Adam is an experienced advocate who specialises exclusively in family law. Care and Adoption Adam Langrish has a busy public law practice and represents parents, local authorities and children (separately or via their Guardian) at every stage of proceedings. He also has experience of acting for interveners in care cases both in respect of wider family members seeking to challenge assessments of them and third parties implicated in non-accidental injury cases. Adam is frequently instructed in cases involving the most serious physical, psychological and/or emotional harm to children. Adam is well used to representing vulnerable adults, including those who require the assistance of the Official Solicitor and parents fleeing from abuse and/or human trafficking. Reported care and adoption cases include: BCP Council v A and Ors (Inflicted injuries : Failure to protect) [2020] EWFC B4 – Representation of a mother at a fact-finding hearing in relation to a child who had suffered from multiple fractures and bruising. Dorset Council v M (Failure to prove non-accidental injury) [2019] EWFC B63 – Fact-finding hearing in case of alleged non-accidental injury of a 12 day old baby presenting with a skull fracture. Re N & P (Children) (Care and Placement Orders) [2016] EWFC 4 – Care proceedings in the High Court with jurisdictional issues arising from children born to Slovakian parents Re C (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 644 – Appeal relating to a refusal to grant leave to a parent to oppose an adoption order and the significance of disclosing the Annex A report. Re T (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 606 – Appeal arising from a delay to judgment in care proceedings involving a family with 10 children, following a 7 day final hearing Re B (A Child) [2015] EWFC B81 – Fact-finding hearing in respect of allegations of rape and inappropriate behaviour raised by a number of children in relation to a father. Private Law Children Adam represents parents, children (via their 16.4 Guardian) and wider family members in disputes about living and/or contact arrangements relating to children. He has extensive experience of representing parties pursuing or resisting serious allegations at fact-finding hearings. Adam has particular expertise in cases of entrenched hostility, abduction and proposed removal from the jurisdiction. Reported private law cases include: JD & LD –v- VB & Ors [2020] EWFC 16 – 6 day final re-hearing after an appeal in a case where previous allegations of sexual misconduct had been dismissed. PR –v- JS (Re-Opening of fact-finding: allegations of sexual abuse) [2019] EWFC 69 – Representation of the child via her Guardian at a 10 day fact-finding hearing in the High Court in respect of allegations of sexual abuse. Re L (Costs of Children Proceedings) 2014 EWCA Civ 1437 – Appeal against a costs order made in absence and decision regarding the administration of trust and investment funds. Injunctions & Domestic Abuse Domestic abuse is a common feature of much of Adam’s children-related work and he represents both applicants and respondents in applications for non-molestation and occupation orders (and subsequent enforcement proceedings). Finance Adam is instructed in the full range of applications arising from the breakdown of relationships between married and unmarried couples including: Ancillary relief (s.25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) Maintenance Pending Suit Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 Transfer of tenancy Applications for the provision of children under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. Within such applications Adam is routinely instructed from preliminary hearings/FDA through to contested final hearings and, where necessary, subsequent enforcement and variation applications and appeals. Court of Protection Adam has experience in a wide range of Court of Protection matters and has a particular interest in Deprivation of Liberty applications and related issues within care cases. Adam is instructed in court of protection cases relating to welfare, contact and medical treatment issues as well as property/financial matters. Reported Court of Protection cases include: Dorset Council v A (Residential Placement: Lack of Resources) [2019] EWFC 62 – Deprivation of Liberty Order made in respect of a girl aged 15 who could not be found a residential placement and had 10 placements over the course of 12 months.
Barristers
Alexander Whatley is a commercial, chancery and property barrister. He has been recommended in Legal 500 (2023) as a ‘Tier 1 Leading Individual’ in Commercial Litigation. Before joining the Bar, he worked in a City advisory firm conducting investigative corporate intelligence for global merchants and hedge funds in the field of international commodity trading. Alexander is also available for instruction through Direct Access. Commercial ‘Alexander is an experienced trial advocate and regularly acts in complex High Court litigation. Clients note his tactical judgment and targeted pursuit of both their strategic and commercial objectives.’ Recent cases include: S & S v D [2023] - Successfully represented the Claimants in a three day trial. The Defendant had fallen asleep at the wheel and subsequently collided with the Claimants' house. The Defendant insurer denied any of the structural damage was caused by the collision due to cosmetic nature of the exterior damage. After days of cross examination of experts in the fields of structural engineering and building pathology the Court awarded the Claimants over £120,000 in addition to punitive costs and interest. T Ltd v G Ltd [2022] - Representing the Defendant in a High Court Recruitment Agency dispute valued at £1.5m. SF Ltd v DC, LB & Others [2022] - Representing three Defendants in a High Court dispute concerning claims of conspiracy, breaches of fiduciary duties and directors duties, constructive rusts and unjust enrichment. TP Ltd v GR Ltd [2022] - Representing the Defendant in a High Court King’s Bench Division agency dispute. C’s v H, H & L [2021] - Successfully represented 22 Claimants as lead counsel in a 7-day trusts trial involving donors in a Muslim prayer group each of whom were alleging the Defendants had committed breaches of trust, failure to account and fraud. IR v TR [2022] HF Ltd v RF Ltd [2020] CS v HH Ltd [2019] FP Ltd v LT Ltd [2018] A T Ltd v M C Ltd [2018] W K v CWC Ltd [2018]; et al - Represented both Claimants and Defendants in a sequence of recruitment agency litigation – ATOW Alex has not lost a recruitment trial. LG Ltd v HD Ltd [2021] – Ongoing. Representing the Claimant in a High Court estate agency claim valued at £1.1m. BP Limited v MM Ltd [2021] – Ongoing. Representing the Claimant in a High Court planning contract dispute. CHS Ltd v TL Ltd [2021] - Ongoing. Representing the Defendant in a £460,000 recruitment agency claim. P v D [2021] - Successfully represented the Claimant in a dispute with his accountant concerning allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. L v C [2020] - Successfully struck out the defective pleadings of an unrepresented party and secured a costs order for the Defendant. M v R [2020] - Successfully represented the Claimant in High Court proceedings to recover a judgment debt through enforcement. C & C v D [2019] - Represented the Claimants in a 3-day misrepresentation trial involving an alleged village conspiracy, abusive neighbours and the existence of ghosts. Bank v R & R [2019] – Successfully acted for two individuals in a misrepresentation action against a national bank concerning a £250m fraud. R v M [2019] – Successfully defended a contract claim arising out of a university start-up venture which had transformed into a multi-million-pound media company. In the Matter of W E PLC [2018] – Successfully acted for the company in the High Court over the course of several months in an application to reduce their share premium account and transfer to special reserve in the amount of £6m. Contract Alexander provides representation and advice in the following areas: Agency law with a sub-speciality in recruitment and estate agency litigation Energy. Acting in trials concerning the ECO/ Green Deal and the supply and installation of energy-generating equipment. Franchise agreements including advising on a dispute with an international franchising company in the milkshake industry. Utilities with sub-speciality in water supply contracts for individuals and companies including extensive experience with the OFWAT guidance. Reputational damage arising out of breach of contract including a successful recovery of damages arising from a horse trainer being labelled dishonest after feed purchased from a supplier was found to contain prohibited substances Consumer law advising and acting in cases concerning consumer contract regulations, consumer protection and UCTA. Residential and commercial construction disputes Misrepresentation in both tort and contractual claims. Commercial Litigation, Insolvency and Company Law Commercial Agents Regulations Competition and Pricing regulations Reduction in Share Capital Applications Shareholder Misfeasance including illegal conduct arising out of the Companies Act 2006 Breach of fiduciary duty claims Professional Negligence with extensive experience against architects, surveyors and estate agents Claims in restitution relating to business and commerce Extensive experience in conducting and opposing relief from sanctions applications Product liability including advising on a defective paint grenade Travel-related claims including international timeshare agreements Libel claims arising from online defamation and reputational damages. Limitation Part 36 disputes Restitution Claims including Unjust Enrichment. Property and Estates Alexander Whatley’s Property and Estates practice focuses on disputes between landlords and tenants and he is regularly instructed to advise on property disputes involving Breach of Covenants, Relief from Forfeiture, Construction Contracts and Service Charges. Commercial Landlord and Tenant Alexander has a wealth of experience acting for large retailers, developers, pension trusts and public authorities, as well as commercial tenants. Alexander’s experience covers matters including; lease renewals (incl.1954 act matters), forfeiture, disrepair, dilapidations, and service charge disputes. Understanding the commercial pressures both landlords and tenants are under, Alexander works with his clients to resolve issues and disputes as quickly and efficiently as possible. Residential Landlord and Tenant Acting for both landlords and tenants, Alexander advises in all aspects of this sphere from disrepair, breach of covenant, unlawful eviction, trespass and quiet enjoyment to anti-social behaviour nuisance, and harassment including housing related issues, such as homelessness.
Amy Lush is a family law barrister who specialises in all aspects of private children and financial remedies, including, financial disputes under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; private law children proceedings, including applications for enforcement and variation of child arrangements orders; and non-molestation and occupation orders. She receives instructions from applicants, respondents, parents, guardians, extended family members and intervenors from first hearings through to final hearings and any subsequent appeal proceedings. Amy also represents parties in family injunctions. Amy is a member of the Family Law Bar Association and Resolution. She is a committee member for Hampshire Young Resolution and has recently been appointed to Resolution’s Wellbeing Committee. She is also a qualified collaboration lawyer with Resolution and is a member of the Solent Collaboration Group (POD). She is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme, or assist with ongoing matters. Amy is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact her for a copy of her privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data Amy may collect about you, or that is provided to her, will be processed by her. A copy of Amy’s privacy policy will be provided within five working days of its request. Family Amy Lush is a highly respected - and rated by both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 - family barrister, specialising in children and divorce. Private law children Amy regularly acts for applicants and respondents, including rule 16.4 Children’s Guardians, grandparents and intervenors, in all aspects of private law children proceedings. She is experienced in representing parties involving: Cases of implacable hostility/ intractable disputes/ parental alienation Sexual abuse Domestic violence Mental health Substance misuse, including prescription and illegal drugs and abuse of alcohol Repeat offending Relocation, both within the UK and outside the jurisdiction Temporary removal from the jurisdiction Appeals Financial Remedies Amy regularly acts for applicants and respondents in cases involving financial remedies from first directions appointments through to final hearings. She is experienced representing and advising parties involving: Maintenance pending suit Issues relating to disclosure High net worth cases as well as cases with limited assets Inherited wealth Family businesses Foreign assets Non-matrimonial assets, including pre- and post- acquired assets Special contribution Personal injury awards Applications to vary and enforce Appeals. Private FDR Hearings Amy is available for private FDR hearings. Direct Access Amy is able to accept instructions from clients through the Public Access scheme or assist with ongoing matters.
Amy is a specialist family practitioner with an emphasis on private law children and financial work. Throughout her career Amy has worked with Government departments, local authorities, housing associations, charities and social enterprises alongside businesses from the private sector and brings her breadth of knowledge and experience to her career at the bar. Private Law Amy is regularly instructed in all aspects of children matters and has built up a busy practice in this area due to her approach to clients who are going through difficult times. Amy focuses on providing practical and realistic advice to clients. Amy has particular expertise in cases involving domestic abuse, mental health issues and sexual abuse. Amy draws on her witness handling experience, including as a criminal advocate, to assist with complex fact find and final hearings. Finance Whether it is first directions appointment or a multi-day final hearing Amy thoroughly prepares for her finance cases. This attention to detail and handle on the papers means that Amy works with her instructing solicitors and clients to achieve the result that is right for them. Amy's personalised approach to each case means that clients are provided with the best of client care during what is a significant life event for them. Amy has a particular interest in pre-nuptial agreements and has presented on this issue during talks and conferences. FDR Hearing Service Amy is available for private remote FDR hearings. Court of Protection (Family) TOLATA/Inheritance/COP Amy is regularly instructed on matters concerning disputes between cohabitees. Amy utilises her experience of property law to fully assist her clients when dealing with TOLATA and schedule 1 applications. Amy has a specific interest in inheritance matters and is broadening her practice in this area. Amy is also able to deal with matters relating to wills and is able to draft wills. Amy also has a keen interest in developing a court of protection practice. Her interest in this area of work comes from having worked in the housing and health sectors alongside local and national government which has given Amy excellent insight into the issues that are raised in these types of cases.
Carrie Mason is a family and civil barrister at 3PB. Carrie accepts instructions in all public and private child law matters. She has experience of representing local authorities, parents, guardians and third parties (such as grandparents) and is frequently instructed in cases where the parties are very acrimonious and difficult. Carrie offers a reassuring, yet confident approach to her clients in these often difficult and sensitive cases. Before joining the Bar, Carrie was a qualified Orthopaedic Nurse which gives her exceptional insight and understanding when dealing with matters involving physical and sexual abuse, neglect, emotional harm and those cases involving medical experts. Carrie also has experience in relation to cases that include capacity, mental health difficulties, and drug and alcohol-related problems involving children and families generally. She has shown a particular aptitude to those matters involving younger parents including minors and all manner of abuse cases (physical and sexual). Carrie also has experience with civil and employment matters. She is HR & Operations Director and legal adviser to Porsche Club GB. Carrie is a keen motorsport enthusiast and particularly enjoys her own track days and road trips. She enjoys travel and occasionally skiing. Carrie is also a qualified BSAC Ocean Diver. Family Carrie accepts instructions in all public and private child law matters. She has experience of representing local authorities, parents, guardians and third parties (such as grandparents) and is frequently instructed in cases where the parties are very acrimonious and difficult. Carrie offers a reassuring, yet confident approach to her clients in these often difficult and sensitive matters. She regularly appears in the Family Proceeding Court, County Court and High Court in care cases, involving a range of issues including: Non-accidental Injuries Sexual Abuse Allegations Interveners, Adoption Emergency Procedures Child Abduction Jurisdiction Residence and Contact Domestic Violence Substance Abuse Before joining the Bar, Carrie was a qualified Orthopedic Nurse which gives her exceptional insight and understanding when dealing with matters involving physical and sexual abuse, neglect, emotional harm and those cases involving medical experts. Carrie also has experience in relation to cases that include capacity, mental health difficulties, and drug and alcohol-related problems involving children and families generally. Carrie has shown a particular aptitude to those matters involving younger parents including minors and all manner of abuse cases (physical and sexual).
Prior to being called to the Bar, Christopher completed an MPhil in International Relations at Oxford University and then worked and volunteered for NGOs in the UK and Cambodia. He now practises primarily as a commercial, construction and property barrister, with particular expertise in: Commercial disputes Company/partnership disputes Professional negligence Construction disputes Property Commercial Christopher has a commercial practice that encompasses the whole spectrum of business and commercial disputes. He regularly advises and represents businesses in both the County and High Court, and also has extensive experience of alternative dispute resolution. Recent and Notable Commercial Cases Advising a hotel in respect of the liabilities of its franchisor following from the latter’s purported termination of its contract due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Successfully appealing a judgment that an informal IOU given by a husband to a wife was a promissory note within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Advising and drafting in respect of enforcement of a legal charge given by a third party guarantor to a company’s debts. Issues of interpretation of the charge and knowledge of the guarantor. Advising and drafting in respect of a claim arising out of loans to a property development company by a private bank. Issues of economic duress and conduct by the bank. Representing creditor in personal loan recovery action. Whether payments were loan or gift. Incapacity of Defendant and its effect on evidence and conduct of trial. Subsequent order for sale again raising issues of capacity. Representing guarantors under claim for monies due under a personal guarantee arising from hire purchase and hire contracts. Penalty clauses and automatic termination. Interpretation of damages clause in agreements. Numerous cases arising from misrepresentations in property purchases. Numerous cases arising relating to civil claims arising from bank transfer scams. Professional Liability Christopher has experience in professional negligence claims against many different professionals, including solicitors, surveyors, architects and financial advisors. He has particular expertise in respect of claims for professional negligence arising from construction projects. Recent and Notable Professional Liability Cases Architect’s negligence for wrongly designing reservoir situated on farm. Architect’s negligence for providing wrong advice as to permitted development rights on a residential property in a green belt location. Architect’s negligence for failure to correctly supervise installation of new heating in a listed church. Issues of contractual and tortious assumption of duty. Solicitors’ negligence in respect of conveying wrong land in sale of part. Numerous claims against surveyors arising from pre-purchase surveys of residential properties. Solicitors’ negligence in failing to properly advise in respect of quantum in a negligent surveying claim. Issues as to the correct measure of quantum in such claims. Limitation in the context of a bank’s failure to carry out an annual review of interest rates in a fixed term mortgage. Company/Partnership law and disputes Christopher has advised and acted in relation to numerous business disputes, including partnership and shareholder disputes. He has particular experience in respect of disputes relating to companies working in the construction sector. Recent Company / Partnership Law Cases Advising on the construction of share purchase agreements, particularly in relation to the sale of companies in the construction sector. Successfully obtaining dissolution of a partnership that ran a licensed premises where the very existence of the partnership was in dispute. Winding up a family company on the just and equitable ground on behalf of the minority shareholders after a breakdown of trust and confidence with majority shareholder. Winding up petition on the just and equitable ground between two quasi partners in a tech start-up. Property and Estates Christopher has advised and represented clients on matters ranging from residential possession to boundary disputes and nuisance claims. He has particular experience in respect of claims against property professionals, including surveyors and conveyancing solicitors. Christopher also acts and advises clients in commercial and residential disrepair matters, acting for both landlords and tenants. Recent and Notable Property and Estates Cases Solicitors’ negligence in respect of conveying wrong land in sale of part. Numerous claims against surveyors arising from pre-purchase surveys of residential properties. Solicitors’ negligence in failing to properly advise in respect of quantum in a negligent surveying claim. Issues as to the correct measure of quantum in such claims. Right of way disputes relating to: Interpretation of a conveyance in respect of a converted farmyard; Right of way for ‘boxed in’ residential property in new development. Acting in proprietary estoppel claim arising from long and complex division of family estate. Acting for LPA receivers in complex High Court claim relating to an allegedly fraudulent mortgage charge. Mortgage possession case on behalf of mortgagor involving claims of mis-selling, economic duress and misrepresentation by mortgagee. Boundary dispute involving witness evidence going back 50 years as well as expert and stereoscopic photographic evidence. Interpretation of conveyances, adverse possession, demarcating boundaries by agreement. Construction and Engineering Christopher regularly advises and represents clients in respect of a wide range construction and engineering disputes, ranging from residential property disputes to commercial developments to nationwide installation projects. He has a particular expertise in respect of professional negligence claims in the construction field. Christopher also has extensive experience of company disputes relating to companies in the construction sector and their guarantors. Recent and Notable Construction and Engineering Cases Advising and acting in numerous claims relating to defective building work at residential and other properties. Successfully defending significant adjudication claiming professional negligence in respect of a firm of quantity surveyors and costs consultants. Issues relating to the proper valuation of work carried out under an NEC3 Professional Services Short Contracts. Advising in respect of the apportionment of liability between contractors and professionals in a claim for the inadequate provision of heating for a restored medieval church. Advising and drafting in respect of a claim arising out of loans to a property development company by a private bank. Issues of economic duress and conduct by the bank. Advising on the construction of share purchase agreements, particularly in relation to the sale of companies in the construction sector. Recent and Notable Professional Liability Cases Architect’s negligence for wrongly designing reservoir situated on farm. Architect’s negligence for providing wrong advice as to permitted development rights on a residential property in a green belt location. Architect’s negligence for failure to correctly supervise installation of new heating in a listed church. Issues of contractual and tortious assumption of duty. Numerous claims against surveyors arising from pre-purchase surveys of residential properties.
