Joel Wallace

Joel is a sports law purist: he is frequently instructed in sports regulatory disputes and arbitrations by clients from across the sporting spectrum, such as National Governing Bodies, clubs, athletes, coaches and agents. He is used to working on cases that garner substantial press attention because they involve high-profile individuals or sporting bodies. For instance, Joel recently defended QPR in a £11+ million claim brought by an ex-academy player.

Joel is familiar with regulations in a variety of sports including association football (soccer), athletics, swimming, cricket, snowboarding, rugby, Formula 1, and baseball, and is adept at advising and representing in a variety of matters, such as disciplinary proceedings (e.g. agent conduct, doping offences, discrimination, on and off-field misconduct, adult and child safeguarding), registration disputes, contractual disputes and employment claims. Further, Joel has represented sports clients in disparate forums: Joel has acted before arbitral panels (such as the Court of Arbitration for Sport), tribunals and the High Court of England and Wales.

Football regulation forms a substantial part of Joel’s sports practice. He has, over many years, honed his knowledge of the law in this sector. Prior to commencing pupillage (around a decade ago), Joel worked in The FA’s Regulatory Advocates department and, as a newly qualified barrister, Joel was appointed to be a Chairman on The FA’s CFA Disciplinary Panel (now called the National Serious Case Panel).

Joel is currently appointed to the Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Panel and a is a member of the Sport Resolutions Safeguarding Case Management Programme Legal Advice Service. Joel has also sat as the legal member of the England Athletics Selection Appeals Panel ahead of the 2022 British Commonwealth Games in Birmingham.

Contracts, Employment, Appointments and Transfers:

• Bansal-McNulty v QPR, Yems and Crawly Town FC (ET, 2026) – Represented QPR in an £11+ million discrimination, harassment and victimisation claim brought by a former academy player. Unfair dismissal, contractual claims were struck out or withdrawn prior to trial (Joel represented QPR throughout). All remaining claims against QPR were dismissed following a six-week trial. The case was widely reported (e.g. by the BBC, Guardian, Times) and the tribunal issued a press summary (here).
• CAS 2025/A/11241 Majeed v Anorthosis Famagusta FC (CAS, 2026) – Represented the successful football player in a wage dispute with the player’s former club. Issues included the scope of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s jurisdiction over FIFA’s DRC. Reported here.
• Rule K Arbitration (2025) – Acted for successful a UK-based agency in an inducing a breach of contract claim brought by another agent firm.
• Benn v PGMOL and The FA (ET, 2025) – Represented The FA in a referee selection case. The claims against The FA were struck out and a costs award was made in The FA’s favour. Reported in the Telegraph.
• Southend United v Lopata (the Contractual Disputes Panel, 2023) – Represented National League club in player contract dispute arising from payment of wages. Reported here and here.
• EFL League Arbitration Panel (2023) – Was led and represented a Championship club in a dispute over player registration allegedly affecting activity within the transfer window. Case involved complicated factual matrix and interplay between the RSTP and EFL rules.
• England Athletics Selection Appeal Panel (2022) – Legal panellist.
• EFL Player Related Disputes Commission Arbitration – Acted for a prominent academy footballer in a dispute over whether compensation was payable on leaving the club. The arbitration involved complex issues over the interpretation of contracts, industry standards and costs.
• The FA v Sutton United (2016) – Breach of rule E1(b) for fielding a transferred player before the transfer was authorised by the FA per rule C1(g)(x).

Disciplinary (including Agent Regulations), Safeguarding and Doping:

