Mendonca: 2 day trial concerning alleged surrender of a commercial lease.
  • Re A: £250,000+ dispute relating to sale of a business.


Tom enjoys appearing regularly in employment tribunals on behalf of claimants and employers. He has experience in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Tom is a contributing author of Remedies in Employment Law, a practitioner text published in December 2013 by the Law Society.

Example Cases

  • Oduko v Department for Work and PensionsActed for the DWP at 3-day hearing.The claimant’s dismissal for information security breaches was upheld.
  • J v A: Secured finding of unfair dismissal despite employee being on long term sick leave with no firm prognosis or expected timescale for a return to work.
  • L v W; R v W: Linked discrimination, protected disclosure and constructive dismissal claims in which Tom acted for the Respondent local authority. Factually complex cases, with evidence from 14 witnesses, the hearing running over a 3 week period, and the parties' written submissions extending to over 120 pages.
  • E v LM: Acted for the Claimant in this unfair dismissal claim. Although the Tribunal found that the Claimant had committed gross misconduct (caught on CCTV), the disciplinary hearing was "so egregiously procedurally unfair that no dismissal based on it could be regarded as fair". The Respondent was a "dysfunctional organisation", such that, had it followed a fair procedure, "almost any decision is within the bounds of possibility".
  • Gould v WBC: Acted for the Respondent in a 4 day disability discrimination and unfair dismissal case. The Claimant had sustained an injury at work causing long term sickness absence. In their 30-page judgment the Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had been fairly dismissed for capability while at the same time had not been 'disabled'.
  • Moghal v Hudda: Acted for the Claimant in her successful appeal to the EAT in a constructive dismissal case. Went on to obtain judgment for the Claimant at the remitted 3-day hearing before the Tribunal.

Family & Court of Protection:

Tom is a member of the Family Law Bar Association.

He has particular expertise in care proceedings, acting for local authorities, parents and children / guardians. He deals with a full range of issues, such as non-accidental injuries, deprivations of liberty, sexual/physical/emotional abuse, international placements, domestic violence, mental health difficulties (including affecting litigation capacity) and substance misuse.

Tom is instructed in a broad range of family matters. For instance, he has acted for the Queen’s Proctor seeking to intervene in a divorce on public interest grounds and for the Secretary of State in child support enforcement appeals to the Family Court. He deals with disputes concerning the co-ownership of the family home / TOLATA cases (see ‘Business & Property' tab).

Tom accepts instructions in Court of Protection cases, including both finance and welfare cases, and has an interest in developing his practice in this field.

Sample Cases

  • Re B: 6-day final hearing before Designated Family Judge seeking 9 findings of emotional and physical abuse of teenage girl by her mother and step-father
  • Re A: Private law proceedings with allegations of sexual abuse by the Father and of the children being coached by the Mother.
  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v SK (a child) and others [2017] EWHC 2636 (Fam): Applications under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for declarations of date of birth and parentage, and for an SGO, in respect of a child who was the victim of human trafficking.
  • AH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] EWFC 9: Child support enforcement case on whether, following Pomiechowski [2012] UKSC 20, the Human Rights Act requires the court to have an exceptional discretion to extend time for appealing a lump sum deduction order, despite the mandatory time limit in the Family Procedure Rules.
  • K v Prospective Adopters: Successful appeal against refusal of leave to oppose adoption, on grounds that the judge misdirected himself as to what constituted a 'change of circumstances'.
  • LB S v W: Acted for local authority in complex care proceedings with final hearing extending over 12 days.
  • V v B: Acted for applicant father in long running contact dispute with heavy CAFCASS involvement.
  • LB Southwark v S: Acted for the local authority in care proceedings where concerns related to mother's learning difficulties and risk-taking behaviour, neglect, child's sexualised behaviour and father's drug use.
  • LB Haringey v R: Acted for mother in care proceedings brought due to domestic violence. Proceedings concluded with a written agreement and no order.

Contact us

For more information please call our clerks on
020 7832 0500 or Email »

Follow us

twitter   linkedin   rss

Subscribe to our updates

Subscribe email