Following the successful completion of his pupillage at 3PB, David Jenkins has developed a busy common law practice on the Western Circuit. David is known for being a dedicated and detail-orientated practitioner who utilises robust advocacy skills both in the Court room and during negotiation. He prides himself on his strong client care skills and his understanding of the needs of lay and professional clients. Prior to joining Chambers, David previously worked for almost two years as a self-employed County Court advocate/outdoor clerk for a large national solicitors firm, which provided him with a daily experience of Court advocacy. Thereafter, David joined a prominent local firm of solicitors in Cambridge as a conveyancer, where he worked for over a year before becoming admitted as a Solicitor. Shortly after being admitted to the Solicitors’ Roll, David became employed as an in-house advocate at large firm of personal injury solicitors, thereby gaining further experience of contentious litigation. David showcased his research and editorial skills as an editor of Lexis®PSL’s corporate crime service, which provides professional-level practical guidance to corporate lawyers on the implications of criminal law and procedure. David was admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales (2013) and ceased practising, and was removed from the roll upon commencement of pupillage in October 2014. CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE David has a wealth of experience of County Court personal injury litigation acting for both Claimants and Defendants in a wide range of matters, including: Road Traffic Accident Claims (including cases involving multiple vehicles/parties, significant injuries, low velocity impact, liability and causation disputes, and claims for credit hire) Occupier’s Liability Claims Employer’s Liability Claims Animal Act Claims. David accepts instructions to: Represent clients at Court in application hearings, case management hearings, trials, disposal hearings, and infant settlement approval hearings (in cases proceeding through or having exited from the relevant MOJ portal, as well as those allocated to the fast track and small claims track) Advise lay and professional clients on liability and causation Advise lay and professional clients on quantum (the value of the claim) in personal injury cases Draft pleadings, applications and documents. David is knowledgeable on issues surrounding pre-action disclosure, relief from sanctions, Part 36 consequences, applications to set aside judgment and costs. Before practising at the Bar, David worked for almost two years as a self-employed County Court advocate/outdoor clerk for a large national solicitors’ firm, specialising in civil advocacy. During this time David conducted hundreds of County Court hearings, including those for infant settlement approval; applications to set aside default judgment; summary judgment applications; directions hearings; multi-track case management conferences; applications for permission to appeal; appeals; enforcement proceedings; bankruptcy and winding-up petitions; injunctions; and small claims trials. After qualifying as a solicitor, David worked as an in-house advocate at a large firm of personal injury solicitors, where he was principally tasked with writing advices on quantum in personal injury claims. During his pupillage, David gained a particular interest in Clinical Negligence work, after spending four months under the supervision of Hamish Dunlop. He is keen to expand on this area of his practice. PERSONAL INJURY David has a wealth of experience of County Court personal injury litigation acting for both Claimants and Defendants in a wide range of matters, including: Road Traffic Accident Claims (including cases involving multiple vehicles/parties, significant injuries, low velocity impact, liability and causation disputes, and claims for credit hire) Occupier’s Liability Claims Employer’s Liability Claims Animal Act Claims. David accepts instructions to: Represent clients at Court in application hearings, case management hearings, trials, disposal hearings, and infant settlement approval hearings (in cases proceeding through or having exited from the relevant MOJ portal, as well as those allocated to the fast track and small claims track) Advise lay and professional clients on liability and causation Advise lay and professional clients on quantum (the value of the claim) in personal injury cases Draft pleadings, applications and documents. David is knowledgeable on issues surrounding pre-action disclosure, relief from sanctions, Part 36 consequences, applications to set aside judgment and costs. Before practising at the Bar, David worked for almost two years as a self-employed County Court advocate/outdoor clerk for a large national solicitors’ firm, specialising in civil advocacy. During this time David conducted hundreds of County Court hearings, including those for infant settlement approval; applications to set aside default judgment; summary judgment applications; directions hearings; multi-track case management conferences; applications for permission to appeal; appeals; enforcement proceedings; bankruptcy and winding-up petitions; injunctions; and small claims trials. After qualifying as a solicitor, David worked as an in-house advocate at a large firm of personal injury solicitors, where he was principally tasked with writing advices on quantum in personal injury claims. During his pupillage, David gained a particular interest in Clinical Negligence work, after spending four months under the supervision of Hamish Dunlop. He is keen to expand on this area of his practice. CRIME David has a passion for criminal law and regularly accepts instructions in a broad range of criminal work in the Youth Court, Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court. He has represented clients at all stages of proceedings, including case management hearings, applications, trials, sentencing hearings and appeals. He has a strong working knowledge of the rules surrounding criminal evidence and procedure. David is experienced at representing defendants in cases involving: Violence (including domestic violence cases, common assaults, assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, and allegations of violent behaviour whilst in drink) Criminal damage Dishonesty (including Fraud, Theft, Burglary, Robbery, and Handling stolen goods) Drugs offences Prison Law (including conveying prohibited articles into prison; and parole hearings) Breaches of Court Orders and injunctions (including breaches of Community Orders, Suspended Sentence Orders, Non-molestation Orders, ASBIs; and civil committal proceedings for Contempt of Court) Sexual offences Road traffic offences in both the Magistrates Court and the Crown Court (including cases involving dangerous driving, drink driving, drug driving, speeding, driving without insurance, driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, mobile phone use, cases where clients are at risk of disqualification, and cases where special reasons or exceptional hardship may persuade a court not to disqualify) School attendance Cases involving dangerous dogs (including criminal aggravated and non-aggravated offences; cases involving destruction orders; and “civil” applications for control orders under the Dogs Act 1871; David has been instructed for both the prosecution and the defence in such cases). David regularly works with and is sensitive to the individual needs of vulnerable clients, including those facing difficulties with addiction, homelessness and mental disorder. David has experience with working for youths who find themselves involved in the criminal justice system. David often acts a prosecutor for Local Government and the National Probation Service. David has also gained experience in regulatory offences and offences relating to school attendance. David has edited published practice notes for Lexis®PSL’s corporate crime service, which provides practical guidance to corporate lawyers on the implications of criminal law and procedure. David is a member of the Criminal Bar Association. Media reports R v Russell (2016) - defence brief in a Crown Court drug-driving case http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14684420.Spared_jail__drug_driver_who_was_almost_20_times_the_limit/?ref=mr&lp=10#comments-anchor R v Wright (2015) – prosecution brief in a dangerous dogs case http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/13836840.Dog_owner_ordered_to_keep__dangerous__Staffie_under_control_after_attack/?ref=mc&lp=7 PROPERTY AND ESTATES David’s Property law practice is rapidly increasing. He is able to draw on a wealth of experience and accepts instructions for advocacy, advisory, and drafting work in a broad range of Property matters from housing law cases to landlord and tenant disputes, including: Possession Claims Landlord and Tenant Claims (residential and commercial) Orders for Sale Charging Orders Forfeiture Access Injunctions Tenancy Deposit Disputes Housing Injunctions Nuisance Adverse Possession Trespass Boundary Disputes Restrictive Covenants Easements (including rights of way). David is knowledgeable on issues surrounding pre-action disclosure, relief from sanctions, Part 36 consequences, applications to set aside judgment and costs. Prior to coming to commencing pupillage, David worked as a conveyancer for over a year at a prominent local firm of solicitors in Cambridge, gaining an appreciation of the intricacies of Property law. David was often tasked with drafting leases and transfer deeds; conducting (often complex) investigations on title in order to procure first registrations; negotiating terms of sale; and advising clients on easement, covenant, and service-access-related issues that affected conveyances. David was also tasked with the conveyancing of plot sales on a large new-build estate developed by a subsidiary of a major multi-national construction firm. This experience provided David with a sound background for a whole range of Property work from issues surrounding restrictive covenants and boundaries to leasehold enfranchisement. David also came to Chambers with almost two years’ experience of civil advocacy, having worked as a self-employed County Court advocate/outdoor clerk for a large national solicitors firm. During this time David conducted hundreds of County Court hearings, including those for mortgage possession; possession from trespassers; applications to set aside default judgment; summary judgment applications; directions hearings; multi-track case management conferences; applications for permission to appeal; appeals; enforcement proceedings; bankruptcy and winding-up petitions; gas access injunctions; an anti-social behaviour injunction; commercial and residential landlord disputes and possession proceedings; and small claims trials.
David Kemeny accepts instructions for both Claimants and Defendants in a broad range of common law practice areas. He has a particular focus on personal injury, clinical negligence claims and procedural disputes, and is often instructed in cases involving issues of credit hire and fundamental dishonesty. In addition, David has experience of cross-border claims, economic torts, construction and other contractual matters, employment disputes and Crown Court defence work. David is available for court representation, written advocacy and advisory work. He appears in court regularly for Fast Track trials, application hearings and case management hearings. David also has an increasingly busy paper-based practice, advising frequently on matters of liability, quantum, civil procedure and case management strategy, drafting statements of case, witness statements and questions to experts, and advising in conference. David joined chambers following successful completion of pupillage in October 2021 and works predominantly out of chambers in Bournemouth. Prior to pupillage, David worked as a paralegal in a London firm specialising in personal injury claims, as a researcher for Practical Law and as a freelance county court advocate. He studied modern languages as an undergraduate and then international politics at postgraduate level, before converting to law where he developed a keen interest in mooting. He was rated Outstanding on the Bar Course, excelling in Civil Litigation and Civil Advocacy. Outside work, David enjoys chess and other strategy games, science fiction, travelling and attending live music performances. Personal Injury Personal Injury matters comprise the mainstay of David’s practice, and he accepts instructions from both Claimants and Defendants in all related fields. His expertise covers road traffic accidents, slipping and tripping claims under the Occupier’s Liability and Highways Acts, vicarious liability, employer’s liability and public liability disputes. David is confident carrying out complex calculations of special loss, including multiple losses at varying periods and rates of interest, future loss of earnings and Fatal Accident Act dependency claims. Examples of recent work include: Advising on quantum of general and special damages where medical evidence as to physical and psychological injuries is in dispute Advising on the recoverability of damages in relation a diagnosis of early-onset Alzheimer’s Disease following a traumatic brain injury Drafting proceedings against multiple defendants in respect of injury caused by defective building works within a residential property Drafting proceedings against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Trial in respect of an assault by one serving prisoner against another on the Prison Estate Credit Hire David is frequently instructed by both Claimants and Defendant to argue issues relating to credit hire charges. He is available to provide training and advise on matters of disclosure. International David is developing a practice involving claims with an international element. He has previously advised on matters of cross-border service and jurisdictional challenges, claims involving foreign insurers, and claims brought under the Montreal Convention. David also accepts instructions involving accidents abroad, including package holiday claims. David speaks fluent French and German and has a working understanding of Danish and Portuguese. Costs David is quickly developing considerable expertise dealing with costs, in particular the application of fixed costs rules to cases commencing under the various low-value Protocols. He has experience of costs budgeting in Multi-Track cases, wasted costs orders, applications to disapply Qualified One-Way Costs Protection in personal injury cases, and advising on the costs of appeals in the High Court. David also accepts instructions in costs-only proceedings. Clinical Negligence David’s interest in clinical negligence predates his career at the Bar, having had early work experience of cases involving neurosurgical expert evidence. His rapidly-developing clinical negligence practice encompasses written advice on pre-action conduct and settlement, breach of duty, causation and quantum; drafting pleadings, including High Court cases; and advising in conference. His recent experience includes cases of: Delayed diagnoses Negligent treatment Withdrawal of treatment Fatal Accident Act claims Contractual disputes David accepts instructions for advocacy and drafting in matters of contract. His advisory and trial experience covers claims for the supply of goods and services in both consumer and business-to-business matters and the validity of hire-purchase agreements.