• Coach v National Governing Body (HC, 2026) – Acting in ongoing High Court claim in respect of an alleged disciplinary decision and safeguarding decision made by a National Governing Body.
• The FA v An Agent (Regulatory Commission, 2026) – Acted for an agent in misconduct charge brought by The FA.
• Re an Agent (year undisclosed) – Advised an agent during a National Governing Body’s investigations into a purported breach of Agent Regulations.
• The FA v An Agent (Regulatory Commission, 2025) – Acted for an agent in a charge for breach of The FA’s Agent Regulations. The FA withdrew the charge and issued a warning.
• An Agent v The FA (The FA Appeal Board, 2023) – Acted for an agent and successfully appealed the alleged contravention of regulation B8(b)(i) of the Agent Regulations and significantly reduced the agent’s sanction from a 6-month suspension and £1,400 fine to a 6-week suspension and £700 fine.
• UK Athletics Disciplinary Panel (Arbitration, 2023) – Sole counsel representing and advising an athletics coach in defending charges related to bullying. Agreed outcome reached.
• Sports Appeal Panel (Arbitration, 2022) – Represented a coach in an arbitration appeal and successfully argued that the chair of the disciplinary tribunal had acted ultra-vires.
• National Safeguarding Panel Arbitration (2022) – Part led and part acting as sole counsel in prosecution of an athlete for use of cannabis, supplying to a child, and posting photos/videos of a child on Snapchat.
• Doping Proceedings – Advising and making written representations for a participant in a pre-charge correspondence where breach of UK Anti-Doping Rules is alleged. Charge has, thus far, not materialised.
• The FA Regulatory Commission (not reported, 2022) – Acting for The FA in prosecuting a player for off-field misconduct under rule E3(2).
• The FA Regulatory Commission (not reported, 2022) – Acting for The FA and making representations on sanction of a player following admission of a rule E3(1) offence.
• Amateur Swimming Association Appeal (2017) – Represented a coach at an appeal against sanctions in disciplinary and safeguarding case.
• The FA v Nathan Abbey (2016, whilst working for The FA) – Represented The FA in prosecution of discriminatory comments posted by an Arlesey Town FC manager on Twitter.

Law in Sport:

• Periera v Richarlison de Andrade (ET, 2026) – Acting for Premier League player in employment tribunal claims. Reported here, here and here.
• Gray and Anor v Kent FA and Anor (CC, 2025) – Represented the Kent FA in a county court Equality Act 2010 claim.
• Senior Management v A Football Club (ET, 2025) – Drafted the Grounds of Resistance in employment tribunal claims brought against a club by a member of its senior management. The claimant withdrew the claim on receipt of the Grounds of Resistance.
• Kit Employee v F1Team (ET 2024) – Represented a Formula 1 team in an unfair dismissal claim.
• Cornish v The FA (ET, 2023) – Represented The FA at proceedings to determine disability as a preliminary issue in a disability discrimination claim.
• Commercial dispute – Advised five-a-side tournament service in a commercial dispute with a pitch provider. The dispute involved consideration of the small-sided football regulations.
• Shareholder dispute – Advised on a shareholder matter involving a specialist and prestigious sports equipment provider.
• Rapid Retail v Sheffield Wednesday (CC) – Acted successfully in defending football club against a vendor contractual claim.
• Marketing consultancy dispute – Advised and provided representations for Marketing consultancy against a football club.
• Sponsorship agreement– Instructed to advise on a club kit sponsorship and supply agreement.

Appeal Cases

• Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Costantine (EAT, ongoing) – Appearing as junior counsel for the Cultural Bureau in appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s decision to proceed with a liability hearing in circumstances where the Cultural Bureau asserted that state immunity was still in issue.
• Savva v Leather Inside Out (In Liquidation) and Ors [2025] EAT 96 – Represented respondents, who were former managers or trustees of a charity that provided education and work to people serving a custodial sentence. The appeal followed the dismissal of a number of claims against the respondents. Whilst the appeal succeeded in respect of claims against the charity, it did not succeed against the former officers.
• Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Costantine [2025] UKSC 9, [2025] 1 WLR 1207 – Appeared for the Cultural Bureau as junior counsel led by Mohinderpal Sethi KC in this leading embassy worker and state immunity case. The Cultural Bureau succeeded on a novel legal ground relating to the court’s duty to give effect to state immunity under section 1(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978. Reported in the Times, and here and here.
• Aliyu v Tesco Stores Ltd [2024] EAT 185 – Represented the successful respondent in appeal against the first instance decision at trial to dismiss harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment claims against the respondent supermarket chain.
• Sleath v West Midlands Trains (CA and EAT 2024) – Appeared for a rail operator against a train driver’s appeal. The appeal was filed late and, following a one-day hearing to determine whether time should be extended, the EAT declined to extend time and dismissed the appeal. The driver’s subsequent application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. Reported in the Times, and here and here.
• Boesi v Asda EA-2021-001186-VP (EAT, 2023) – Appeared for Respondent in matter regarding hypothetical comparator in disability discrimination claims. Mrs Justice Eady P gave oral judgment for Respondent. Written transcript requested but yet to be published.
• DWP v Boyers [2022] EAT 76, [2022] IRLR 741 – Appeal against the tribunal’s decision to dismiss the employer’s justification defence in a discrimination arising claim. The appeal provided important clarification on the law relating to justification and the balancing exercise. The case has received considerable attention within the legal community (e.g. Harvey on Industrial Relations, and the IDS Employment Law Handbooks).
• Morgan v DHL Services Ltd (EAT, 18 December 2020) – Represented the appellant employee who was successful in overturning the tribunal’s decision to strike out claims of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The EAT agreed with Joel’s submission that the tribunal ought to have expressly addressed, if not considered, the employee’s assertions of deceit.
• Brooke v Sanders Polyfilms Ltd (EAT, 18 August 2017) – Successfully appealed a tribunal’s decision to dismiss the Claimant’s amendment application. The Claimant sought to add detriment and unfair dismissal claims under the Employment Relations Act 1999, s 12 to his claim.

