Competition law

Sarah has acted and advised in a wide range of cases. She has experience of European Commission investigations and proceedings by national competition authorities. Some of the matters on which she is working and has worked are listed below.

Standalone & follow-on private claims

• Sainsbury's v MasterCard [2016] CAT 11 - instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP (with Mark Brealey QC and Derek Spitz) in this standalone damages claim relating to MasterCard's multilateral interchange fees ('MIFs'). In a landmark judgment, which was the first under English law to deal with the issue of pass-on, the CAT awarded Sainsburys £68.6 million (subject to tax and interest adjustments). An application for permission to appeal is before the Court of Appeal.
• Sainsbury's v Visa (2017) - instructed by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius UK LLP (with Mark Brealey QC and Derek Spitz) in this standalone damages claim relating to Visa's MIFs. Currently being heard by the Commercial Court.
• Instructed by Clyde & Co LLP (with Aidan Robertson QC) in a follow-on claim arising from the foam cartel.
• Instructed by Linklaters LLP (with Daniel Jowell QC) in a claim by Kelkoo, a price comparison website, against Google in respect of alleged abuses of dominance.
• Dahabshiil Transfer Services Ltd v Barclays Bank plc [2013] EWHC 3379 (Ch) - instructed by Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP as junior counsel for Dahabshiil, an international money remitter that obtained an interim injunction to prevent Barclays from terminating its supply of banking services. The matter was settled before the main hearing.

Judicial reviews/appeals of competition authorities' decisions

• AXA PPP Healthcare Limited v Competition and Markets Authority [2015] CAT 5 - instructed by Linklaters LLP (with Kelyn Bacon QC) for AXA PPP in its challenge to various aspects of the CMA's report following its investigation into the private healthcare market.
• Case 1224/6/8/14 Lafarge Tarmac Holdings Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (No. 2) - instructed by Slaughter and May (with David Pannick QC, Daniel Jowell QC and James Segan) for Lafarge Tarmac in its challenge to various aspects of the CMA's report following its investigation into the aggregates, cement and ready-mix markets.
• Case T/251/12 EGL, Inc & others v European Commission (CFI, judgment in February 2016) - instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP (with Mark Brealey QC) in an application to annul certain aspects of the Commission's 'Freight Forwarding' decision.
• BAA Ltd v Competition Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 1077 – instructed by Nabarro LLP as junior counsel for Ryanair, which supported the Competition Commission's successful defence of BAA’s appeal against the July 2011 report requiring it to sell Stansted Airport. Sarah acted both in the CAT proceedings ([2012] CAT 3) and in the subsequent appeal.
• Competition Commission v BAA Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1097 – instructed by Nabarro LLP for Ryanair (with Daniel Jowell QC) in support of the Competition Commission's successful appeal against the CAT’s judgment quashing the March 2009 report on UK airports, having previously been instructed (with Daniel Jowell QC) in the CAT proceedings ([2009] CAT 35).

Regulated industries & specific areas of European Union law

Sarah has experience of proceedings before, and appeals from decisions of, a wide range of regulatory bodies (including, in particular, Ofcom and the CAA). Some of the matters on which she is working and has worked are listed below.