Duncan McNair practices in personal injury and clinical negligence, enjoying a substantial advisory and court practice. Duncan acts for both claimants and defendants in all elements of personal injury law including serious road traffic accidents, occupiers’ liability, employers’ liability, military injury claims and high value claims. He often advises in complex disputes requiring extensive schedules and involving challenging causation issues. Duncan has particular expertise in employers' liability, specifically cases involving accidents at work, where his background outside law and his degree in physics provide a particular insight and skill when dealing with technical expert evidence. Taking a practical and unflinching approach to risk assessments in marginal CFA cases, Duncan is not afraid to run cases where prospects are less than guaranteed. He is regarded as an accomplished and fearless advocate by both professional and lay clients. He also has experience advising and representing parties at Inquests and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Personal Injury Duncan acts for both claimants and defendants in all elements of personal injury law including serious road traffic accidents, occupiers’ liability, employers’ liability and high value claims. He often advises in complex disputes requiring extensive schedules and involving challenging causation issues. Duncan has particular expertise in employers' liability, specifically cases involving accidents at work, where his background outside law and his degree in physics provide a particular insight and skill when dealing with technical expert evidence. Duncan frequently appears and advises in cases about injuries sustained abroad, both from accidents and disease. These include road traffic accidents and accidents at hotels or other premises, often with very serious consequences. Disease claims include both generic food poisoning and cases with identified pathogens such as cryptosporidium or norovirus, often involving significant numbers of claimants. Many cases fall under the Package Travel etc. Regulations 1992; others proceed in the UK against domestic or foreign defendants. Taking a practical and unflinching approach to risk assessments in marginal CFA cases, Duncan is not afraid to run cases where prospects are less than guaranteed. He also has experience advising and representing parties at Inquests and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Cases from the last 5 years include: D v M: Quantum assessment. Claimant pedestrian run over by 4x4 and suffered pelvic fracture; liability admitted. Should have made a reasonable recovery but instead was left with severe disability arising out of a chronic pain condition. Lost her Navy career and pension, was left with little residual earnings capacity. Case gave rise to complex issues of causation and quantification of Navy earnings and pension. Settled for £1,322,000 less CRU and interims. W v T: acted for claimant who stumbled over poorly-compacted backfill where a utility company had dug a trench. It denied liability but Duncan pleaded the surprising but effective application of the CDM regulations. Claimant suffered injury to her leg leading to amputation. Defendant raised complex medical causation issues as claimant suffered diabetes and had a serious fracture to the same leg one year previously; alleged that index accident did not cause loss of leg. Both liability and causation issues settled in claimant’s favour for lump sum of £500,000. B v B: Acted for claimant, pillion passenger who suffered serious injuries in a motorcycle collision where the driver, her fiancé, died in collision with a bus. Indemnity issues regarding driver's failure to notify insurer of modifications. Claim ran against fiancé’s estate, the bus company and fiancé’s insurer under Article 75. Liability and indemnity issues eventually resolved in claimant's favour. Injuries included moderate head injury and significant pelvic fracture, though the claimant returned to work and independent living. Settled for £150,000. G v a motor insurer: acted for a passenger who claimed damages for loss of the chance of a career in the armed forces. This required complex calculations as to the value and chance of different factual scenarios, which Duncan resolved by developing an IT-based solution. Settled for £135,000. Significant quantum issues included lost earnings: claimant was in the process of setting up a business at the time of the accident and we had to reconstruct his potential income from limited evidence. The claimant's PTSD complicated matters because he was prone to entering a dissociative state in moments of stress, which required careful and sensitive handling. The case settled after a JSM for £105,000 plus CRU of approximately £20,000. S v L: Acted for young claimant in claim for traumatic brain injury suffered in road traffic accident. Ongoing complaints of severe fatigue, concentration problems and personality change; claimant was by now in university, managing her course, but requiring substantial extra effort. Experts for both sides (neuropsychologists and neuropsychiatrists) disagreed as to whether brain injury was moderate, with cognitive changes arising from physical damage, or mild, with cognitive changes arising out of post-concussion syndrome and psychiatric factors. If the latter, the experts disagreed about the likely prognosis. Claim settled for £95,000. S v G: Acted for middle-aged claimant in claim arising out of moderate road traffic accident with moderate physical injuries. Claimant suffered devastating post-traumatic stress disorder which arose after the accident, but the content of his disorder related to sexual abuse he suffered as a small child. There were substantial causation issues: our expert said that, but for the accident, the claimant would not have developed the psychiatric symptoms, regardless of their subject matter; defendant's expert said that the claimant would have developed them at some time in any event. B & M v D: Acted for defendant's insurer in fatal motorcycle accident in which defendant suffered paraplegia and his pillion passenger died when a vehicle ran over her. The driver and passenger of the other vehicle sued the defendant, claiming psychiatric injury but not physical injury. Advised on the law on causation, taking account of the criteria for recovery of psychiatric injury as a primary victim on the basis that the claimant was an 'unwilling participant' who had unintentionally caused another person's death. The driver and passenger were in very different legal situations because the driver was the unwitting cause of death but the passenger, probably, was not. Both claimants had pre-Jackson funding arrangements and the insurer made an economic settlement. Stephens v Braham: Duncan’s client was a motorcyclist who suffered severe injuries when overtaking a car turning right at a junction. Two independent witnesses gave evidence that the car had been signalling right for some time before the turn. Client’s Part 36 offer was 50/50 and other side’s was 75/25 against. At a hard-fought three-day liability trial the judge found 50/50, matching Duncan’s Part 36 offer. Tucknott v Bridgend CBC: acted for a cyclist who fell as a result of a defective bridge surface on a cycle path. He sustained a serious femoral fracture with life-changing consequences. The defendant fought the case on complex arguments as to the status of the path: it argued the path was not a public highway at the accident locus, because the order creating it designated a different route. After cross examination of the defendant’s surveyor the judge accepted Duncan’s arguments and found the path to be on the public highway. Judgment on liability for claimant. Inquests (Personal Injury) Duncan has expertise in employers' liability and particularly cases involving complex accidents at work. His degree in physics provides him with particular insight and skill in dealing with technical expert evidence. Duncan’s practice also includes many high-value claims, including complex disputes with extensive schedules and challenging causation issues. Duncan also undertakes fast track cases. Duncan acts for both claimants and defendants in all elements of personal injury law including serious road traffic accidents, occupiers’ liability claim and employers’ liability. He deals with industrial disease, particularly noise-induced hearing loss, and claims against the Ministry of Defence. Before joining the Bar, Duncan had a successful career as a recruitment consultant. That experience provides him with useful and practical experience in the commercial aspects of litigation. Solicitors will always be concerned about counsel's threshold for accepting CFA cases. Duncan takes a practical and unflinching approach to risk assessment in marginal claims, and is not afraid to run cases where prospects are less than guaranteed. He usually wins them. Duncan also represents parties at Inquests and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Cases of note include: G v a motor insurer: acted for a passenger who claimed damages for loss of the chance of a career in the armed forces. This required complex calculations as to the value and chance of different factual scenarios, which Duncan resolved by developing an IT-based solution. Settled for £135,000.(2013) Stephens v Braham: Duncan’s client was a motorcyclist who suffered severe injuries when overtaking a car turning right at a junction. Two independent witnesses gave evidence that the car had been signalling right for some time before the turn. Client’s Part 36 offer was 50/50 and other side’s was 75/25 against. At a hard-fought three-day liability trial the judge found 50/50, matching Duncan’s Part 36 offer. (2013) Tucknott v Bridgend CBC: acted for a cyclist who fell as a result of a defective bridge surface on a cycle path. He sustained a serious femoral fracture with life-changing consequences. The defendant fought the case on complex arguments as to the status of the path: it argued the path was not a public highway at the accident locus, because the order creating it designated a different route. After cross-examination of the defendant’s surveyor the judge accepted Duncan’s arguments and found the path to be on the public highway. Judgment on liability for claimant. (2013) W v T: acted for claimant who stumbled over poorly-compacted backfill where a utility company had dug a trench. It denied liability but Duncan pleaded the surprising but effective application of the CDM regulations. Claimant suffered injury to her leg leading to amputation. Defendant raised complex medical causation issues as claimant suffered diabetes and had a serious fracture to the same leg one year previously; alleged that index accident did not cause loss of leg. Both liability and causation issues settled in claimant’s favour for lump sum of £500,000. (2012). Client Testimonials A Court of Appeal judge commented to Duncan McNair in a recent application for permission to appeal in a personal injury case: “(The client) has been lucky to have you as his advocate". Clinical Negligence Duncan has a burgeoning clinical negligence practice involving issues of limitation and knowledge, consent and negligently performed surgery, including in particular cosmetic surgery. His advisory work is very highly regarded and he is one of the few practitioners in this field to have direct experience of clinical negligence litigation all the way through to judgment. Recent cases: C v an NHS trust [2014]. Duncan acted for a claimant who experienced severe complications (including a lifelong colostomy) when a laparoscopic abdominal procedure went wrong. The defendant raised vigorous disputes on breach of duty and causation, but settled for 85% of full valuation a matter of days before trial in the High Court. E v Dr A [2012]: Duncan acted for the claimant in a six-day trial on the issue of the true extent of informed consent in elective surgery. His opponent was a notable silk with extensive experience of clinical negligence. Duncan succeeded and the defendant failed in his application for leave to appeal. Before joining the Bar Duncan had a successful career as a recruitment consultant, which provides him with useful and practical experience in the commercial aspects of litigation and expectation management. Costs Duncan has extensive experience in civil costs, both pre and post Jackson reforms. He has conducted numerous detailed assessments in the SCCO, the county courts, and since Jackson has also conducted numerous costs and case management conferences. He advises and represents clients on high valued bills and Form Hs, both on CFA cases and on private client cases. Duncan has a broad litigation practice, which enables him to apply his experience of running a case to technical costs points. Recent cases: Advising a road traffic insurer on whether Article 75 of the MIB agreement allowed it to avoid paying costs for which a claimant was insured Advising and representing an after-the-event insurer joined to proceedings for the purpose of a non-party costs order with regard to conduct in negotiations Advising an insurer on the merits and procedure in a case where the litigant obtained a costs order against a bankrupt but insured individual where the bankrupt’s insured repudiated indemnity Broadhurst v Tan: instructed by defendant in circuit judge appeal on an important point of principle under the new fast-track fixed costs regime. Should the court oust the fixed costs regime when the claimant gets an award of indemnity costs? Or does an award of indemnity costs make no difference, as the costs are fixed? Resolved in favour of defendant Kandasamy v Sohel: circuit judge appeal on pre-action protocol in low-value personal injury claims. Where a claimant is entitled to withdraw from the protocol because the defendant declined to make an interim payment, but the claimant serves notice out of time, is the notice still valid.
Elizabeth Hepworth was called to the Bar in 2004 and is a barrister within 3PB’s dynamic and hard working family team. Elizabeth had 13 years of experience as a family law solicitor advocate before coming to the Bar. She was a Children Panel solicitor in the south of England, where she gained considerable experience in the Public Law field. Her experience in this area exceeds 24 years in practice. In her field of practice, Elizabeth is an empathetic lawyer who understands the impact of litigation upon clients. She is particularly adept at dealing with clients who have disabilities and in particular, learning disabilities. She represents parents, children and Local Authorities in court proceedings, she has a particularly thriving practice in relation to the latter and has represented the interests of numerous authorities in the South and West of England. Elizabeth can receive instructions on a direct access basis. Holding a particular interest in those whose lives render them vulnerable, Elizabeth has developed an interest in Court of Protection work and has delivered training on the subject. She also offers training to social workers in relation to court presentation and legal updates. FAMILY Elizabeth is a family law specialist and has dealt with the cases involving the following facts/issues: Fact finding and care proceedings involving death of two infants as a result of alleged suffocation by a parent Care proceedings involving parents with profound learning difficulty both from the point of view of parents and local authorities. Parents and children with sensory impairment. Cases involving high levels of neglect and addiction Fact finding and care proceedings involving the infliction of deliberate burns on children and restraint with gaffer tape Skull and skeletal fractures to infants Factitious Illness Cases involving sexual abuse of children of an extreme nature/child exploitation Cases involving profound mental illness/disorder and also physical illness Special Guardianship applications Child Arrangements applications particularly those involving the need for a 16.4 Guardian and intractable child arrangements disputes between parents LGBT parenting Social Minority / ethnicity / religious issues Blood transfusion cases Removals from Jurisdiction Elizabeth has a tenacious but pragmatic approach. She is prepared to ‘go the extra mile’ not only for the lay client, but also those who instruct her. In her spare time Elizabeth has worked as a mentor for adults with severe learning difficulties on a voluntary basis. MEDIATION Elizabeth is an accredited Mediator.
Ellena James joined 3PB in December 2021 from another chambers in the South West and is based at 3PB’s Bournemouth office. She is a civil practitioner but with a particular specialism in personal injury matters, including inquests and clinical negligence, acting for both claimants and defendants. She is regularly instructed in fast track and multi-track RTA and EL/PL claims. Ellena accepts instructions in a variety of contractual disputes, often being instructed from drafting the pleadings through to trial. She is regularly instructed to act in possession hearings, associated rental arrears and dilapidation claims. She has a depth of experience and her personable manner with professional and lay clients has enabled her to grow relationships and build on repeat instructions. Ellena is renowned for working to tight deadlines and accepts instructions on a CFA basis. Prior to coming to the Bar, Ellena worked as a paralegal in a regional law firm and in-house with media and entertainment corporation Sky. She has also worked in the USA for the New York City Council. Outside of the law, Ellena enjoys music, theatre and all things fitness-related. Personal Injury Ellena James undertakes a wide variety of work across all areas of personal injury. She acts for both claimants and defendants appearing in fast track trials at all stages from drafting pleadings, applications and through to trial where both liability and quantum may be in issue. Ellena is well versed in all matters relating to credit hire litigation, such damages often being claimed in personal injury matters. A particular success involved the dismissal of a claim on the issue of need following her thorough cross-examination of the claimant’s financial documents. Ellena is renowned for working to tight deadlines and is willing to accept instructions on a CFA basis where appropriate. She accepts instructions in the following areas: Road traffic accident claims including trials where there have been allegations of fraud Employers’ liability claims Holiday sickness claims Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 Defective Premises Act 1972 Highways Act 1980 Consumer Protection Act 1987 Animals Act 1971 Ellena's recent cases have involved: representing a child who sustained injuries in a shop as a result of a falling mannequin representing a lady who slipped on a concrete slab that had been used as a makeshift drain cover exceeding a Part 36 offer against a crane hire company which failed to properly train its employee on the operation of a particular crane, the witnesses accepting in cross-examination that the risk assessments had been back dated drafting pleadings in a claim against a car manufacturer for a defective car bonnet that fell down causing injury Inquests (Personal Injury) Ellena James is a member of 3PB's Inquests Team. She understands the importance of finding answers to the crucial questions which often remain following a death and she is happy to act for any interested party. In recent cases she has appeared on behalf of: Her Majesty’s Coastguard, at a pre-inquest review hearing, who had been involved in the rescue of a military personnel who later died in hospital A family, at a pre-inquest review hearing, where the deceased had died by suicide. Ellena understands the importance of ensuring that the Coroner has details of the relevant witnesses and documents ahead of the inquest A Local Authority in a 6-day Article 2, jury inquest into the drug overdose of a mental health patient who had been discharged into the community under section 17 leave The motor insurers following a fatal road traffic collision, where the court concluded that the deceased had pulled out of the junction and the insured, driving on the main road, was unable to avoid the collision A mother whose premature baby had been discovered unresponsive by paramedics. The Coroner had to treat the evidence of the family’s co-sleeping habits cautiously given the other risk factors involved A police force, at a pre-inquest review hearing, that had been involved in the search and investigation of the deceased Various care home providers, where the resident died at or was taken ill at the home A family, where the deceased had died by suicide following a declined referral to the Community Mental Health Team. Changes were subsequently made to the referral process helping the family in their bereavement Clinical Negligence Ellena uses experience gained in her personal injury practice to assess claims in this area. She has recently advised hospital trusts at the early stages of litigation arising from alleged clinical failures, in particular a midwife allegedly failing to inspect a placenta and a GP allegedly failing to diagnose a rare form of cancer.
Emma is an experienced barrister who has extensive expertise in both Family law and Court of Protection matters. In October 2022, Emma was appointed as a part-time Deputy District Judge on the Western Circuit to sit within the Civil and Family Jurisdiction; and a Recorder on the Western Circuit (Family jurisdiction) in May 2023. Emma receives instructions from local authorities, parents, grandparents and guardians in cases involving a variety of issues including child death, non-accidental injury, FII, chronic neglect, domestic violence, sexual abuse, learning disabilities and complex mental health. Emma’s private law practice involves intractable contact disputes, child abduction, and applications to permanently remove the child from the jurisdiction. Emma has a particular interest in cases involving domestic abuse and the nuances that can exist in allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour. Emma is known for her robust, yet pragmatic and sensitive approach to her work. Family Emma's areas of expertise include: Public Law Emma receives instructions from local authorities, parents, grandparents and guardians in a variety of cases many involving complex issues such as non-accidental injury, child fatality, sexual abuse, significant mental health issues, cognitive / capacity issues and personality disorders. Emma has appeared against leading counsel as well as having recently been led by leading counsel in an infant death case. Private Law Emma is briefed on all aspects of private law proceedings, many of which have included domestic abuse, sexual abuse, intractable contact disputes, parental alienation, implacable hostility, r16.4 guardians, internal and international relocation and also child abduction. Emma quickly gets to the heart of the issues in such cases with a view to achieving the best possible outcome for her clients in a timely manner, whilst at the same time striving for an outcome that will work for the entire family and avoid the need for future litigation. Surrogacy Emma has experience in assisted reproduction matters involving parental order applications as well as other alternatives including adoption and child arrangement orders, many of which involve international surrogacy arrangements. Examples of recent cases: Reported cases: A Local Authority v G (Parent with Learning Disability) [2017] EWFC B94. Re FM (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 189 Represented a mother who appealed against a special guardianship order made in favour of the mother's sister. The case involved a variety of issues including allegations of significant mental health problems, drugs, and extremely complicated family dynamics. The Court of Appeal granted permission to the mother to appeal, however in its reserved judgement dismissed the appeal. In the Court of Appeal Judgment, Baker J commented: “The argument in support of the mother's appeal has been presented by Miss Harman and the court is grateful to her for her thoughtful and well-constructed submissions”. Unreported cases: Re: PT 2022 Co-junior counsel in High Court fact-finding hearing including allegations of FII, in particular, multiple incidences of poisoning of child Re: L 2022 Junior counsel in finding of fact hearing regarding allegations of significant physical abuse of infant Re: R 2017 Representing a mother in complex care proceedings in which multi-generational, inter-familial and inter-sibling sexual abuse is alleged. Ongoing proceedings. Re O, Z & K [2017] Led by Darren Howe QC, representing an uncle who had originally been in the pool of possible perpetrators in relation to over 42 various injuries to a 3 month old baby, which were said to have been sustained on at least four different occasions. The injuries included a catastrophic brain injury that led to the infant’s death. The father was found by the Family Court to have caused the injuries by the Family Court and then later convicted in the Crown Court of murder. Re: E and H [2017] Representation of a father in longstanding care proceedings involving head and leg fractures to a child. The case involved leading counsel and a unique challenge by one party of an intervenor’s capacity to conduct legal proceedings. Re: W [2016] Representation of a mother in which she was the subject of allegations of the attempted drowning of her child. Re: A & J [2016] Represented a mother in care proceedings including a finding of fact hearing in which the mother was in the pool of possible perpetrators in relation to a significant brain injury and retinal haemorrhaging of a 4 month old baby, or failure to protect in the alternative. Successfully exonerated the mother from any findings. Re: I [2016] Represented a maternal grandmother who sought the care of her daughter’s 4 children. The mother had been murdered by the father of 2 of the children. The case lasted almost 2 years, however concluded with all 4 children being placed with the maternal grandmother under an SGO. Re W [2015] Represented a mother in an application for an interim care order with a plan for immediate removal of the child from the mother's care. Successfully defeated the application in its entirety despite opposition from the local authority, guardian, and adverse evidence from an adult psychiatrist and child psychologist. Re: C 2014 Successfully represented a father against allegations of rape and threats to kill. Re: G 2014 Represented a mother in private law proceedings in which the child had made numerous sexual abuse disclosures against the father. Successfully proved the allegations and achieved a no contact order and s.91(14) bar. Court of Protection Court of Protection Emma regularly appears in the Court of Protection regarding health and welfare matters. Her experience includes deprivation of liberty issues, personal welfare, contact, medical treatment, LPAs and EPAs, property and financial affairs, statutory wills and complex capacity issues. Emma represents Local Authorities, litigation friends, the Official Solicitor, Clinical Commissioning Groups and family members. Emma has an excellent ability to fearlessly represent her clients’ interests, whilst also adopting a sensitive and collaborative approach to achieve the best outcomes for those she represents. Within DOLs applications, Emma represents Local Authorities, CCGs and the Official Solicitor. Emma has a particular interest in the cross-over between family proceedings and the deprivation of liberty of young persons.
