The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon
Work 020 7332 5640
Fax 020 7332 5641

London: TMT (technology, media and telecoms)

IT and telecoms
IT and telecoms - ranked: tier 4


'Superb' boutique PREISKEL & CO LLP has 'exceptional' transactional and regulatory telecoms sector expertise. The 'very friendly, smart and approachable' team has an impressive client roster, which it assists with corporate, commercial, regulatory, advisory and contentious matters, with particular experience handling multi-jurisdictional instructions. Daniel Preiskel and Ronnie Preiskel, who are 'both extremely talented and highly respected in the industry' head up the non-transactional and transactional practices respectively. Other names to note include Tim Cowen for competition law and Jose Saras, who advises telecoms clients on regulatory and commercial matters including data protection work.

Practice head(s):Daniel Preiskel; Ronnie Preiskel

Other key lawyers:Tim Cowen; Jose Saras


'Preiskel & Co LLP is incredibly positive and accommodating, it shows good attention to detail on projects.'

'Ronnie Preiskel and Kathy Vittala specifically standout; regardless of the day of the week, or if they are on holiday, they are responsive and efficient.'

'Daniel Preiskel and Ronnie Preiskel are both extremely talented, very good team players and highly respected in the industry.'

Key Clients

CityFibre Infrastructure Holdings PLC


International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO)

iGEM Communications LLC (trading post acquisition as Globalgig)

Virgin WiFi Limited

Nextgen Clearing

Pareteum Inc

Bharti Airtel (UK) Limited

The Mobile Ecosystem Forum (MEF)

NTT Communications Group (Applicable Ltd)

Open Rights Group (ORG)

6point6 Limited

XConnect Global Networks Limited

Work highlights

  • Acted for CityFibre in litigation against Ofcom, relating to Ofcom’s discretion in its three-yearly review of the business telecoms market.
  • Acted for PCCW on the £300m sale of UK Broadband to Three UK.
  • Advised a major German car manufacturer on telecoms regulatory issues concerning a range of potential services for drivers and passengers by means of embedded SIMs.
  • Advised a major online film and TV provider on zero-rated deals with a mobile network operator relating to net neutrality and commercial issues.
  • Advising Virgin Wifi on wifi-related commercial and regulatory matters in a number of jurisdictions.

[back to top]

Further information on PREISKEL & CO LLP

Please choose from this list to view details of what we say about PREISKEL & CO LLP in other jurisdictions.


Offices in London

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‚Äėcentre of life test‚Äô in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of¬† ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan ¬† [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the ‚ÄúRegulations‚ÄĚ). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess ¬†Surinder Singh ¬†cases that appear before them.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a¬† sole representative visa ¬†is not ‚Äúa¬† majority shareholder in the overseas business‚ÄĚ.
  • Immigration Skills Charge - A Guide for Employers

    As a Sponsor, you may be required to pay the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) each time you sponsor a migrant in the  Tier 2 General  or  Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Long-term Staff  subcategory.
  • 5 FAQS about paragraph 320(11)

    In applications for entry clearance where the applicant has a negative immigration history in the UK, the application may be refused under the general grounds for refusal, which are found in part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Where an applicant has ¬†‚Äėpreviously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules‚Äô,¬† the application could be refused under paragraph 320(11). In this post we look at five frequently asked questions about paragraph 320(11).¬†
  • Multiple nationality and multiple citizenship (including dual nationality and dual citizenship)

    British nationality law permits multiple nationality and multiple citizenship, including dual nationality and dual citizenship.
  • Applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the Exceptional Talent or Promise Category

    The  Exceptional Talent  and Exceptional Promise categories are for individuals who are recognised leaders or emerging leaders in their field of expertise. There are a number of endorsing bodies for lots of different fields of work, including  artists and musicians ,  architects ,  digital experts ,  scientists  and  academics . While there isn’t an endorsing body for every expert, the growing list means that many individuals could enjoy the flexibility that this category has to offer. 

    Syedur Rahmanconsiders the factors that determine when civil proceedings can go ahead before,or at the same time as, criminal proceedings relating to the same circumstances.
  • Rights of appeal after the Immigration Act 2014

    The Immigration Act 2014 (‚Äúthe 2014 Act‚ÄĚ) reduced the circumstances in which the refusal of an immigration application will give rise to a right of appeal.¬†The¬† explanatory notes ¬†to the 2014 Act state that the Act was intended to restructure rights of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. Previously, a right of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal existed against any of the 14 different immigration decisions listed in s.82 of the¬† Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ¬†(‚Äúthe 2002 Act‚ÄĚ). As explained below, whether or not the refusal of an immigration application currently generates a right of appeal depends on the subject matter of the application rather than its categorisation.