Broadcasting & telecommunications

• Cases 1259-1261/3/3/16 BCMR appeals - instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (leading Tim Johnston) for Gamma Telecom in these appeals relating to Ofcom's business connectivity market review, in particular its decision to impose a 'dark fibre' remedy. To be heard by the CAT over 8 weeks, starting in April 2017.
•  British Telecommunications plc v Office of Communications & others (Ethernet Determinations) - instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (leading Tim Johnston) for Gamma Telecom, which is intervening in writing in these appeals against the CAT's judgment in Ethernet Determinations [2014] CAT 14. To be heard by the Court of Appeal in March 2017.
• British Telecommunications PLC v Office of Communications (BT's APCCs) [2016] CAT 22 - instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (leading Tim Johnston) for Gamma Telecom, which intervened successfully in support of Ofcom, defending BT's appeal against Ofcom's determination that it had overcharged Gamma and Vodafone Limited in respect of telephone calls to numbers that had 'ported' from BT to other communications providers.
• 1234/3/3/14 Gamma Telecom Holdings Limited v Office of Communications - instructed by Charles Russell LLP (unled) for Gamma Telecom, which is appealing against Ofcom's determination of its dispute with BT regarding the compliance of charges relating to interconnect extension circuits (IECs) with its cost orientation obligation. This appeal is stayed pending the outcome of the Ethernet Determinations appeals referred to above.
• British Telecommunications plc v Telefonica O2 UK Ltd & others (08x) [2014] UKSC 42 - instructed by Charles Russell LLP (unled) for Gamma Telecom, which intervened in writing in this significant judgment concerning the lawfulness of BT's 'laddered' termination charges for calls to 0800, 0845 and 0870 calls.
• Virgin Media, Inc & others v Office of Communications [2012] CAT 20 – instructed by BT Legal (with Thomas Plewman SC and Sarah Ford) in the ‘Pay TV’ litigation regarding Ofcom’s decision to impose a ‘wholesale must-offer’ on Sky in relation to Sky Sports 1 and 2. The CAT's decision was subsequently the subject of a successful appeal by BT ([2014] EWCA Civ 133).

Transport

• Eventech Ltd v Parking Adjudicator & others [2012] EWHC 1903 (Admin) – instructed by TfL (with Martin Chamberlain QC) in its successful defence of a challenge by minicab firm Addison Lee to TfL’s policy preventing minicabs from using bus lanes. The claimant alleged breaches of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, breach of the principle of equal treatment, Wednesbury irrationality and unlawful State aid. The case is currently before the Court of Appeal.
• BAA Ltd v Competition Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 1077 – see under 'Competition law' above.
• Competition Commission v BAA Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1097 – see under 'Competition law' above.
• Instructed for Aer Lingus (with Kelyn Bacon QC) in a challenge to the CAA’s decision of March 2012 on a complaint by bmi under section 41 of the Airports Act 1986. The decision was ultimately withdrawn.
• Instructed as junior counsel for Ryanair in the first two UK decisions under Regulation 20 of the Airports (Groundhandling) Regulations 1997 (May 2013 and March 2011). Both of Ryanair’s appeals were successful.

Consumer protection

• Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc & others [2009] UKSC 6 – instructed by the OFT (with Jonathan Crow QC, Jemima Stratford QC and Richard Coleman QC) in the ‘Bank Charges’ litigation, which concerned whether unarranged overdraft charges could be assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
• Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Limited [2009] EWHC 1681 (Ch) – instructed by the OFT (with Nicholas Green QC and Helen Davies QC) in its successful case against Foxtons concerning the fairness of clauses in its contracts with landlords.
• Advised (led and unled) on the application of both the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in various different sectors.

Equality & discrimination

• R (o.a.o. Cushnie) v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 3626 (Admin) - instructed by the Treasury Solicitor (with Marie Demetriou QC) for the Secretary of State for Health in this challenge to provisions of the National Health Services (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2001 on the basis that they were alleged to rise to unlawful disability discrimination (in breach of Article 14 ECHR, read with Article 8) and had breached the public sector equality duty.
• Eventech Ltd v Parking Adjudicator & others [2012] EWHC 1903 (Admin) – see under ‘Transport’ above.
• Hereward & Foster v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 3370 (Admin) – instructed by the LSC (with Martin Chamberlain QC) resisting a sex discrimination challenge to the scoring criteria for the award of contracts for publicly funded legal services.
• Advised various public bodies on discrimination issues, the application of the public sector equalities duties and the principle of equal treatment (led and unled).

Public procurement

• Hereward & Foster v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 3370 (Admin) – see under ‘Equality & discrimination’ above.
• Instructed by the LSC (unled) in judicial reviews of the conditions for applications for the Unified Contract (Crime) July 2008, all of which were defended successfully.
• Instructed (unled) by a local authority in relation to threatened challenges to tendering procedures for services.
• Advised (led and unled) on the application of public procurement directives to a range of sectors and industries, including defence procurement, legal services, languages training and television programmes.

Sarah has acted for and advised both applicants and respondents in judicial reviews and other proceedings. Some of the matters on which she is working and has worked are listed below.