Esther Lieu is a specialist family lawyer with an emphasis on private law children and financial remedy matters and cases involving financial provision following divorce or dissolution of marriages and separation of unmarried couples. Her private law children practice extends from domestic applications to jurisdictional disputes and international enforcement, as well as cases involving fact finding hearings, parental alienation and transfer of residence. Esther’s financial remedies practice encompasses all matters arising between married couples (from first appointment to contested final hearings) and unmarried couples (including property disputes and applications for child support). She has appeared in the High Court seeking injunctive relief and permission to proceed following an overseas divorce and regularly advises on settlement to assist clients in managing their costs. She has been described as ‘outstanding’, ‘supportive’ and ‘knowledgeable’ and enjoys regular repeat instructions. Esther is a strong and tenacious advocate who always ensures that her client is comfortable and confident with her representation. She is rigorous in her case preparation and prompt in responding to her professional clients. Esther spends most of her spare time chasing after her two young sons, normally outdoors and often in the mud. Esther Lieu is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme. Family Esther Lieu is a specialist family lawyer with an emphasis on private family law matters and cases involving financial provision following divorce or dissolution of marriages and separation of unmarried couples. Finance Esther has a busy practice in financial remedies (from pre-nuptial and separation agreements through to contested final hearings), including applications brought under ToLATA and Schedule 1. She is a forceful negotiator at an FDR and balances the costs of further of litigation against the overarching aim of achieving the best outcome for her client. In particular she has experience of the following: Applications brought under ToLATA including equitable accounting claims Maintenance applications (brought under MCA 1973, Schedule 1 CA 1989 and CSA 1991) Interveners and third party interests Inherited wealth Non-matrimonial property Variation and enforcement applications Applications for financial relief following overseas divorce (MFPA 1984) Applications for injunctive relief Recent cases H v H (2019) Acted for the husband in a case that involved the wife’s receipt of a significant inheritance at the time of separation, and the death of the husband’s mother during proceedings resulting in his own inheritance (that was tied up with other family members). B v A (2019) Represented the father in an application brought under Schedule 1 CA1989 by the mother for child maintenance to extend beyond the child’s 18th birthday on account of special circumstances.. Both applications were successfully opposed following detailed analysis of the Child Support Act 1991. M v M (2017), J v C (2017), K v M (2017) Advice provided in several cases concerning division of property owned by un-married couples, to include instances where there was no declaration of trust, an application to set aside a declaration of trust, calculation of beneficial interests and claims for equitable accounting. P v P (2017) Acted for the Russian wife in protracted proceedings which included successfully obtaining permission to apply for financial relief following an overseas divorce in the Royal Courts of Justice, obtaining injunctive relief against the husband’s attempt to dissipate assets, countering the husband’s father’s claim to a third party interest in the property and achieving a very positive outcome at final hearing. Private Law Esther is regularly instructed in applications for child arrangements orders, specific issue and prohibited steps orders, as well as injunctions, enforcement applications, fact-finding hearings and contested final hearings. In particular, she has experience in cases involving: Parental alienation/ intractable hostility Transfer of residence Disputed jurisdiction (within the U.K. and international) Internal and international relocation Allegations of domestic violence and finding of fact hearings Recent Cases W v W (2019) Represented the father during a 3 day fact-find within a long-running application for child arrangements orders, and successfully defended him in committal proceedings brought by the mother. B v B (2019) Acted for the father in successfully opposing the mother’s application to relocate with the parties’ children who lived with her. S v S (2019) Acted for the father following the unlawful removal of his children by the mother to Scotland. Successfully obtained an interim order that the children be returned to England and successfully argued (against the mother) that England retained jurisdiction to hear the matter. The children were returned to the father’s care and he was ultimately granted a live with order in respect of both. E v E (2018) Represented the Children’s Guardian in an application by the father for a transfer of residence. A fact-find established that the mother had alienated the father from the children; subsequently the Guardian recommended a transfer of residence which was ultimately ordered by the court following a contested final hearing. V v G (2017) Acted for the father seeking contact and then residence orders in respect of his daughter in a long running protracted matter in the High Court which included the appointment of r.16.4 Guardian, committal proceedings against the mother (she was found guilty of contempt), a finding of fact (which established that the mother had alienated the father) and the making of Interim Supervision Orders in respect of the child. FDR Hearing Service Esther is available for private remote FDR hearings.
Gareth Graham was called to the Bar after leaving the British Army and now practices in employment, professional discipline and sports law. He regularly represents NHS organisations, police authorities, large multinational companies and a myriad of SMEs across all areas of employment law. He has a particular focus on whistleblowing and discrimination cases. He also represents employees and organisations in professional disciplinary hearings. He has recently carried out a number of internal investigations on behalf of well-known sport national governing bodies. Gareth chairs disciplinary hearings for: World Rugby European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR) The Rugby Football Union (RFU) British Horseracing Authority (BHA) British Cycling The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) British Canoeing. He has also been appointed to the Sport Resolutions Panel of Arbitrators and Mediators. Employment and Discrimination Gareth was called to the Bar after leaving the British Army and is now an employment law specialist, regularly instructed in dynamic and complex cases. He is known for his pragmatic and robust style. He has recently represented clients in the High Court, at the EAT and at the Court of Appeal. He regularly represents NHS organisations and large companies, including the BBC, John Lewis & Partners, a leading multi-national engineering group and a large supermarket chain. He has also represented a European Embassy, a number of local authorities and a myriad SMEs across all areas of employment law. He has a particular focus on whistleblowing and discrimination cases. He has also acted on behalf of employees in cases of a sensitive nature, including a Muslim woman in a claim for sex discrimination against her Muslim employers, a nurse involved in the alleged mistreatment of infirm nuns at a Convent which received coverage in the national media and a number of high profile claimants. Gareth is on the panel of approved counsel to the Welsh Government and regularly provides training to clients and external bodies, including NHS organisations and ACAS. Recent cases: Acting on behalf of an NHS organisation in its successful defence of a claim of race and age discrimination Acting on behalf of an NHS organisation in its successful defence of a complex whistleblowing claim Acting on behalf of an NHS organisation in its successful defence of a claim of disability discrimination Acting on behalf of a household brand in its defence of seven interrelated race discrimination claim A number of complex discrimination and whistleblowing claims in the airline industry. Investigations Gareth Graham has carried out various investigations for companies covering a wide range of issues. This includes a number of highly-confidential investigations for national governing bodies for sport. The issues investigated include bullying, discrimination, physical violence and sexually inappropriate behaviour. He is often instructed in complex and lengthy investigations where a large number of individuals need to be interviewed. Investigation Training Gareth has provided investigation training to various NHS health boards in Wales, in conjunction with the employment team at NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership. This includes how to investigation disciplinary matters and how to chair disciplinary hearings. Sports Gareth chairs disciplinary hearings for: World Rugby European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR) Rugby Football Union (RFU) British Horseracing Authority (BHA) British Cycling The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) British Canoeing. He has also been appointed to the Sport Resolutions Panel of Arbitrators and Mediators. Gareth has been a member of the RFU disciplinary panel since 2014 and has chaired a significant number of disciplinary hearings and appeals in the professional game. He is also a chairman for World Rugby, Six Nations, EPCR and the Army Rugby Union. The matters Gareth has been involved with include: Conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Game The full gamut of acts of foul play, including match official abuse Betting (including the RFU case of betting by a sports agent which resulted in a 22-month ban) Anti-doping Governing Body Endorsement visas Relegation into lower leagues Offences relating to age restrictions and ticket allocation infringements. This includes the following hearings: Alapati Leiua (Bristol Bears, Gallagher Premiership, 28 February 2019) Nathan Hughes (Wasps, Gallagher Premiership, 10 & 17 October 2018) George Smith (Bristol Bears, Gallagher Premiership, 11 September 2018) Danny Cipriani (Gloucester Rugby, Gallagher Premiership, 22 August 2018). Gareth also sat as a panel member for British Gymnastics in the case involving Louis Smith following allegations that he had acted in breach of British Gymnastics’ standard of conduct. He recently completed a formal review of an investigation into various allegations (including safeguarding issues) on behalf of a British Olympic organisation and a wide-ranging investigation over a period of four months into allegations of abuse, bullying, harassment and discrimination against a coach within a British Olympic organisation. Police Law Gareth Graham is experienced in professional discipline and regulatory matters and sits on police misconduct hearings for Thames Valley Police. He has also acted for a large number of NHS health boards and trusts, and for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, in matters involving professional misconduct. He regularly represents teachers and doctors in professional disciplinary hearings and police officers accused of gross misconduct in Employment Tribunals. On behalf of a number of sport national governing bodies, Gareth has carried out confidential investigations encompassing a wide-range of issues including safeguarding and discrimination matters. He also chairs disciplinary hearings for: World Rugby European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR) Rugby Football Union (RFU) Lawn Tennis Association British Cycling British Canoeing PGA European Tour. Gareth has also been appointed to the Sport Resolutions Panel of Arbitrators and Mediators and regularly trains NHS health boards on their internal professional disciplinary procedures.
Gemma is a specialist family law barrister with particular focus in Public Law proceedings. She represents local authorities, children (through their guardian), parents and other interested parties. Gemma brings a wealth of experience to her cases, regularly instructed in matters involving; neglect, sexual and physical abuse, disputed medical evidence, non-accidental injury, factitious illness, addictions, mental health and limited capacity, and suspected murder. She has considerable interest and experience in those involving leave to remove from the jurisdiction, child abduction and international children issues. Family Gemma is a specialist family law barrister with particular focus in Public Law proceedings. She represents local authorities, children (through their guardian), parents and other interested parties. Gemma brings a wealth of experience to her cases, regularly instructed in matters involving; neglect, sexual and physical abuse, disputed medical evidence, non-accidental injury, factitious illness, addictions, mental health and limited capacity, and suspected murder. She has considerable interest and experience in those involving leave to remove from the jurisdiction, child abduction and international children issues. More recently Gemma has dealt with a number of cases involving applications under the Human Rights Act for injunctions in Public Law Cases Recent cases: Successfully advising and acting for the mother of a severely disabled child with limited life expectancy where the Local Authority sought to remove the child from her care Representing a father accused of sexually abusing a child in his care that was not a child of the family Three-month Fact Finding Hearing at the High Court. The case was factually complicated in that the eldest child of the family was found dead but the evidence as to the time and manner of her death was largely inconclusive. The Local Authority sought to persuade Hogg LJ that the child had been dead for up to one week and the family had faked resuscitation. There were also issues around sexual abuse of the other children of the family some of whom suffered from severe learning difficulties. The case was challenging from the outset. In the substantive hearing Gemma was led by Stephen Cobb QC, an experience which taught her a great deal and as a result of which she modified and improved her own style of working Representing a father in proceedings where a 6 month old baby had all of her fingernails and toenails removed by force over a period of 5 months. Gemma successfully defended her client against the allegations and the children were rehabilitated to his care Successfully representing a Mother in care proceedings where applications were made for HRA injunction and Judicial Review of a decision made by the Local Authority and Drugs Services in respect of a residential placement Representing a Mother in care proceedings where the Local Authority sought to remove her child under a full care order. Successful applications were made for a HRA injunction to prevent interim removal Representing a Father in care proceedings where there were cross allegations of familial sexual abuse and jurisdictional issues Representing the children in wardship proceedings where there had been an attempted abduction of one of the children and allegations of sexual abuse.
Grant is an experienced specialist family law practitioner in public and private children law who joined 3PB in May 2023 from a specialist family law chambers in the Midlands. He represents clients in the Family Court, County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal, having the ability to disseminate the most complex cases into key facts in a calm manner whilst providing clear and realistic advice to the most demanding clients. Before joining the Bar, Grant gained extensive experience in corporate organisations such as American Express, Channel 4 and Accenture where he held Director and senior management roles. Grant always fights for the rights of his clients and uses his forensic approach to complex cases and skilled advocacy whilst maintaining a calm and warm manner with his clients. Grant has the experience of working with the most vulnerable individuals who have suffered significant trauma in their lives, and regularly works with intermediaries on particularly emotionally charged and complex cases. Grant acts on behalf of parents, children’s guardians, children and intervenors in a wide range of cases: • Serious non-accidental injury • Fabricated and/or induced illness • Sexual Abuse • Domestic Violence • Chronic Neglect • Drug and Alcohol Abuse (including FDAC proceedings) • Adoption including Revocation of Adoption • Special Guardianship • Secure Accommodation/Deprivation of Liberty • Child arrangements disputes, including intractable contact disputes Family Grant Keyes is a private and public law children barrister and expert. In public law proceedings, Grant has extensive experience of acting for parents, children’s guardians and interveners in cases that involve complex issues of NAI, physical, sexual and emotional abuse (including parental alienation). Grant is regularly instructed in complex fact-finding cases involving non-accidental injuries both in the County Court and the High Court. He regularly acts for clients with learning or mental health difficulties, including those represented through the Official Solicitor. In private law proceedings, Grant is highly skilled in dealing with Section 8 Children Act 1989 applications, including complex cases involving allegations of sexual abuse and domestic violence and has particular expertise in complex and entrenched cases between parents. Grant has a reputation for his high level of advocacy, demonstrating his forensic ability to find the ‘needle in the haystack’ and to always fight for his client. He is truly client focused and robust in his approach, whilst remaining calm in the ‘eye of the storm’. He cares deeply about his clients and will do what is right whilst always being professional providing advice in a straightforward and direct style. Recent reported cases H-W [2023] EWCA Civ 149: ongoing involvement in the case which was voted Family Law Awards' Case of the Year in 2022. Re X, T, A, E &S [2020] EWCA Civ 1680 (Court of Appeal): NAI Fact Finding where judge had erred in his approach. Held that it was not open to the judge to find that T self-harmed as a result of the conduct of the parents. Re S [2020] EWCA Civ 1382 (Court of Appeal): Judge found to had erred in his approach to, and analysis of, the medical evidence and findings of fact relating to a serious head injury suffered by the child. Re H-B-S [2020] EWCA Civ 1027 (Court of Appeal): Judge had been wrong to discharge interim care orders in the middle of a fact finding. Re AB, CD, XB & YD [2020] EWFC 15 (High Court): Fabricated illness and sexual abuse case with a Finding of Fact and client exonerated. Re T (A Child) sub nom OCC v (1) A (Mother) (2) B (Father) (3) T (BY Guardian) (4 & 5) C & D (Paternal Aunt & Uncle) (2017): Successful challenge to foster carers to adopt with child returned to the family. Re P (a child) NCC v (1) LC (2) GA (3) P (a child) (2015): A placement order was made where a two-year old boy’s needs could not be met by either of his parents, who had abused drugs and exposed him to a chaotic lifestyle. Long-term fostering did not have the same level of security. Notable cases (unreported) Re L & T-L 2022: Complex Fact-Finding case including allegations of rape and sexual abuse. Represented challenging client (Father) who did not trust professionals. No findings found in relation to rape and sexual abuse and returned to the family home, despite opposition from the local authority Re S 2019: Complex Fact-Finding case where allegations of sexually abused the children. The very experienced Circuit Judge stated that this is the most difficult case she has ever had to make a judgment on as it involved the future risk of harm of a child that had been in Mother care throughout the proceedings with no issues but sanctioned removal Re S [2015]: Non-accidental injury (fracture) to a 6 month old baby, representing Father and after a 6 day fact-finding and final hearing the family was reunited as a family unit, with the baby returning home. Re A [2015]: Non-accidental injury to a young child (baby shaking) where the client was exonerated from the pool of perpetrators, and two of the children moved to her full time care. Re C [2015]: Rape and sexual assault of teenager, representing Father in a complex case where there were 8 advocates, including 2 Guardians and involving a 13 day fact finding and final hearing where the children were returned to family members.