First Instance, Interim Relief and Pre-Action

• Bansal-McNulty v QPR, Yems and Crawly Town FC (ET, 2026) – Represented QPR in an £11+ million discrimination, harassment and victimisation claim brought by a former academy player. Unfair dismissal, contractual claims were struck out or withdrawn prior to trial (Joel represented QPR throughout). All remaining claims against QPR were dismissed following a six-week trial. The case was widely reported (e.g. by the BBC, Guardian, Times) and the tribunal issued a press summary (here).
• The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Antuan & Anor [2026] EWHC 1250 (KB) – Acted for a Cultural Bureau led by Mohinderpal Sethi KC. The Cultural Bureau sought and was granted an injunction for delivery-up of archival documents that were expropriated by former employees. The application included reliance on the inviolability of mission archives pursuant to article 24 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
• Periera v Richarlison de Andrade (ET, 2026) – Acting for Premier League player in employment tribunal claims. Reported here, here and here.

Gray and Anor v Kent FA and Anor (CC, 2025) – Represented the Kent FA in a county court Equality Act 2010 claims. The claims against the Kent FA were struck out and costs awarded.Craete v DPD Group UK Ltd (ET, 2024) – Acted for logistics company, who was the respondent to a section 128 application for interim relief. The application was dismissed.

• Trotman v Romero Multi Academy (ET, 6 March 2023) – Successfully applied for costs in circumstances where the Claimant witness admitted that he had lied to the tribunal during cross-examination.
• Davies v Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service (ET, 20 November 2022) – Acted for the fire service in part-time worker discrimination and unfair dismissal claim. Tribunal held that managerial responsibilities extended to a workplace WhatsApp group in which homophobic and insubordinate comments were made.
• Johnson v TBAP Trust and The London Borough of Haringey (ET, 17 October 2022) – Defended education provider against a victimisation complaint with underlying issues involving the correct application of TUPE.
• A Dispute – Advising and defending client against complaints of discrimination and harassment based on gender critical beliefs.
• A Furlough Matter – Acting for and advising national employer on disability discrimination and reasonable adjustment disputes arising out of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
• Sleath v West Midlands Trains (ET, 29 July 2021 and 17 November 2021) – Acted for rail service provider in philosophical belief discrimination and unfair dismissal complaint arising from an employee’s Facebook post. The claimant employee raised issues of freedom of speech and the preliminary hearing on qualifying belief (amongst other matters) was possibly the first case to apply Forstater (see press reports in the Times and Daily Mail).
• Harmsworth v 21^st Architecture Ltd (ET, 12 April 2021) – Defended respondent Architect firm against section 128 application for interim relief.
• Rodgers v Caverswall China Co Ltd (ET, 2 December 2020) – Acted for a high end, fine-bone China manufacturer against a claim that its rejection of an application amounted to maternity leave discrimination, or direct and indirect sex discrimination. All claims were dismissed.
• Re a Consultancy (2020) – Instructed to act for the respondent in a section 128 application for interim relief and gave advice on merits.
• Ketlinska v Holland Mountain Group Ltd and Ors (ET, 5 February 2020) – Represented a former employee of a private capital consultancy who succeeded in her discrimination arising from depression, anxiety and panic attacks, and a failure to make reasonable adjustment claims.
• Shaw v Nottinghamshire CC (ET, 3 October 2019) – Defended the respondent local authority in the two-week trial of claim involving multiple whistleblowing detriment The tribunal held that the claimant was not a reliable witness, illustrated by her answers in cross-examination.