Commercial/regulatory judicial reviews & appeals

• AXA PPP Healthcare Limited v Competition and Markets Authority [2015] CAT 5 - instructed by Linklaters LLP (with Kelyn Bacon QC) for AXA PPP in its challenge to various aspects of the CMA's report following its investigation into the private healthcare market.
• Case 1224/6/8/14 Lafarge Tarmac Holdings Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (No. 2) - instructed by Slaughter and May (with David Pannick QC, Daniel Jowell QC and James Segan) for Lafarge Tarmac in its challenge to various aspects of the CMA's report following its investigation into the aggregates, cement and ready-mix markets.
• Eventech Ltd v Parking Adjudicator & others [2012] EWHC 1903 (Admin) – instructed by TfL (with Martin Chamberlain QC) in its successful defence of a challenge by minicab firm Addison Lee to TfL’s policy preventing minicabs from using bus lanes. The claimant alleged breaches of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, breach of the principle of equal treatment, Wednesbury irrationality and unlawful State aid. The case is currently before the Court of Appeal.
• Salt Union Ltd v Health and Safety Executive & another [2012] EWHC 2611 (Admin) – instructed (with Martin Chamberlain QC) for the HSE, which successfully defended an application for permission to judicially review a decision that a pre-construction safety report for an underground gas storage facility was acceptable and contained the information required by the Control of Major Accidents Hazards Regulations 1999.
• Government Actuary’s Department v Pensions Ombudsman [2012] EWHC 1796 (Admin) – instructed by the Government Actuary’s Department (with Martin Chamberlain QC) in a judicial review of a decision by the Pensions Ombudsman as to his jurisdiction over complaints in respect of the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme.
• BAA Ltd v Competition Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 1077 – instructed by Nabarro LLP as junior counsel for Ryanair, which supported the Competition Commission's successful defence of BAA’s appeal against the July 2011 report requiring it to sell Stansted Airport. Sarah acted both in the CAT proceedings ([2012] CAT 3) and in the subsequent appeal.
• Competition Commission v BAA Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1097 – instructed by Nabarro LLP for Ryanair (with Daniel Jowell QC) in support of the Competition Commission's successful appeal against the CAT’s judgment quashing the March 2009 report on UK airports, having previously been instructed (with Daniel Jowell QC) in the CAT proceedings ([2009] CAT 35).

Transport

• Eventech Ltd v Parking Adjudicator & others [2012] EWHC 1903 (Admin) – see under ‘Commercial/regulatory judicial reviews & appeals’ above.
• BAA Ltd v Competition Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 1077 – see under ‘Commercial/regulatory judicial reviews & appeals’ above.
• Competition Commission v BAA Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1097 – see under ‘Commercial/regulatory judicial reviews & appeals’ above.
• First Essex Buses Ltd v (1) Secretary of State for Transport and (2) Essex County Council [2009] EWHC 3024 (Admin) – instructed for the Claimant (with Jonathan Crow QC) in a challenge to the Secretary of State for Transport's conduct of statutory appeals procedures.
• R (o.a.o. London Borough of Wandsworth & others) v Secretary of State for Transport [2008] EWHC 1292 (Admin) – instructed (with John Howell QC and Martin Chamberlain QC) for the Secretary of State in a successful defence of a challenge to the decisions on night flying restrictions at Heathrow Airport.
• Heathrow Airport Ltd & others v Garman & others [2007] All ER (D) 28 (Aug) – instructed (with Martin Chamberlain QC) by TfL and London Underground Limited in relation to Heathrow Airport's claim for an injunction to prevent disruption by environmental protesters. Successfully resisted a wide-ranging injunction.