Hamish Dunlop is an experienced family law advocate and is head of the 3PB's Family Finance group. Hamish’s family law practice is concerned with the financial claims of: spouses on divorce; co-habitees upon separation and dependants from the estate of a deceased. In the context of financial provision on divorce, he has particular expertise in cases involving family businesses; professional clients and the military. He advises and represents co-habitees, co owners and other family members on property issues including legal and beneficial ownerships and promissory and proprietary estoppel. Hamish was shortlisted for Junior Barrister of the Year at the 2019 Family Law Awards. He was also, until 2012, the Chair of the Hampshire Family Justice Money and Property Committee. He is regularly invited to lecture at external conferences and offers bespoke in-house training seminars for clients. Hamish is also a clinical negligence specialist. His practice includes high value claims and he advises on personal and medical short term and long term care and life time housing requirements where appropriate. Hamish’s recent important cases have involved failures in GP referrals leading to cauda equina lesions and subarachnoid hemorrhage. His claims against Hospital specialists have included: A&E Departments; obstetrics; orthopaedic and general surgery. He also has a strong practice in personal injury and product liability claims. Hamish is experienced in claims involving: housing requirements; lifetime care and complex dependency claims. Family Hamish’s family law practice is concerned with the financial claims of: spouses on divorce; co-habitees on separation and dependants from the estate of a deceased. In the context of financial provision on divorce, he has particular expertise in cases involving: family businesses; professional clients and farms. Given the increased popularity in digital and crypto-assets, Hamish has developed a specialism in this regard and is experienced in advising clients as to the implications that these assets have on financial remedy proceedings and is a leading presence in ultra-high-net-worth cases. He advises and represents co-habitees, co-owners and other family members on property issues including: legal and beneficial ownerships (and the Court’s powers under TOLATA); promisory and proprietary estoppel. He advises on Inheritance Act claims. Hamish provides pragmatic advice to clients in a sympathetic manner; her is robust and dogged in their representation. He is ranked in the latest editions of Legal 500 and Chambers Partners. He is described in Chambers and Partners (2022) as: a barrister “who covers every relevant point meticulously and does not do half-measures." "He is great with clients, has a good eye for detail, flexible in his approach and has real commitment to a case." Hamish was Head of the 3PB Family Group until January 2019. He is now Deputy Head and Head of Finance. Private Remote FDR Hearings Hamish is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here. Recent cases J v J (2022) Assets of £3M including 4 properties, a company, shares in a vineyard and expensive motorcars. The husband alleged that he had c.£1.7M of debts owed principally to HMRC because of historic tax avoidance schemes; these were poorly evidenced. The complexities were: (1) investigating and assessing the true extent of the husband’s debts which distorted the overall financial picture; and (2) the lack of liquidity in the available assets for distribution. The case was concluded pragmatically with a series of lump sums which protected the wife from efforts by the husband later to reduce what he had agreed to pay. R v R (2021) Assets of £3.5M including 6 properties co-owned with the husband’s family. The main asset was a business inherited by the husband and developed during the marriage with his brother. There were issues of pre-marital assets and the extent to which the company could provide liquidity for the financial settlement. The negotiated order was complex but avoided the need for members of the husband’s family to be joined to the litigation. A v A (2020) Representing the wife on her application for financial provision on divorce. There were assets of c.£11M following sale of a start-up company at the end of the marriage. These included foreign assets (a European holiday home). The wife alleged reckless & wanton dissipation of assets by the husband. The husband alleged stellar financial contributions to the marriage. The wife was psychologically vulnerable. The case involved 2 separate injunctive proceedings (s.37 MCA and FLA). K v K (2019) Application for financial provision on divorce. Hereditary Farming case. Farm worth £3.25M. The farm assets (including horses) were worth a further £1M. The case involved joining 2 additional members of the husband’s family to the action. There were preliminary issue hearings concerning the legal and beneficial ownership of the land and horses. The parties had 2 companies involved in the farming enterprise and there were issues concerning the mingling of income from other related businesses. The husband had competency issues and was represented by a litigation friend. Owens v Owens ([2017] EWCA Civ 182) ([2018] UKSC 41) Acting for a Husband who successfully contested his Wife’s petition for divorce based on grounds of unreasonable behaviour. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court both rejected the Wife’s appeal. MB v The Executors of EB (Deceased) ((2016) Representing a widow on her application for financial provision from her deceased husband’s estate. Her husband’s estate left nothing to the widow save an entitlement to remain at her family home for life. C v C (2016) Acting for a Wife in her claim for financial provision from Husband. Although the parties themselves had modest assets, Wife was defending Husband’s attack on a family trust in which she had an interest: both in relation to income (until her father’s death) and thereafter capital. The Trust was valued at £3.5M. B v B (2015) Financial Provision on Divorce before Roberts J. Parties own and Husband operated a successful general trading business from a site in Oxfordshire. The parties thereby acquired and retained a portfolio of UK investment properties. Value of assets = c.£14M. Husband disposed of a number of the properties into offshore trusts which Wife is attacking. The Oxfordshire business site is currently under development for residential housing and there are complicated tax issues. A v V ((2015) Applications for: a declaration of paternity and relief under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. Representing a UK resident mother in her applications against a Dubai- based businessman father. Father was extremely wealthy and ran a millionaires’ defence. The case involved issues of: jurisdiction and the extent to which a previous agreement reached by the parties should be binding on them. D-C and ors v The Personal Representatives of N-C (2013) Inheritance Act claim. The claim was bought by a number of dependants against the estate of the deceased who was a property developer on the South Coast. The estate included a number of properties and the shares in the deceased’s company. S v D (2013) Financial claims between a Cohabiting Couple. Competing claims to various interests in the parties’ family home; farming business and associated farmland. C v R (2013) Financial claims over Dynastic Wealth within a Family. Competing TOLATA claims concerning 2 existing properties but involving tracing financial interests through a 3 further houses. Clinical NegligenceHamish is an experienced personal injury and clinical negligence barrister who enjoys a formidable reputation for his expertise and client friendly manner. He advises and represents clients on a range of personal injury and clinical negligence claims, involving both serious injury and death. His practice includes high value and sometimes high profile claims and he advises on personal and medical short term and long term care and life time housing requirements where appropriate. He also undertakes product liability claims. Hamish is experienced in claims involving: housing requirements; lifetime care and complex dependency claims. As an ancillary relief practitioner, he has a particular specialism for dependency claims by wives; partners and children. Regarding his clinical negligence, advice has included failures in GP referrals leading to: cauda equina lesions; subarachnoid haemorrhage; and limb amputations. His claims against hospital specialists have included A&E Departments; obstetrics; orthopaedic and general surgery. Until 26, Hamish sat as a legal assessor for the Nursing and Midwifery Council Disciplinary Committees. Recent cases RS v Hospital NHS Trust. Negligent hospital treatment around the time of the Claimant’s birth, resulting in brain injury and disability: developmental delay; epilepsy and significant visual impairment. Liability admitted, valued at £30M. Extent to which the Claimant would have followed their parent’s professional career to be examined. KH v Hospitals NHS Trust. Negligent L4-S1 Spinal Fusion procedure (‘the fusion surgery’) at the hospital resulting in damaged nerve root, nerve root pain and foot drop. Unwarranted delay in exploring and draining a haematoma developed during Revision Surgery, which became secondarily infected. Significant symptoms continuously experienced by the Claimant and unnecessary treatment. SN v Hospital NHS FT. Failure by the Hospital to carry out routine colonoscopy surveillance in patient diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. Development of a tumour of the ileo-caecal valve went undetected and though finally removed and despite chemotherapy treatment, the patient died. RB v Hospital NHS FT. Failure by the hospital to carry our careful management and regular colonoscopies in Claimant diagnosed with anal neoplasia II / III (AIN). Further failure by the hospital to refer patient for tests after clinical signs became suspicious. Claimant developed anal cancer which could have been treated earlier with proper management. ND v Hospital NHS Trust. Patient admitted to hospital due to cauda equina lesion in her spine. Failure by the hospital to immediately refer the patient to an Orthopaedic Department for further investigation and treatment, despite obvious symptoms. Wrong discharge from the hospital, after which the Claimant’s progressed and she suffered deterioration in her condition. PG v Hospital NHS Trust. PG suffers from a constitutional degenerative disorder of the lumbar spine. Failure by hospital to refer patient to specialist department despite symptoms consistent with a cauda equina syndrome (‘CES’), leading to deterioration of their condition, which then required L4/5 decompression / discectomy procedure to relieve the CES. KD v Hospitals NHS FT. 20 year old Claimant diagnosed with indeterminate colitis. Failure by hospital to monitor toxicity of patient’s treatment with Mesalazine. Claimant suffered interstitial nephritis as a result, leading to renal impairment. The Claimant will suffer end-stage renal failure which will require a live-donor transplant. JN v University Hospital NHS Trust. Following unavoidable complications suffered during a surgical decompression procedure at L2/3 to L4/5 (‘the surgery’) the hospital failed to closely monitor the Claimant’s neurological status after the operation. Claimant developed neurological symptoms including: loss of perineal sensation; loss of bowel function and impairment of bladder function. The Claimant thereby suffered an avoidable deterioration in her neurology; unnecessary pain and consequential losses. MW v NHS FT Hospitals. Failure by hospitals to twice diagnose an identifiable rupture to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Damaging referral for physiotherapy. Sustained unnecessary injury and avoidable losses. CD v NHS Hospital Trust. Sub-standard treatment provided to a young patient during spinal surgery and post-operatively. The failures led to a significant loss of lower limb function and permanent pain. AB v NHS Hospital Trust. Failure adequately to remove all products of conception following a birth by Caesarean section. The Claimant ultimately required a total abdominal hysterectomy, substantial urinary and bowel symptoms. M v Dr C and NHS Direct. Failed diagnosis by NHS Call Direct GP and nurse. They both failed to diagnose a subdural haematoma which led to an aneurysm and very significantly cognitive and functional impairment. The Claimant requires long term care in a residential setting. Personal Injury Hamish is an experienced personal injury and clinical negligence barrister who enjoys a formidable reputation for his expertise and client-friendly manner. He advises and represents clients in serious injury claims and fatal accidents. The cases involve employers’ and occupiers’ liability, road traffic accidents and public liability claims. Damages often include housing requirements, lifetime care and complex dependency claims. As a financial remedy practitioner, he has a particular specialism for dependency claims by wives, partners and children. Hamish is asked to advise on cases in Jersey and has experience of the procedures before the Royal Court. He accepts instructions under Conditional Fee Agreements in appropriate cases. He is also registered to take direct access instructions. Areas of Expertise Abuse claim Asbestos Catastrophic injury Construction site accidents Employers Liability Fatal accident claims Foreign jurisdiction claims Highways Act claim Occupational Disease Occupiers Liability Product Liability Psychological injury Public Liability Road Traffic Accidents Travel claims WRULD Current and recent cases include: Employer’s Liability C, the claimant, was employed as a teaching assistant at a Special School. He sustained injury when trying to restrain a physically aggressive pupil. The claimant’s head struck the floor and he sustained a skull fracture with associated subdural haematoma. The index injuries include significant cognitive impairment and fatigue. He can no longer work. Liability disputed. V, the claimant was working on military equipment for the Ministry of Defence. He sustained significant injury when a Supacat vehicle on which he was working rolled forward and crushed him. R, the claimant, was a building site labourer assisting with the deconstruction of a lift and its shaft. He fell from the shaft during the operation. The lift fell on top of him leaving him with profound physical injuries including paraplegia. There were multiple parties involved who blamed each other and/or the claimant for the accident. There was substantial disagreement between the parties’ health and safety experts as to the cause of the accident and liability. G., the claimant was a labourer and yard hand who sustained injury at work. He was operating a telehandler vehicle which had a defective breaking system. When the telehandler became momentarily stuck in rut, he left the cab and was crushed between the vehicle and a wall. A, the claimant worked as a labourer for a road surfacing contractor. As a consequence of prolonged and regular exposure to vibrating tools he sustained injuries including: hypothenar hammer and carpal tunnel syndromes. He was unable to work. The defendant disputed liability and the claimant’s incapacity for work. W, the claimant, developed occupational asthma following long-term exposure to wood dust and particles at work. G, the claimant, sustained serious injury when he fell from the top of a hydraulic vehicle ramp at work. Fatal Accidents D. Fatal accident after a running down. The claimant was the administrator of his father’s estate. The dependents were various members of the deceased’s extended family which had become fragmented since the death. S. Fatal accident in which the deceased was run over by a lorry on a petrol station forecourt. The deceased initially suffered from catastrophic injuries and died some months afterwards. P. Fatal road traffic accident involving a motorcyclist who was killed while overtaking a line of traffic. There was a contest over apportionment of liability and the extent of the Deceased’s income at the time of the accident. Road Traffic Accidents J. Acting for four claimants involved in head-on road traffic accident in Spain. Two claimants sustained life changing physical and psychological injuries. Proceedings issued against the defendant’s insurers pursuant to EC Regulations. H. The claimant pedestrian was struck while crossing the road; the defendant’s vehicle was travelling in excess of the speed limit and the driver was drunk. The claimant sustained a traumatic brain injury and cannot work. H. Motorcyclist sustaining a spinal compression injury following an RTA in Jersey. Proceedings issued before the Royal Court. P. The Claimant had broken down on the side of a dual carriageway and got out of his vehicle. He was struck by the defendant motorist who had left the carriageway in thick fog. He suffered significant physical and psychological injuries: believing that his girlfriend had been killed in the same incident. Other claims G. Acting for the defendant in an historical sexual abuse claim. The claimants were the defendant’s grandchildren; the abuse having taken place over 30 years ago. The claim was complicated by the defendant’s death and probate actions in relation to his estate. P. The claimant alleged he had sustained toxic syndrome after eating contaminated crab meat at the defendant’s hotel. This was an unusual case in that as a consequence, the claimant briefly lost consciousness and passed out; sustaining a cervical fracture in the fall. He was rendered paraplegic. The case involved expert evidence on international food supply chains and the nature of the claimant’s sudden illness. M. Acting for the applicant before CICA. He was attacked with a hammer and sustained a traumatic brain injury. He lacked capacity to conduct his litigation.
Family barrister Hayley Manser joined 3PB, from another chambers with London and South Coast offices, in November 2020. She has already built up a busy practice in family law and is regularly instructed on a broad range of matters including public and private law children proceedings, matrimonial finance and Family Law Act proceedings. A former marketing executive before embarking on her legal career, Hayley is noted for her thorough preparation and creative approach to legal problems and has been complimented for her personable style with both professional and lay clients alike, giving practical and robust advice in a calm and comprehensible way. Family Hayley has a busy practice in family law and is particularly attracted to the mercurial nature of family proceedings. She is regularly instructed on a broad range of matters including public and private law children proceedings, matrimonial finance and Family Law Act proceedings. Public law children In public law, Hayley has represented local authorities and parents and has experience of matters featuring issues of emotional abuse, domestic violence, neglect and drug and alcohol dependencies. Hayley spent time working in-house for a Local Authority, where she gained valuable experience acting for the Authority in a number of cases involving sexual abuse, special guardianship applications and emergency protection orders. Private law children In private law, Hayley is regularly instructed to act for parents in Child Arrangement Order applications, leave to remove applications and applications for parental responsibility. Her exceptional client skills mean that she is accomplished at gaining the trust of clients and working with them to achieve the best possible outcome. Matrimonial finance Hayley has a flourishing practice in matrimonial finance matters and has successfully represented husbands and wives at all stages of financial remedy proceedings. She always favours achieving a settlement which works for her clients but is not phased by voluminous documentation and detail. Family Law Act proceedings Hayley regularly acts for both applicants and respondents to applications for Non-molestation Orders and Occupation Orders. Notable cases: Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council v A & Ors [2021] EWFC B17 - case involving a non-accidental injury (skull fracture) to a baby, concluding with no findings made and baby being returned home to the parents. V v V (2019) - successfully represented a wife at FDR on a matter involving assets outside the jurisdiction. S v S (2019) - successfully represented a wife at FDR securing an equal division of the family home despite the wife not having lived in or contributed to the property for a number of years. B v L (2019) - successfully obtained an occupation order pursuant to s.36(10) FLA 1996. Re S (2019) - successfully represented a mother in a non-accidental injury matter, who was found by the court not to have caused the injuries to her child and was removed from the pool of perpetrators. Re H (2018) - represented the Mother following the Local Authority’s application for an interim care order where the care plan was to remove the child into foster care. Successfully negotiated for the Mother to be placed with the child in a residential foster home. Re B (2018) - successfully represented a mother, who was opposing long-term foster care. Managed to obtain therapeutic support for the family with a view to rehabilitation of the child back to the parents care. B v D (2018) - represented a mother, who was responding to an application for an enforcement of a child arrangements order. The application was dismissed following submissions that the order provided to mandatory obligation on the Mother and, therefore, could not be enforced. Re T (2017) - represented a Local Authority in a chronic neglect case in respect of an application for a Care Order. Re B (2017) - represented a Local Authority following an application by extended family members for a Special Guardianship Order. Re P (2017) - represented the Respondent to an application for a Non-molestation Order and Occupation Order. Successfully negotiated cross-undertakings.