Civil Cases

• Gray and Anor v Kent FA and Anor (CC, 2025) – Represented the Kent FA in a county court Equality Act 2010 claims. The claims against the Kent FA were struck out and costs awarded.
• A Nation-Wide Service Provider (CC, 2025-2026) – Represented a service provider in various Equality Act 2010 county-court claims brought against it.
• Bateman v The Green Party (CC, 2023-24) – Instructed to represent client with gender critical beliefs in Equality Act 2010 claims against a political party. In 2024, client announced that she had switched legal teams to a solicitor with experience in claiming against the Green Party but “said I would like to thank my previous legal team who have been excellent at guiding me through the initial steps of the case.” The case is widely reported (e.g. by the BBC and Telegraph).

Clients turn to Joel from a wide array of sectors. In recent years he has advised and acted in cases concerning private equity firms, insurers, traders, professional football clubs, sports regulators, social media, events companies, beauty and skincare, business consultancy firms, care service providers, construction companies, and banks.

• The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Antuan & Anor [2026] EWHC 1250 (KB) – Acted for a Cultural Bureau led by Mohinderpal Sethi KC. The Cultural Bureau sought and was granted an injunction for delivery-up of confidential archival documents that were expropriated by former employees. The application included reliance on the inviolability of mission archives pursuant to article 24 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
• A Private Equity Matter – Led by Daniel Northall KC in a speedy trial case concerning the restrictive covenants in a service agreement and share purchase agreement.
• An Insurance Matter – Led by Daniel Northall KC in an unlawful means conspiracy, inducement to breach and breach restrictive covenant case. The client secured an interim injunction and the case was listed for a speedy trial.
• Re Recruitment Firm– Advising and assisting with correspondence in respect of the enforcement of undertakings.
• Re an Events and Professional Education Firm– Advised and assisted with pre-action strategy in respect of alleged covenant breaches (including alleged breaches of non-compete and non-solicitation).
• Azets Holdings Ltd v Redwood Wales Ltd & Ors(QBD) – Acted for a defendant in interim injunction arising from an alleged unlawful team move.
• Re a Sports Tournament Organiser– Advised and drafted pleadings on behalf of a national tournament organiser in respect of a dispute over bookings and interpretation of national sports regulatory provisions.
• Leaseplan UK Ltd v Serita (Newcastle) Ltd and Ors(CC, January 2020) – Successfully represented a vehicle leasing company in respect of a fleet hire and contract dispute both at first instance and in an application for permission to appeal.
• Re a Car Restoration Partnership– Acted and advised in a dispute over assets following the dissolution of a high-end car restoration
• Re an International Social Media Company(QBD) – Advised and represented a former employee of a social media company in a High Court, breach of contract dispute. A central issue in the dispute involved the application of TUPE and determining the identity of the transferee in complex company group structure.
• Re a Recruitment Agency(ChD) – Defended a recruitment company, its management, and staff against a springboard injunction application in the High Court made by a former employer of some of the staff. The injunction involved breaches of confidentiality, fidelity, and restrictive covenants.
• Re a Shareholder Agreement– Drafted and advised on the recovery of loan money connected to an offshore shareholder agreement.
• Rapid Retail v Sheffield Wednesday– Acted successfully in defending football club against a vendor contractual claim.
• Re Accountancy Firm – Advised a partner of a medium sized accountancy firm on entering into a new partnership agreement and whether doing so would be a breach of restrictive covenants.

Joel’s practice turns increasingly to modern employment, business and sporting relationships. Joel is well equipped to work for or against social media outlets, advise on worker status within modern working arrangements, and represent parties where the digital space lies at the heart of the dispute.

In his sports practice, Joel is frequently instructed to represent parties in arbitration. As such, Joel is very familiar with the Arbitration Act 1996 and proceedings which take place under the Act. He has also appeared before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is an arbitral panel governed by Swiss Law.