Legal services

• Gudanaviciene & others v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Lord Chancellor [2014] EWCA Civ 1622 - instructed by the Treasury Solicitor and the Legal Aid Agency (with Martin Chamberlain QC and Malcolm Birdling) for the Defendants in the appeals from these six joined judicial review cases relating to refusals to grant legal aid by way of 'exceptional case funding' for the purposes of immigration proceedings. The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights require the provision of legal aid in immigration cases. Sarah was also instructed in the proceedings before the Administrative Court ([2014] EWHC 1840 (Admin)).
• Bhatia Best Limited v Lord Chancellor [2014] EWHC 746 (QB) - instructed by the LAA (unled) for the Lord Chancellor in this successful defence of a claim concerning whether appeals against homelessness decisions under s. 204 of the Housing Act 1996 fall within the definition of "judicial review proceedings" in Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
• R (o.a.o. Ehujor & another t/a Crystal Partners Solicitors) v Lord Chancellor (Admin Ct, 2013) - instructed by the LAA (unled) for the Lord Chancellor in this successful defence of a challenge to the termination of a contract with the LSC following two failed peer review assessments.
• R (SP) v Lord Chancellor [2013] EWHC 4011 (Admin) - instructed by the LAA (unled) for the Lord Chancellor in this successful defence of a challenge relating to the rates of pay for third parties under the 2013 Standard Civil Contract.
• Hereward & Foster v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 3370 (Admin) – instructed by the LSC (with Martin Chamberlain QC) resisting a sex discrimination challenge to the scoring criteria for the award of contracts for publicly funded legal services.
• Instructed by the LSC (unled) in judicial reviews of the conditions for applications for the Unified Contract (Crime) July 2008, all of which were defended successfully.

Healthcare

• AXA PPP Healthcare Limited v Competition and Markets Authority [2015] CAT 5 - see under 'Commercial/regulatory judicial reviews & appeals' above.
• R (o.a.o. Cushnie) v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 3626 (Admin) - instructed by the Treasury Solicitor (with Marie Demetriou QC) for the Secretary of State for Health in this challenge to provisions of the National Health Services (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2001 on the basis that they were alleged to rise to unlawful disability discrimination (in breach of Article 14 ECHR, read with Article 8) and had breached the public sector equality duty.
• R (o.a.o. Whapples) v Birmingham Crosscity Clinical Commissioning Group [2014] EWHC 2647 (Admin) - instructed by the Treasury Solicitor (unled) for the Secretary of State for Health, who was an interested party intervening in support of the successful defendant. The claimant argued that the defendant had an obligation under s. 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to provide her with accommodation, as part of the healthcare package that it should provider for her free of charge under the NHS. The case had significant potential wider financial consequences for the NHS. The Administrative Court's judgment was subsequently upheld on appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 435).
• R (W, X, Y and Z) v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 1532 (Admin) - instructed by the Treasury Solicitor (with Marie Demetriou QC) for the Secretary of State for Health in this successful defence of a challenge to data-sharing arrangements whereby the NHS shares data with the Home Office about patients who have incurred NHS debts. Sarah subsequently acted for the Secretary of State in the pre-hearing stages of the successful defence of the appeal to the Court of Appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 1034).

Human rights & civil liberties

• Gudanaviciene & others v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Lord Chancellor [2014] EWCA Civ 1622 - see under 'Legal services' above.
• R (o.a.o. Cushnie) v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 3626 (Admin) - see under 'Healthcare' above.
• Assisted Jemima Stratford QC in relation to several ECtHR cases involving child care proceedings, in which issues arose under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR. These included (i) RP v UK (App No. 38245/08), which concerned the fairness of role of Official Solicitor in child care proceedings and (ii) R and H v UK (App No. 35348/06), which concerned whether the making by the High Court of Northern Ireland freeing a child for adoption without the parents’ consent was a disproportionate interference with their rights under Article 8 ECHR.
• Heathrow Airport Ltd & others v Garman & others [2007] All ER (D) 28 (Aug) – see under ‘Transport’ above.
• Instructed in many judicial reviews (including immigration claims) in which human rights issues – in particular, issues under Article 8 ECHR and under Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR – have arisen.

Information & data protection

• R (W, X, Y and Z) v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 1532 (Admin) - see under 'Healthcare' above.
• Wendy Stephen v (1) Information Commissioner and (2) Legal Services Commission EA/2008/0057 – instructed for the LSC (unled) in its first, successful, appearance before the Information Tribunal, in which its decision to refuse disclosure of information on the basis of the exemption in section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was upheld.