Jack is a civil law practitioner specialising in Property and Commercial law. He regularly appears in the County Court, High Court and First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and enjoys a busy advisory and drafting practice. Outside this practice, Jack happily accepts legal aid and pro-bono instructions in housing-related disputes. Commercial Jack is primarily instructed in complex, high-value commercial disputes. Recent cases include: A v L [Ongoing] – Advising and representing the executor of an estate in this multi-day commercial loan dispute, worth £100,000.00. County Court (Bristol). L v M [2023] – Successfully representing the defendant product-manufacturer in this one-day mediation between two household brands, worth £700,000.00. High Court (KBD). D v K [2022] – Drafting particulars of claim on behalf of an American cable-television channel in this international breach of contract dispute, worth USD $2,300,000.00. High Court (ChD). Additional areas of practice comprise: Plevin – Jack is regularly instructed on behalf of lenders to provide advice and representation in disputes raising s.114 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Animals – Jack provides advice and representation in equine and marine animal disputes, particularly those involving elements of misrepresentation, breach of contract and veterinary negligence. General – Jack is particularly good at getting to grips with his client’s industry: in the last few years he has successfully represented clients in disputes concerning classic cars and their restoration, government procurement, commercial MFDs and toner, domestic construction, commercial construction, IT systems, accountancy, park homes and vegan flapjacks. Property and Estates In addition to his commercial practice, Jack undertakes a range of property and chancery work, comprising of both commercial and residential landlord and tenant matters, boundary disputes and disputed registration of land. Recent cases include: F v H [2023] – Representing the Respondent in this 4-day trial where the Applicant alleged a plot of land had been transferred by means of forged Power of Attorney. Value of £100,000.00. First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). L v L [2023] – Advising, preparing pleadings, and assisting in the settlement of this complex 4-day boundary dispute where the Claimants’ costs were in excess of £125,000.00. County Court (Central London). W v F [2022] – Advising the Defendant in this claim for injunctive relief concerning an easement to enter upon the Defendant’s land to access an outfall pipe and soakaway. County Court (Stoke-on-Trent). Jack is regularly instructed on the following: Landlord & Tenant Residential and Commercial possession claims Breach of Covenants 1954 Act terminations Forfeiture and Relief from Forfeiture Rent Arrears and Service Charge disputes Social Housing, with growing expertise in ASBI applications, Equality Act claims, and committal hearing. Real Property Boundary Disputes Nuisance Trespass Easements. Mediation In addition to representing parties at mediations, Jack has recently become an accredited mediator in his own right (Society of Mediators, January 2021). He is literate in remote conferencing software and keen to develop this area of his practice.
Jonathan Underhill is a specialist criminal and regulatory barrister. He is noted for his excellent approach to client care, thorough preparation and first-class advocacy and representation at all levels from the lay bench to the High Court and Court of Appeal. Jonathan has been described has having an excellent rapport with both professional and lay clients, focusing on the development of understanding and trust paired with impartial and comprehensive advice and representation. Jonathan has a specific and long-standing expertise in financial crime and Proceeds of Crime Act matters. He has been appointed to the both the specialist Proceeds of Crime and Fraud CPS panel lists in addition to defending individual and corporate clients accused of complex fraud and financial crimes. Jonathan has successfully prosecuted for, and defended against, the Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service, Insolvency Service, Financial Conduct Authority, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, and HMRC. Jonathan both defends and prosecutes individuals and companies across a range of complex regulatory matters. His practice has a particular emphasis on breaches of consumer protection, local authority and trading standards enforcement and environmental legislation. Jonathan can offer complete advice and representation when such cases also involve issues of asset forfeiture and confiscation. Crime As part of his general criminal practice Jonathan is routinely called upon to deal with complex issues often involving large amounts of digital, forensic and financial evidence and detailed analysis. He believes that whether for the Prosecution or the Defence that every avenue should be explored to make sure that clients – both lay and profession – are properly and effectively represented. He has been a led Junior for both Prosecution and Defence in matters ranging from attempted murder and national multi-defendant conspiracies to multi-million pound fraud and money laundering cases. He has been called upon to step into the place of his leader in-order to deal with both cross examination and legal submissions. Jonathan has significant experience in both applying for and defending against a wide range of Ancillary Orders including confiscation, restraint and destruction orders, DVPO, SHRO and SHPO’s. Whilst Jonathan prosecutes and defends in all areas of general criminal practice his particular areas of expertise are: Fraud Regulatory Crime Proceeds of Crime Computer Misuse/Cyber Crime Notable Cases R v P (2022) Instructed for the defence in case concerning multiple allegations of same sex sexual assault. Client was acquitted. R v JB (2021) Instructed for the Defence – fully contested case of causing death by careless driving – expert evidence for both Crown and Defence R v T (2021) Instructed for the Crown – Section 18 assault – knife attack in a public street R v M and B (2021) Instructed for the Crown – child cruelty case involving young child in dangerous living conditions R v L (2020) Instructed for the Defence in indecent images case – following submissions as to the nature and unreliability of electronic and computer evidence Crown were forced to abandon all but 2 counts of a 9-count indictment. R v C (2019/2020) Instructed as sole prosecuting Counsel in Multi-defendant, conspiracy to commit dwelling house burglaries involving upwards of 35 individual offences across 4 counties. R v Wooff [2019] EWCA Crim 2249 Permission granted to appeal against imposition of mandatory sentence for dealing in Class A drugs. In their Judgment Court of Appeal provided a summary of the chief features of the legal framework surrounding the minimum sentence for a third Class A drug trafficking offence under section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. R v. A (2019) Successful prosecution of multi-handed case of possession with intent to supply Class A drugs. Operation Glenfall (2018/2019) Instructed as Led Prosecution Junior in a 31 handed perverting the course of justice case – required to prepare and cross examine multiple defendants across multiple trials. R v. M and Others (2018) Instructed as Led Junior Counsel in multi handed cash in transit robber case investigated by the “Flying Squad” – called upon to present the prosecution in place of leading counsel for the first week of the trial. Operation ‘Buntline’ (2017) Instructed for the Defence in large multi-handed country wide conspiracy to supply class A drugs – involving ANPR, and nationwide telephone and telemetry evidence. R v. S (2017) Represented a member of a gang who burgled the home of England footballer John Terry and a number of other High-profile victims. R v. K (2017) Case concerning people smuggling across European Borders. R v. J Led Junior for the Defence in an attempted murder case. R v. A Transfer of a firearm. Statutory defence as to the antique nature of the weapon (s58(2)). Conflicting expert evidence. R v. S Successful acquittal of client in Multiple Burglary counts despite the Defendant not attending and the trial proceeding in absence. R v. B Multi handed – Joint enterprise – Night-time robbery. R v. B s18 assault. Arguments re: res gestae and principles in R v Barnaby [2015] R. (on the application of Hovenden) v. Parole Board [2014] EWHC 3738 (Admin) Judicial Review against decision of the Parole Board. Fraud, Business and Financial Crime Jonathan is regularly instructed to act for the Specialist Fraud Division of the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as HMRC, most often in relation to Social Security and computer-based frauds. He has undertaken disclosure and review work for both the Serious Fraud Office and National Crime Agency. In 2017 he was part of the team representing a former FOREX trader who was prosecuted by the US Department of Justice for conspiracy to fix prices in the FOREX market. The trial ended in an acquittal in the Southern District of New York in 2018; building upon his experience in White Collar and commercial frauds. Jonathan has also been sought out to advise on other less common frauds pertaining to local authorities and business regulation; notably “airport parking” and “blue badge” fraud. He has particular expertise in handling the restraint, confiscation and asset recovery aspect of cases centring on financial misconduct. He is a Level 3 CPS specialist Fraud Prosecutor and a Level 2 specialist Proceeds of Crime Prosecutor. Notable Cases R v GM and JB (2021) Instructed for the Defence case involving fraudulent insurance claim and allegations of perverting the course of justice R v W, W and S (2021) Instructed for the Crown in multi-handed fraud and theft case, involving the fraudulent abuse of power of attorney over a vulnerable complainant Operation Aboon (2020) Instructed for the Defence in fraudulent VAT evasion. Successful submission of there being no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case. R v B (2020) Instructed for the Defence in Multi-Defendant case of involving money laundering stemming from a 1.2-Million-dollar payment diversion fraud R v H (2019/2020) Instructed for the Defence for 1st Defendant in multiple allegations of defrauding the DWP by alleged fabrication of the education and social care needs of 6 children over a period of 8 years and fraudulently claiming Tax credits R v M (2019/2020) Instructed to advise for the Defence on multi-defendant fraudulent evasion of VAT R v N (2019) Instructed for the Defence – 7-year failure to declare taxable income to HMRC R v S (2019) Instructed to Prosecute failure to declare inheritance of circa £200,000 resulting in significant benefit overpayment and subsequent contested PoCA application to seek full recovery Operation ‘Barren’ (2019) Instructed for the Defence in a multi-handed fraud prosecuted by HMRC valued at £3.4 million. Operation ‘Z’ (2018) Instructed as Led Junior Counsel in a multi handed money laundering case. R v. C (2018) HMRC, failure to declare self-assessment Income tax and NOI contributions; circa £170,000. R v. S (2018) Successfully Defended in “failing to declare case” brought by HMRC, concerning income from multiple properties on the South Coast. R v. C (2017) Instructed for the Defence solely to deal with contested POCA proceedings arising from large scale drug dealing. R v PE and Ors (2016) Instructed to advise pre-charge on large scale multi-company, multi-site airport parking fraud valued at several hundred thousand pounds. R(S) v. Q and Others Led Junior for the prosecution in four handed 6-week conspiracy to defraud case involving council tax, housing benefit and identity fraud. R v. B and Ors Instructed on behalf of third-party insurance company to provide detailed legal advice on arguments pertaining to the Defendants having “obtained” property; detailed noting brief required of multi day contested hearing. R(S) v. Q and Others POCA confiscation. Lifestyle assumptions, multiple properties, bank accounts, hidden asserts, assertion of third-party rights and assets outside of the jurisdiction. WSS v. D Trading Standards confiscation, legal argument as to the effect of proportionality and R v Waya as relating to tainted gifts and third-party property rights. R v. S Prosecution of complex case involving fraudulent “shopping vouchers”.HCC v. C – Multi-handed prosecution regarding fraudulent business and roofing fraud. PCC v. A and Ors Multi-handed prosecution of local Police employees for secondary selling of parking vouchers and fraud. R v. N Benefit Fraud valued at £50,000. R v. I Benefit Fraud valued at £28,000. Proceeds of Crime Jonathan has expertise in dealing with all financial matter’s ancillary to his specialist areas of practice up to an including enforcement of such orders. Jonathan has specific experience with some of the most complex and serious proceedings, including in relation to: Confiscation of assets Cash forfeiture and seizure Asset recovery Third party confiscation Restraint Orders and Freezing Orders Account Freezing and Forfeiture Orders Unexplained Wealth Orders He is regularly instructed, for the Defence, Crown Prosecution Service, various Police Forces and HMRC from initial seizure and forfeiture to contested final hearings. Jonathan has also acted for interested third parties, including private individuals and insurance companies, both to provide advice in relation to rights and standing, as well as providing detailed assistance by way of noting briefs and written application and submissions. Notable Cases R v F (2021) Instructed for the Crown (Central PoCA Unit) to advise on the drafting and making of compliance order under the Proceeds of Crime Act – concerning international accounts and funds R v GM (2020) Instructed for the Defence to advise on the making and variation of restraint order concerning multiple properties R v S (2020) Instructed for the CPS Central PoC Unit in successful prosecution of fully contested (2 day) PoCA application involving consideration of hidden assets, tainted gifts and proportionality. R v C (2020) Instructed to advise pre-Charge on prospect of successfully opposing and/ varying Restraint order covering multiple accounts, properties and company assets R v E (2020) Instructed by Central PoCA Enforcement Division R v K and L (2019/2020) Instructed for international 3rd Party clients in application to seek return of funds form accounts under AFO relating to an international money laundering investigation R v K (2019) Successfully argued against the appointment of a receiver to force the sale of the Defendants Property and family home in PoCA enforcement proceedings. R v K (2019) Successfully argued against the issue of arrest warrants following multiple failures of Defendant to satisfy the PoCA order made against him following trial. R v. X (2018) Instructed to advise on the rights and interest of third parties involved in confiscation where assets were potentially covered under constructive trust. R v. B (2018) Legal argument concerning the proper statutory interpretation of the re-assessment of available assets following further conviction. R v. C (2017) Instructed for the Defence solely to deal with contested POCA proceedings arising from large scale drug dealing. R v. B and Ors Instructed on behalf of third-party insurance company to provide detailed legal advice on arguments pertaining to the Defendants having “obtained” property; detailed noting brief required of multi day contested hearing. R(S) v. Q and Others POCA confiscation. Lifestyle assumptions, multiple properties, bank accounts, hidden asserts, assertion of third-party rights and assets outside of the jurisdiction. WSS v. D Trading Standards confiscation, legal argument as to the effect of proportionality and R v Waya as relating to tainted gifts and third-party property rights. Regulatory Crime Jonathan Underhill is instructed to prosecute as wide range of Regulatory Crime. This detailed knowledge and expertise is invaluable in his robust defence of private individuals and companies; most notably where such cases fall outside of traditional criminal practice. Jonathan believes that particular time and care should be taken in the conduct of cases which, whilst still being dealt with by the Criminal Courts, encompass areas of fact and law which are less common within that jurisdiction. Regulatory prosecution is a real and present risk for small and medium sized businesses who are often without their own internal compliance or legal departments. Engaging the appropriate expertise and skill in such cases, from the earliest possible point, is essential to achieve the best outcome. Additionally, he has extensive experience in confiscation proceedings pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and is a member of the CPS Specialist Proceeds of Crime advocates panel. As a result, he is able to provide a complete service to clients from pre-charging advice, through trial, to confiscation proceedings. This is particularly important for Trading Standards and Local Authorities as well as private clients who can benefit from complete advice from the outset of their case. Jonathan’s Trading Standards and regulatory practice includes, but is not limited to: Food Safety Act 1990 (and associated regulations) Novel Food Enforcement Regime Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (and associated Regulations), Consumer Protection Act 1987 Trade Marks Act 1994 Offences under the Fraud Act 2006 Animal Welfare Act 2006 Environmental Protections Act 1990 Jonathans prosecution and enforcement practice has particular emphasis on all aspects of Local Authority prosecutions and enforcement and covers all areas of Local Authority work including Right to Buy fraud, tenancy fraud, planning enforcement, fly tipping, noise abatement, animal regulations and anti-social behaviour. Jonathan is also instructed to conduct hearings for private clients and via Legal Expenses insurance in all areas subject to Local Authority Licensing including the licensing of hackney carriages, private hire vehicles and liquor licensing. His experience extends from conducting review hearings before licensing sub-committees to appeals and trials before the Magistrates’ and Crown Courts. Notable Cases Trading Standards R v C Ltd (2020) Instructed for the Defence in Electrical Products (Safety) Regulation 2016 involving counterfeit apple products. R v B (2019) Instructed to prosecute “Rogue Plumber” under Fraud Act 2006 and CPUTR 2008. Case involved multiple victims over a long time. PCC v. K (2018) Long term parking fraud concerning fraudulent parking permits and mis-use of “blue badges”. HB v. MK (2018) Multiple outlet breach of smoking ban prosecution – legal argument as to proper application of statute. Operation ‘Foxchase’ Instructed as led Junior in a complex national secondary ticketing trading standards case. Operation ‘Hugo’ Trading Standards case involving importation of farmed puppies, featured on BBC programming. Operation ‘Wendelin’ Multi handed Trading standards prosecution of rouge traders involving 15 complainants. PCC v. A and Ors Multi handed Parking Fraud Prosecution involving fraudulent use of Parking Permits by police employees. R v. S Trading Standards prosecution against persistent street peddler. Trade Marks R v CL (2020/2021) Instructed for the Defence in International importation of tobacco in breach of trademark conspiracy case. Case is privately prosecuted by the Japanese Tobacco Corp. R v C (2019) Multi Defendant Trademarks Act offences – large sale importation on Isle of Wight. R v. M Trading standard prosecution involving Trademark offences against the Premier League, British Legion and Help for Heroes – including issues of international production and importation. R v. A Trading standards Prosecution involving several thousand pounds of counterfeit tobacco. Environmental, Housing and Planning R v H (2021) Instructed for the Defence to advise on breach of Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 R v HM (2021) Instructed for the Defence – Fly tipping and waste depositing involving hazardous materials, including asbestos R v C (2020) Instructed for the Defence in Fly Tipping case brough by the Local Authority – called upon to assist in drafting evidential representation which led to the case being dropped as no longer being evidentially sustainable, or in the public interest. LBH v E (2019) Instructed for the Prosecution – Persistent and serious breach of HMO involving a challenging litigant in personal and multi-day magistrates court trial. HB v. M and A (2019) Advertising and Planning enforcement Appeal against conviction and sentence – instructed for the Crown – complete rehearing required – appeal dismissed with full costs awarded to the Crown. HB v. A (2018/19) Multi-Property Planning Enforcement and Environmental Breach Prosecution, leading to PoCA application valued at circ. £300,000. HB v. T (2018) Multi Defendant Fly-Tipping Prosecution against both individuals and limited companies. HB v. A (2018) Multi Defendant, Multiple breaches of Improvement notices over significant periods of time effecting multiple tenants and requiring Local Authority involvement. R(SCC) v. C and Ors High Court case stated flowing from a LA noise abatement prosecution – successfully defeated an application for wasted costs against the Local Authority running to approx. £80,000 Food and Hygiene R v FF Ltd (2021) Instructed for the Defence – Multiple alleged breaches of EU Directive including HACCP failures and allergen issues R v EH Ltd (2019) Instruction for the Defence to provide advice and representation concerning Food Condemnation Proceedings, Novel Food Regulations and their applicability to SARM following the National Food Crime Units classification of such as a Novel Food for the purposes of enforcement. LBH v. K (2018) Persistent and escalating breach of environmental legislation pertaining to fast food and animal waste in central London. R v. X (2017) Instructed for the Defence in food hygiene case involving breaches of European and Domestic regulation. R(BDBC) v. FF and Ors Multi handed Food safety case involving multiple breaches of Regulatory provisions, hygiene improvement and prohibition orders. Animal Welfare R v HH (2021) Instructed for the Defence – Dangerous dogs case involving multiple dogs and injuries to the public HCC v R and R (2019/ 2020) Instructed for the Defence in relation to Animal Welfare and Pets Licencing– including dealing with and reducing a confiscation order originally sought by the Prosecution in the sum of £1.3 Million. DCC v G (2019) Instructed for the Prosecution on Dangerous Dogs matter, requiring detailed evidential analysis of multiple accounts, and a full consideration of the test of evidential sufficiency under the Code for Crown Prosecutors. HTS v G (2018) Instructed for prosecution dealing with sentencing and application for Animal Deprivation and Disqualification Orders under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 relating to two large farms with cross species orders consideration of conflicting veterinary evidence. Public and Regulatory Regulatory Crime Jonathan Underhill is regularly instructed to prosecute all types of Regulatory Crime by Trading Standards Departments, Local Authorities and Police Authorities. This detailed knowledge and expertise is invaluable in his robust defence of private individuals and companies; most notably where such cases fall outside of traditional criminal practice. Jonathan has extensive experience in confiscation proceedings pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and is a member of the CPS Specialist Proceeds of Crime advocate’s panel. As a result, he can provide a complete service to clients from pre-charging advice, through trial, to confiscation proceedings. Jonathan has expertise in cases involving: Food Safety Act 1990 (and associated regulations) Novel Food Enforcement Regime Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (and associated Regulations), Consumer Protection Act 1987 Trade Marks Act 1994 Offences under the Fraud Act 2006 Animal Welfare Act 2006 Local Authority Enforcement and Investigation Jonathans prosecution and enforcement practice has particular emphasis on all aspects of Local Authority prosecutions and enforcement and covers all areas of Local Authority work including: Right to Buy fraud Tenancy fraud and unjust enrichment orders Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) Planning enforcement Fly tipping Noise abatement Animal regulations Anti-social behaviour (including Criminal Behaviour Orders and Civil Injunctions) Licensing Jonathan is frequently instructed to conduct hearings for private clients and via Legal Expenses insurance in all areas subject to Local Authority Licensing including the licensing of: Hackney carriages Private hire vehicles Liquor licensing Entertainment licensing Closure Orders His experience extends from conducting review hearings before licensing sub-committees to appeals and trials before the Magistrates’ and Crown Courts. Notable Cases Trading Standards R v C Ltd (2020) Instructed for the Defence in Electrical Products (Safety) Regulation 2016 involving counterfeit apple products. R v B (2019) Instructed to prosecute “Rogue Plumber” under Fraud Act 2006 and CPUTR 2008. Case involved multiple victims over a long time. PCC v. K (2018) Long term parking fraud concerning fraudulent parking permits and mis-use of “blue badges”. HB v. MK (2018) Multiple outlet breach of smoking ban prosecution – legal argument as to proper application of statute. Operation ‘Foxchase’ Instructed as led Junior in a complex national secondary ticketing trading standards case. Operation ‘Hugo’ Trading Standards case involving importation of farmed puppies, featured on BBC programming. Operation ‘Wendelin’ Multi handed Trading standards prosecution of rouge traders involving 15 complainants. Trade Marks R v CL (2020/2021) Instructed for the Defence in International importation of tobacco in breach of trademark conspiracy case. Case is privately prosecuted by the Japanese Tobacco Corp. R v C (2019) Multi Defendant Trademarks Act offences – large sale importation on Isle of Wight. R v. M Trading standard prosecution involving Trademark offences against the Premier League, British Legion and Help for Heroes – including issues of international production and importation. R v. A Trading standards Prosecution involving several thousand pounds of counterfeit tobacco. Environmental, Housing and Planning R v H (2021) Instructed for the Defence to advise on breach of Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 R v HM (2021) Instructed for the Defence – Fly tipping and waste depositing involving hazardous materials, including asbestos R v C (2020) Instructed for the Defence in Fly Tipping case brough by the Local Authority – called upon to assist in drafting evidential representation which led to the case being dropped as no longer being evidentially sustainable, or in the public interest. LBH v E (2019) Instructed for the Prosecution – Persistent and serious breach of HMO involving a challenging litigant in personal and multi-day magistrates court trial. HB v. M and A (2019) Advertising and Planning enforcement Appeal against conviction and sentence – instructed for the Crown – complete rehearing required – appeal dismissed with full costs awarded to the Crown. HB v. A (2018/19) Multi-Property Planning Enforcement and Environmental Breach Prosecution, leading to PoCA application valued at circ. £300,000. HB v. T (2018) Multi Defendant Fly-Tipping Prosecution against both individuals and limited companies. HB v. A (2018) Multi Defendant, Multiple breaches of Improvement notices over significant periods of time effecting multiple tenants and requiring Local Authority involvement. R(SCC) v. C and Ors High Court case stated flowing from a LA noise abatement prosecution – successfully defeated an application for wasted costs against the Local Authority running to approx. £80,000 Food and Hygiene R v FF Ltd (2021) Instructed for the Defence – Multiple alleged breaches of EU Directive including HACCP failures and allergen issues R v EH Ltd (2019) Instruction for the Defence to provide advice and representation concerning Food Condemnation Proceedings, Novel Food Regulations and their applicability to SARM following the National Food Crime Units classification of such as a Novel Food for the purposes of enforcement. LBH v. K (2018) Persistent and escalating breach of environmental legislation pertaining to fast food and animal waste in central London. R v. X (2017) Instructed for the Defence in food hygiene case involving breaches of European and Domestic regulation. R(BDBC) v. FF and Ors Multi handed Food safety case involving multiple breaches of Regulatory provisions, hygiene improvement and prohibition orders. Animal Welfare R v HH (2021) Instructed for the Defence – Dangerous dogs case involving multiple dogs and injuries to the public HCC v R and R (2019/ 2020) Instructed for the Defence in relation to Animal Welfare and Pets Licencing– including dealing with and reducing a confiscation order originally sought by the Prosecution in the sum of £1.3 Million. DCC v G (2019) Instructed for the Prosecution on Dangerous Dogs matter, requiring detailed evidential analysis of multiple accounts, and a full consideration of the test of evidential sufficiency under the Code for Crown Prosecutors. HTS v G (2018) Instructed for prosecution dealing with sentencing and application for Animal Deprivation and Disqualification Orders under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 relating to two large farms with cross species orders consideration of conflicting veterinary evidence.
Judy Earle has a well established practice with over 20 years experience in family law catering for all aspects of public and private child law cases. Judy receives instructions from parents, extended family members, local authorities, guardians, prospective special guardians and the Official Solicitor. She prepares her cases with care, she is committed to providing a top quality service to solicitors and clients whether mediating, negotiating or handling contested matters. Judy is particularly proficient when dealing with vulnerable clients whether as a result of disability, their age, mental health difficulties, addiction or traumatic life experience. Judy’s approach means that she is sensitive and empathetic and able to advise on complex / challenging issues in a clear and considered manner. FAMILY Public Law Judy regularly represents and advises on matters involving: Sexual / physical / emotional abuse Expert medico / legal issues / NAI Serious mental health issues Entrenched drug and alcohol addiction Cognitive impairment / learning difficulties Chronic neglect Judy’s practice covers the full spectrum of Public Law applications including : Care orders / supervision orders Placement applications, including applications to revoke Placement Order Special guardianship orders Wardship ICO / EPO Secure accommodation order S.38(6) applications Disclosure applications Private Law Judy regularly represents and advises on matters involving: Intractable disputes concerning contact / living arrangements under child arrangements order Allegations of sexual / physical / emotional abuse Domestic violence Drug / alcohol addiction Psychological / psychiatric issues in connection with adults / children Expert evidence Appointment of Guardian Judy is instructed on all aspects of Private Law proceedings including: Child arrangements orders Enforcement applications Leave to remove from the jurisdiction Specific issue / prohibited steps orders Complex finding of fact hearings Recent cases: Re D - Instructed on behalf of M over a 3 year period involving two sets of public law proceedings. Variety of issues spanning addiction, domestic violence, mental health issues. Achieved reunification on both occasions and continued placement with M and family members Re T - Instructed on behalf of F. Complex mental health and addiction issues. F, M and paternal grandparents ruled out. LA plan for placement order / adoption. Achieved placement with paternal grandparents who were unrepresented, LA applications dismissed Re H - Instructed on behalf of maternal grandmother in circumstances where her daughter, the M, had been murdered. Multiple expert assessments. Achieved placement of all grandchildren into her care Re B - Instructed on behalf of F. Allegation of NAI on baby - F alleged perpetrator. Achieved successful reunification to care of the parents Re S - Instructed on behalf of M. Multiple allegations of sexual abuse, cultural issues. Alleged hostility to contact. Complex finding of fact hearing Re E - Instructed on behalf of F. Successfully defended allegations at finding of fact hearing achieving reunification of children to F’s care avoiding plan for placement order / adoption Re M - Instructed on behalf of LA. Lengthy and detailed history spanning a wide range of issues establishing significant harm. Allegations of misuse of S.20, alleged infringement of Article 8 Re B - Instructed on behalf of M. Multiple allegations of sexual abuse. Complex finding of fact hearing, findings made at first instance but decision reversed on appeal Re R - Instructed on behalf of M. Application to discharge care order. Detailed history, cultural issues, allegations of racial discrimination. Complicated risk and welfare analysis Re M - Instructed on behalf of F. Court of Appeal - Successfully appealed finding of fact in relation to rape Re L - Instructed on behalf of F. Allegation of sexual risk in connection with previous convictions. Expert assessments. Achieved reunification to care of the parents Re H - Instructed on behalf of teenage M. M lacking capacity, acting via OS. Complicated mental health issues Re M/C - Instructed on behalf of LA. Intricate family history. Allegations of sexual, physical, emotional abuse, addictions, mental health. Lack of capacity - OS instructed. Multiple fathers, findings sought in relation to 3 parties. Findings broadly achieved Re Y/H - Instructed on behalf of M. Allegations of sexual abuse against F, finding of fact hearing, findings made. Findings appealed, successfully defended appeal and achieved S.91(14) bar to further applications.
Katherine is an experienced education and employment law specialist who offers first class customer service, legal advice and advocacy. Her practice now encompasses: Employment Education. Katherine has undertaken a number of successful judicial and private mediations as an Accredited Mediation Advocate. Katherine was educated at Cambridge University, United Kingdom, and Harvard University, United States. She completed her postgraduate Diploma in Law at City University and her Bar Vocational Course at BPP School of Law, where she was graded ‘Outstanding’. She has been a tenant of 3PB Barristers since the completion of her pupillage there. Employment and Discrimination Katherine is an experienced employment law specialist who has acted for and advised claimant and respondent employers in the private, public and not-for-profit sectors. She offers particular expertise in relation to disability and other discrimination cases with a personal injury mental health aspect. By way of example, recent cases include: A claim of alleged disability discrimination, relating to depression and stress at work, providing detailed advice in relation to case preparation Representation of a claimant manager in a high value claim for unfair dismissal and victimisation Representation of a respondent manager defending a race discrimination claim brought by the deceased’s executors with a high value personal injury aspect Representation of a respondent School Governing Body in relation to an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee accused of lying about her qualifications Representation of a respondent nursery provider in relation to an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee accused of sexual abuse of a child An alleged constructive “whistle-blowing” dismissal where the employee complained of a dangerous workplace She has undertaken a number of successful judicial and private mediations as an Accredited Mediation Advocate. In her employment practice she has a particular interest in the education sector and has acted in employment cases concerning staff at nurseries, schools and universities Education Katherine is an experienced education law specialist with a particular interest in special educational needs. She is familiar with the issues that may arise in relation to mental capacity in education cases. She accepts instructions from local authorities, schools, parents, young people, students and universities, as well as employers/employees in the education sector, in relation to: Appeals and claims before the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) School admissions School exclusions Equality Act 2010 claims in the civil courts Judicial review Employment tribunal proceedings (see also Katherine’s Employment law profile). Recent cases: Katherine has acted in many complex cases concerning special educational, health and social care for post-16 and post-19 year olds in Education and Health and Care plans, including under the National Trial. She has recently acted in appeals to the Upper Tribunal regarding the special educational provision for a physically disabled child with a fluctuating health condition, and regarding the interrelationship between the social care and special educational provision in an EHC plan for a young person over 19 years of age. Other recent cases have involved disputes around: Educational negligence Home education of a child for medical reasons Special educational provision for children outside of the normal school day The level of therapeutic provision reasonably required to meet a child’s special educational needs Sensory profiles as special educational provision Disability discrimination – school exclusions Disability discrimination – failure to make reasonable adjustments Disability discrimination claims against universities by students who were required to withdraw from their courses. Katherine also provides training in education law to a variety of different audiences, including local authorities, solicitors, university student advisors, lay panel members and educational experts. She is herself a parent of young children. Reported Case: RB v Calderdale MBC (SEN): [2018] UKUT 390 (AAC) Public and Regulatory Katherine is an expert in all aspects of education law, with a particular interest in special educational needs. She accepts instructions from local authorities, schools, parents, young people, students and universities, as well as employers/employees in the education sector. Her busy caseload also includes judicial review cases in the education sector.
Family barrister Kellie Salter completed her pupillage with 3PB in Bournemouth, having joined chambers in October 2022 from another set with offices on the South Coast of England. Kellie is now a member of the Family Law Group at 3PB with a busy practice focused on family law including care, private family and Court of Protection cases. Kellie has a passion for working with parents with learning disabilities and a particular interest in cases where there is diminished or no mental capacity for participants. She is frequently commended by clients for her strong negotiation skills and tactics. Kellie was nominated for the Western Circuit Advocacy prize and the Ede and Ravenscroft awards whilst completing the BPTC. She received a highest mark award for the Resolving Disputes Out of Court (REDOC) unit and takes pride in ensuring excellent client care. Whilst studying for her Bar qualifications, Kellie continued work full time as a Manager within Social Care services and has worked in various social work roles in Children’s and Adult’s social care for 20 years. She received a major scholarship award from the Middle Temple (Diplock scholarship) which is given to non-law degree students to assist with their Bar training. Following her studies, Kellie also completed a commercial mediation course and volunteered with the PSU in Bournemouth. Prior to becoming a pupil barrister, Kellie worked for Dorset Council leading a specialist team of social workers carrying out complex casework. She was manager of a social work team working with adults with learning disabilities based in Weymouth and Portland, conducting complex casework and chairing safeguarding meetings and Care and Treatment Reviews. These cases often involved sexual abuse allegations, child protection proceedings and required court attendance on behalf of the Council. Earlier she had spent 13 years with Bournemouth Borough Council in a variety of social work roles. Latterly she worked as a manager of health and social care professionals working with adults with learning disabilities. Her work included time spent leading a specialist Asperger's team, managing a drug and alcohol service and a Mental Health Social Inclusion team. Kellie was a social worker within both Children's and Adult's Services; starting as an Education Social Worker, she undertook child protection work and then specialised as a social worker with adults with learning disabilities. This involved working with younger adults with Education, Health and Care Plans moving into Adults Services and she was involved with SEND tribunals. Kellie trained in ABE investigation work and attended Mental Health Review Tribunals for those with a forensic history. Kellie carried out assessment and planning with children and their parents to address poor school attendance and attended court in prosecutions of parents for failing to improve school attendance. Outside work, Kellie can be found walking a small (but important!) dog, gardening and spending time with friends and family. Kellie is also a non-executive director of a Housing Trust in Dorset that specialises in providing accommodation for people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. Family Kellie Salter has a busy private and public children practice and regularly acts for both applicants and respondents, including rule 16.4 Guardians and Grandparents. She has experience of working with cases involving: Domestic Abuse Parents with mental health difficulties including personality disorder and offending history Parents with learning disabilities Substance misuse Relocation Special Guardianship Parental disputes involving children with special educational needs Kellie will also undertake Court of Protection work and is familiar with such work from her background in Social Work and welcomes instructions in that regard.