Environment

• Salt Union Ltd v Health and Safety Executive & another [2012] EWHC 2611 (Admin) – see under ‘Commercial/regulatory judicial reviews & appeals’ above.
• R (o.a.o. London Borough of Wandsworth & others) v Secretary of State for Transport [2008] EWHC 1292 (Admin) – see under ‘Transport’ above.
• Heathrow Airport Ltd & others v Garman & others [2007] All ER (D) 28 (Aug) – see under ‘Transport’ above.

Public procurement

• Hereward & Foster v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 3370 (Admin) – see under 'Legal services' above.
• As stated under 'Legal services' above, instructed by the LSC (unled) in judicial reviews of the conditions for applications for the Unified Contract (Crime) July 2008, all of which were defended successfully.
• Advised (led and unled) on the application of public procurement directives to a range of sectors and industries, including defence procurement, legal services, languages training and television programmes.

• Bar Vocational Course, BPP Law School - Outstanding, finished 3rd in year (2006)
• Queen Mother's Fund Scholarship for Bar Vocational Course, Middle Temple (2005)
• Postgraduate Diploma in EC Competition Law, King's College (2006)
• Graduate Diploma in Law, City University - Distinction, finished 1st in year (2005)
• Baron Dr Ver Heyden de Lancey Prize for the Bar Vocational Course, Middle Temple (2006)
• 3 Verulam Buildings Prize for best overall examination results in Graduate Diploma in Law, City University (2005)
• Winner, European Law Students' Association WTO Moot Court Competition (2005); also winner of prizes for best written memorials and UK round
• Queen Mother's Fund Scholarships for Graduate Diploma in Law and Harmsworth Entrance Award, Middle Temple (2004)
• Michael von Clemm Scholar, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University (2002-03)
• MA (Oxon) Philosophy, Politics & Economics, Magdalen College, University of Oxford - First Class Honours, finished 1st in year (2002), Distinction in Preliminary Examinations (1999)
• Hicks and Webb Medley Prize for Economics (best in year) in Final Examinations, University of Oxford (2002)
• Proxime accessit to the Gibbs Prize for Politics (runner up) in Final Examinations, University of Oxford (2002)
• Gibbs Prize for Politics (best in year) in Preliminary Examinations, University of Oxford (2000)

Law publications

• Blakeley R, Knight C, Love S, The New Tribunals Handbook. Bloomsbury Professional, 2011
• Contributor to Brealey QC, Green QC (general eds),Competition Litigation. UK Practice and Procedure. OUP, 2010
• Love S. The Merger Action Group Case. (2009) Competition Law Journal 8(2), 107
• Robertson A, Lester M, Love S. Judicial review in the United Kingdom of Competition and State Aid Decisions - Part I. [2007] 10 ECLR 553
• Robertson A, Lester M, Love S. Judicial review in the United Kingdom of Competition and State Aid Decisions - Part II. [2007] 11 ECLR 585

Selected economics publications

• Love S. Fiscal policy: principles and practice. Economic Review 2004; 22
• Emmerson C, Frayne C, Love S. Updating the UK's code for fiscal stability. IFS Working Paper W04/29, November 2004
• Emmerson C, Frayne C, Love S. A Survey of Public Spending in the UK. IFS Briefing Note No. 43, updated September 2004
• Emmerson C, Frayne C, Love S. The government's fiscal rules. IFS Briefing Note No. 16, updated August 2004
• Contributor to Chapters 2, 3 and 7 of Chote R, Emmerson C, Oldfield Z (eds). The IFS Green Budget: January 2004
• Clark T, Elsby M, Love S. Trends in British public investment. Fiscal Studies 2002; 23: 305-42.

"Sarah is an amazing barrister. She is well organised and brilliantly choreographs appeals." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"Sarah is an excellent senior junior. She is a detail-oriented advocate who is very impressive on her feet." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"Her ability to think on her feet, asking questions and reacting to changes is very impressive." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"Sarah is an extremely bright and fantastic advocate. She really knows the law inside out and she is a wonderful addition to any legal team." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"She's bright as a button, highly analytical and good on her feet." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"She is incredibly smart, very clever and has very good attention to detail. She makes really incisive arguments and she is very good at picking up materials." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"Sarah is one of the preeminent senior juniors. Clients absolutely love her and her style. She is really accessible and super-smart without being intimidating." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"Sarah is an effective cross-examiner and very good at assimilating very complex subject matters and getting across the detail." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"Sarah is fantastically bright; she's really able to grasp complex areas of law outside of her main field. She drafts written documents well and is an extremely hard worker." (Chambers & Partners 2025)

"Sarah is one of the highest quality juniors at the competition damages Bar and is destined for the top. She understands the law, economics and commercial dynamics at play extremely well, and is able to discern the correct course through those factors with remarkable clarity. She is also a joy to work with and the clients love her." (Legal 500 2025)

"Sarah is fantastic. She has great sector knowledge, is great with clients and is very quick to grasp topics - a great lawyer generally." (Chambers & Partners 2024)

"Sarah is sensible, straight, direct and clear." (Chambers & Partners 2024)

"Sarah Love is a go-to barrister on competition law matters." (Chambers & Partners 2024)

"She is incredibly sharp in her knowledge on the law and drafting." (Chambers & Partners 2024)

"She is excellent - insightful, all over the detail, and a fountain of information. I have enjoyed working with her." (Chambers & Partners 2024)

"Very bright and a pleasure to work with, she does an immaculate job. She is highly strategic and someone with great judgement." (Chambers & Partners 2024)

"Sarah is very nice, phenomenally smart, and someone whose submissions are clear and crisp." (Chambers & Partners 2024)

"Sarah is extremely bright, responsive and good at delivering clear advice. She gets into the details of cases and ensures that she is able to provide really effective support." (Legal 500 2024)

"She is a calming presence in whom judges place their trust." (Legal 500 2024)

"Sarah is extremely bright, responsive and good at delivering clear advice. She gets into the details of cases and ensures that she is able to provide really effective support." (Legal 500 2024)

"Sarah has a beautiful manner with the court. She is engaging but low-key and friendly in her style of advocacy, and she produces really well-targeted submissions." (Chambers & Partners 2023)

"Incredibly smart and a fantastic drafter. A woman of great intelligence, she picks up everything incredibly quickly and is always on top of the detail." (Chambers & Partners 2023)

"She is extremely responsive. Clients appreciate her commercial and practical approach." (Chambers & Partners 2023)

"Sarah is very perceptive; she comes with very insightful points and is quick to get to the good points." (Chambers & Partners 2023)

'Excellent written work and strong, persuasive oral advocacy.' (Legal 500 2023)

'Very clever and very user friendly. Offers insights beyond her years and contributes strongly to strategy discussions.' (Legal 500 2023) 

‘Sarah is calm and authoritative, incredibly clever and a fantastic strategic thinker.' (Legal 500 2023)

"Sarah has a fantastic command of the detail and drafting. She is always one step ahead." "She spots the technical points that others do not see." "She can extract from the submission very clear points and is able to run through them in front of the judges. She has a great oratory style and a really close knowledge of the factual background of the cases, and she can delve into everything." (Chambers & Partners 2022)

"Clients get on with her really well. She is also really good with strategy." "She is a real expert and has an in-depth knowledge of judgments." (Chambers & Partners 2022)

"Her technical knowledge is excellent. Silks are turning to her and relying on her in quite a big way these days." (Chambers & Partners 2022)

"Excellent written work and oral advocacy and always gets to the heart of the issue." (Legal 500 2022)

"What particularly marks Sarah out is that she was a prize-winning economist at Oxford and then in practice, before turning to the law and so has an understanding of economics way beyond most barristers practising competition law. Fantastically intelligent and hardworking." (Legal 500 2022)

"She is a formidable drafter, tactically very astute and incredibly hard-working." (Legal 500 2022)

"She is absolutely first-class and really understands how the market operates." "She's always very bright, responsive and able to produce high-quality work in a short period of time." "Sarah is intensely clever." (Chambers & Partners 2021)

"Sarah is an excellent senior junior, with strong advocacy skills and an ability to grasp complex issues immediately." "She is an astute practitioner, who has a good grasp of the telecoms sector and a forensic understanding of the court." "Sarah is very bright, extremely helpful and really well informed." (Chambers & Partners 2021)

"An extraordinary intellect with a background in economics, she is in great demand. Amongst the top juniors at the competition bar, she is particularly strong on regulatory matters and judicial reviews." (Legal 500 2021)

 "Her written work is excellent and always meticulously argued. Her oral advocacy is very effective and she is highly skilled at distilling the key points." (Legal 500 2021)

"One of the best when it comes to complex public law matters with an international or commercial dimension. (Legal 500 2021)

Sarah Love is a “very good strategist” and “a pleasure to work with”. She has an excellent track record handling competition matters in the telecommunications sector. (Who's Who Legal - UK Bar: Competition 2020)

Sarah Love comes highly recommended by sources for her top-tier advocacy in competition and regulatory proceedings in the telecoms space. (Who's Who Legal - UK Bar: Telecoms 2020)

"She's extremely effective, delightful to work with and unfailingly impressive." "A clever person and a good hard worker," she is "very clear and able to distil arguments down to the key points very effectively." (Chambers & Partners 2020)

"Direct, succinct and practical." "She is really good at understanding the overall picture of all of the issues in a case and how they interlink." "She functions superbly in a team environment and her drafting skills are excellent." (Chambers & Partners UK & Global 2020)

"A good team player who drafts persuasively." (Legal 500 2020)

"She has an excellent grasp of the economics underlying the subject." (Legal 500 2020)

Sarah Love “really impresses” according to respondents who consider her a specialist in competition and regulatory matters pertaining to the telecoms sector. (Who's Who Legal - UK Bar: Telecoms 2019)

"Sarah is incredibly energetic, bright and someone who writes incredibly well and turns around crystal clear documents in a short space of time." (Chambers & Partners UK & Global 2019)

Sarah Love is “really impressive” and stands out among peers as “a formidable opponent” who is “very fluent on paper and in oral submissions”. One source effuses: “She has got an incredible future at the Bar and certainly in telecoms work.” (Who's Who Legal - UK Bar: Telecoms 2018)

Sarah Love is a “really impressive” barrister who is “very fluent on paper and in oral submissions and is a formidable opponent”. She is highly regarded for her expertise in competition law, particularly in economically regulated industries. (Who's Who Legal - UK Bar: Competition 2018)

"She drafts excellently and her knowledge of economics was very helpful." (Chambers & Partners 2018)

"Sarah Love is most often instructed by BT and is a recognised expert in competition law and regulatory issues." (Who's Who Legal - UK Bar: Telecoms 2017)

"She produces particularly good written work and has excellent client-handling skills." (Chambers & Partners 2017)

“She’s incredibly clever and leaves no stone unturned in working out the details to things.” (Chambers & Partners 2016)

"She really understands the detail of a case and is able to provide very good tactical litigation advice." (Chambers & Partners 2016)

“She is very bright, very personable, commercially aware and responsive to client needs.” “She is very clever.” (Chambers & Partners 2015)

“She grasps the issues very quickly, and is also very user-friendly and excellent to work with.” “A sensible practitioner, who is very clever.” (Chambers & Partners 2015)

“She has the law at her fingertips and is also brilliant with technical evidence.” (Chambers & Partners 2014)

“She is intellectually astute, exceptionally pleasant to deal with and very good in front of clients.” (Chambers & Partners 2014)

"Clients describe Sarah Love as "fantastic" and "very good at getting straight to the point."" (Chambers & Partners 2013)

"Sarah Love is valued for her background in economics and the attendant depth that this brings to her knowledge of the competition law world. She is considered "a really excellent junior and somebody I would consistently use."" (Chambers & Partners 2013)

"Sarah Love is hailed as "a star of the future." An individual with an economics background, she has made a fine practice for herself encompassing cases relating to competition, administrative law and regulatory issues. Sources say "she is fearsomely intelligent and produces brilliantly drafted documents." " (Chambers & Partners 2012)

"Sarah Love impresses market commentators with her "excellent written work." She acted for BT in the Pay TV proceedings relating to Ofcom's decision to impose a wholesale must offer remedy on Sky." (Chambers & Partners 2012)