Komal Patel is a barrister with a busy practice in family disputes (private and public law children), with a particular focus on matrimonial finance. She joined 3PB, having earlier established a successful practice on the South-East Circuit, in November 2022. Komal accepts instructions in all areas of family law including financial remedies, divorces and domestic abuse as well as care proceedings and private law applications involving children encompassing complex facts and serious allegations of domestic abuse. In addition, Komal has a particular interest in cases involving mental health needs and cultural conflict. Komal prides herself for her warm and reassuring manner that immediately puts her clients at ease. She is known to take a sensitive yet robust approach, whilst being as humble and child-focussed with clients. Both her lay and professional clients praise her communication both before and after the hearings and her willingness to discuss the strategic progression for the case. Before coming to the Bar, Komal was an advocate in a national firm of solicitors, working in mental health law. She regularly appeared in the first-tier tribunal on behalf of patients detained under a variety of provisions, and the focus of her practice was on complex cases concerning patients in forensic services. In addition to English as Komal’s first language, she fluently speaks Gujarati and is able to speak Hindi and Punjabi at a conversational level. Outside of work, Komal is mother of two young children, both under 5 years old and recently raised money for the KidsAid in a charity abseil of the 418ft National Lift Tower in Northampton. She appeared on the televised MasterChef competition in 2016, and remains a keen cook. Family law Komal Patel is an expert family law barrister in financial remedy proceedings and public and private law cases involving children. Financial Remedies Komal advises and represents parties at all stages of financial remedy disputes, including enforcement of final orders. Komal also accepts instructions in financial remedies proceedings, having represented applicants and respondents in FDA and FDR hearings, final hearings, applications and enforcement hearings. She has experience in successfully running dissipation of assets, conduct, non-disclosure cases with experience with representing clients with assets secured in foreign countries. Komal also has experience in advising and representing parties in all stages of TOLATA matters, including Early Neutral Evaluation Hearings. Children (Public Law) Komal represents all parties at all stages of care proceedings including parents, grandparents, and Guardians. She regularly acts for local authorities and recently represented a Local Authority in an 8-day contested final hearing involving multiple experts and interpreters. Children (Private Law) Komal is instructed on a wide range of private law children proceedings, representing both applicants and respondents. Komal regularly attends FHDRAs, DRAs, and multi-day fact-finding hearings and final hearings as well as hearings in enforcement proceedings. She has a particular focus on cases involving cultural conflict. Komal also has experience in cases involving domestic violence and injunctions having represented parties at all stages of applications for protective injunctions, including emergency applications.
Lucy Hendry KC is a highly experienced and extremely capable child law specialist. Lucy is renowned for being a strategic and robust advocate with incisive judgment and a clear passion for her work. She appears in all level of courts and is well respected by the judiciary, her opponents and her clients (both lay and professional). Lucy has a particular expertise in understanding and examining complex medical and ethical issues. She is masterful at undertaking cross examination of eminent experts and she does so in a manner and language that her clients understand. Lucy is client focussed and, as a consequence, she delivers exemplary client care. She makes it a priority to understand accurately the dynamics behind each case. In so doing she gains the trust of her clients and works tirelessly to advance their case. Family Public Law Lucy Hendry KC accepts instructions on behalf of parents, children, intervenors and wider family members. Lucy is known for her formidable cross examination, informed by her ability to analyse lay professional and expert evidence in the most complex and unwieldy of cases. She is rigorous in her research, especially with regard to evolving medical and scientific / genetic issues, which tend to be prevalent in her caseload. She has particular interest and expertise in the following: Allegations of child death and catastrophic brain injury Extremely serious physical injury, including poisoning, bites, burns and lesions Allegations of sexual abuse Fabricated and induced illness - in parents and their children Medical best interest decisions for subject children Human Trafficking Issues of cultural diversity and whether state intervention is justified Vulnerable witnesses: children, young people and parents with cognitive and sensory impairments Personality disorders, mental health and addiction issues affecting parenting capacity Private Law Lucy is renowned for dealing with sensitive and seemingly intractable cases. First and foremost, a highly effective advocate in the courtroom, Lucy is also renowned for taking a collaborative child focused approach to try to achieve agreed and enduring arrangements for children, thereby reducing the risk of (further) polarisation between parents and averting the need for a trial. She has a particular interest and expertise in the following: Allegations of 'alienation', often including applications for a transfer of residence Serious allegations of abuse of subject children: sexual, physical and emotional Allegations of rape by spouse or partner Domestic Abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour: the application of PD12J Complex cases requiring intervention by the local authority Separate representation of competent children Internal and/or international relocation Recently reported cases: Lancashire County Council -v- M (1) F (2) and C (3 By his Children’s Guardian) [2020] EWFC 43. Our client, who had significant mental health issues, faced allegations of causing cerebral injuries and fractures to his baby’s limbs and digits. A creative approach, endorsed by the court, safeguarded his right to a fair trial and ensured that he was able to participate fully throughout. C v D [2020] EWFC 83. Representing a father who was seeking contact with his son in circumstances where the court had found that he had raped and otherwise abused the mother. Oxfordshire County Council v a mother, a father and W, X, Y and Z (Children: welfare) [2020] EWFC 29. Representing the children, I differentiated between cultural issues (Arabic and Russian) and deficient parental care - particularly in respect of the youngest of 4 children who had unmet specialist health needs. PR v JS & TR (Appeal: Sexual Abuse, Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 791 (Fam). A successful appeal followed by a rehearing: [2019] EWFC 69. My client was exonerated in respect of allegations that he had sexually abused his 4 year old daughter. After expert intervention, contact between himself and his daughter resumed. Re T (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 650, [2018] 2 FLR 926. Acting pro bono on behalf of the mother, I was instrumental in the appeal being allowed. Describing the case as "unprecedented", the Court of Appeal held that the judge was wrong when she made care / placement orders after the local authority refused to act on her judgment that the child be brought up within the family and not placed for adoption Kent County Council v A, B, C and D (Children) [2017] EWFC B72. Weight to be attached to evidence after flawed ABE interviews. Notable cases: Re M and S (2022): Representing a teenager subject child who faces allegations of causing several fractures to a 6 month old baby. Re H (2021): I successfully demonstrated that accounts by the alleged victim and another sibling, of sexual abuse perpetrated over the course of several years, were wholly inconsistent and inherently unreliable. As a consequence, the court made no adverse findings against my 15 year old client. Re W (2021): My client, the father, and his wife were completely exonerated in respect of allegations that either or both had caused fractures to their 5 week old baby. Re L (2021): I represented a mother who faced allegations of human trafficking and of exposing her son to risky persons and to organised crime. Re H (2021): I represented a mother whose teenage son had been cleared of terrorism charges. At final hearing, I achieved findings of coercive and controlling behaviour against the father as well as successfully supporting the child’s allegations against his father - of physical and emotional harm. Re O (2021): My client, the father faced allegations of causing significant harm to his baby (near drowning and several fractures). Cross examination of the expert elicited evidence of a single fracture, caused accidentally when he rescued his baby. Successful reunification of baby and both parents. Re B (2020): I represented a young mother with significant learning difficulties and sensory impairment (deafness). Through cross examination I successfully demonstrated that the children's accounts of sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by the mother, her partner and other third parties over several years were inherently unreliable. As a consequence, the court refused to make findings of sexual abuse against my client and others. Re H (2020): Representing a father whose ex-wife, in the aftermath of an acrimonious divorce, was found by the court to have fabricated and exaggerated illness in their teenage daughter. The court further determined that as a consequence of the mother's conduct, the daughter had somatised her own clinical signs and presentation. Re L (2019): Representing a father whose youngest child had died as a consequence of 'overlaying'. Despite this and further injuries (fractures) that predated the child's death, the court ultimately approved a plan for reunification of the older two children with my client and the mother. Re T & T (2019): Representing a vulnerable teenage mother, I achieved findings that her partner, rather than she, had been responsible for causing 19 fractures to their 8-week old baby. Some other noteworthy cases: Re O: Representing a mother whose child, in the context of intractable and complex marital breakdown, had become mute and was refusing to attend school. Re W: Representing a mother who tried to drown her 5 year old son whilst suffering with a serious psychotic / mental illness. The central issue at final hearing was whether it was in the child's best interest for him to be rehabilitated to his mother’s care. Re C: Representing a 14 year old child, who required detention, assessment and treatment under the Mental Health Act in a secure psychiatric unit. Re S&G: Representing the parents of three children whose adoptive placements had broken down. Re K: Seeking and obtaining leave from the Court of Appeal for a mother to defend adoption proceedings in respect of her two children. Re S: Representing the guardian. The subject child was made a ward of court so that a best interests medical plan could be achieved in the face of persistent obstruction by both parents. Re L: Representing the children whose mother had been murdered by their father. Achieving placement of both children with their grandmother.
Lucy Clayton (pronouns: she / her / hers) is a specialist family lawyer with an emphasis on private family law matters and cases involving financial provision following separation, dissolution or divorce. Lucy has particular expertise in disputes involving domestic violence, sexual abuse, mental health issues, internal relocation and implacable hostility. She has a keen interest in cases involving parental alienation, abduction, LGBTQIA+ parenting and surrogacy and the misuse of social/digital media. Lucy is a forensic and pragmatic advocate whose sensitive and personable approach make her popular with professional and lay clients alike. In recent years, Lucy has cultivated her interest in academia through her role as a Senior Lecturer, teaching postgraduate professional ethics and advocacy at Bristol Law School. She regularly uses her witness handling skills to deliver advocacy training to solicitors and trainee advocates, having done so nationally and internationally, in concert with the University of Gibraltar. Lucy is an accredited Civil / Commercial mediator and was awarded a Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship Grant to research international minimal acrimony litigation tools and dispute resolution programs in private family law child cases. Prior to embarking upon pupillage, Lucy undertook a six-month internship in the Hague working with defence counsel on the Lukić appeal at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In her spare time, Lucy enjoys paddleboarding, open water swimming, watching rugby and chasing her two young sons around the garden. Family Private Law Children - All s8 Children Act matters including: Child Arrangement Orders Fact-finding hearings Applications for a Prohibited Steps Order Applications for a Specific Issue Order Enforcement Applications Guardians Expert evidence Local Authority involvement The Local Authority acting as an intervener Allegations of domestic violence Allegations of child abuse Cases involving a foreign element (i.e., removal from the jurisdiction). Non-Molestation and Occupation Orders under Family Law Act 1996 Reported case Re D + Ors (Children) 2017 EWFC B87
Following her qualification in 2020, Mariya Peykova has built a successful practice with a particular focus, and interest, in commercial, public and information law. Mariya regularly appears for and advises businesses and individuals on all types of contractual matters from shareholder disputes to specific performance and general breach of contact. She is also qualified to practise law in the state of New York, and is developing her international experience to compliment her commercial practice. Mariya has been instructed through the Attorney General’s "Junior Junior" Scheme on the Post Office Horizon Inquiry, the Undercover Policing Inquiry for the Home Office, and the Covid-19 inquiry for DCMS. Mariya regularly undertakes pro bono work through Advocate, which includes advising on discrimination claims brought in the County Courts, as well as data protection claims. Background Prior to joining chambers, Mariya was Judicial Assistant to the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Leggatt (as he then was) and Lady Justice King DBE at the Court of Appeal. She was also Judicial Assistant to the Hon. Mr Justice Stewart, assisting on the Kenya Emergency Group Litigation, a long-standing trial involving allegations of abuse against the UK government during the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya. Before applying for pupillage Mariya was a Research Fellow at Queen Mary University, where she worked with Professor Rafael Leal-Arcas on his WiseGrid project funded by the EU Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme, and has contributed to a number of academic publications (2014 – 2019). Mariya previously worked as a legal consultant at the International Bar Association, where she undertook work in the field of international law, with a specific focus on international criminal and human rights law. In 2014 Mariya was awarded a scholarship by Gray’s Inn to undertake a placement with Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi, former President of the International Criminal Court, where she carried out legal research in the fields of international criminal and human rights law, and provided assistance to the judiciary by drafting the orders and judgments of the Chamber. She also previously worked as an intern at the Office of MEP Ivailo Kalfin, at the EU Parliament in Brussels. Academic Publications 'Electricity Decentralization in the European Union: Towards Zero Carbon and Energy Transition’, Rafael Leal-Arcas et al 2nd Edition, Elsevier, 2023 'The great energy transition in the European Union: Volume 2', Rafael Leal-Arcas et al, Eliva Press, 2020 'Towards a Carbon-Free, Decentralised, and Democratised System of Energy Generation', Rafael Leal-Arcas, Andrew Fillis, Mariya Peykova, Marius Greger, Connecticut Journal of International Law, Volume 35, 133. 'Towards a carbon-free, decentralised, and democratised system of energy generation' - Journal of International Law, Vol 35, Issue 1, 2020 (Forthcoming), Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No 319/2019 'Decarbonizing the Energy Sector' - Michigan State Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, 2019 (Forthcoming), Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 309/2019 'The ICC Reparations regime: The future of international criminal justice or an empty promise?', Gray’s Inn Student Law Journal, November 2015. 'Energy Transit: Intergovernmental Agreements on Oil and Gas Transit Pipelines', Rafael Leal-Arcas, Mariya Peykova, Tathagata Choudhury and Malakee Makhoul, Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 2015. 'Energy Transit Activities: Collection of Intergovernmental Agreements on oil and gas transit pipelines and commentary', Co-authored with Professor Rafael Leal-Arcas, Report prepared for the Energy Charter Secretariat Knowledge Centre, July 2014, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 177/2014 Pro Bono Mariya provides pro bono legal assistance through Advocate and has previously volunteered with Reprieve and the National Council of Civil Liberties (‘Liberty’). During her time at Reprieve, Mariya worked closely with the Director of the Death Penalty Team on a long-standing project aimed at ending the export of EU drugs used in the production of lethal injections in the United States. Mariya also assisted with a campaign to end the death penalty for drug-related offences in Vietnam, and undertook legal research on matters relating to the rights of EU individuals on death row in non-EU states. During her time at Liberty, Mariya assisted the legal team by drafting advice letters in relation to claims against the police and other public bodies. Languages Greek (native) Bulgarian (native) French (intermediate) Information Law Mariya has specific expertise working in the growing field of information law; she has particular experience in matters involving controversial data subject access requests and more recently, internet de-listing disputes and contested requests for erasure. Examples of recent cases: Advising on a potential challenge against the Information Commissioner’s decision to take no action against a large tech company which refused to honour the applicant’s request for erasure. Advising on an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner to allow late reliance by a public body on the exemption under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. Advising on a request for erasure of personal data belonging to a minor, in circumstances in which it was unclear whether the data controller continued to process the data for the reason it was originally collected. Advising on a request for erasure relating to information relating to a spent conviction published by a media outlet. Successfully defending the Ministry of Justice at trial, following the issue of proceedings against it for alleged breaches of the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Commercial Commercial litigation barrister Mariya Peykova appears for, and advises, businesses and individuals on all contractual matters from shareholder disputes to specific performance and general breach of contact. She has also advised on contractual disputes involving the interpretation of insurance policies and general terms and conditions arising in the travel industry during the Covid-19 pandemic and on business interruption insurance claims. Mariya also has experience advising on matters where there are assets which are likely to be dissipated, and using emergency freezing injunctions to protect clients’ interests. She has a particular interest in the relationship between business and human rights, and can advise on the protection of business and commercial interests through international human rights proceedings. Recent and Ongoing cases Phones 4U Limited v. EE Limited & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 116: Mariya was instructed by Mischon de Reya acting for Telefonica to assist in a junior capacity assisting in relation to proceedings brought by Phones 4U Limited (In administration) alleging conspiracy between EE, Vodafone, Telefonica and their parent companies (at the relevant time). Advised on a complex breach of contract, which involved a side discrimination claim, against a large UK energy provider. Represented a leading UK University in a breach of contract claim brought against the University by a former student. The claim was struck out following a contested application to strike out the statement of case. Obtained an order for summary judgment against multiple defendants for breaches of several key obligations arising under a loan agreement and related guarantee. Represented a former member of the Liberal Democrats at a contested hearing following an application for an interim injunction. The Applicant alleged, inter alia, that her expulsion from the Party constituted a breach of contract, as it breached several core principles enshrined in the Party’s constitution (Josephine Hayes v Mark Pack and Ors [2022] EWHC Civ). Obtained a second order for relief from sanctions in circumstances in which relief had already been granted in relation to the same failure by the Applicant to file evidence in accordance with the court’s directions. Secured a freezing injunction against the assets of an individual who was at the time outside the jurisdiction. Advising on alternative methods of service outside the jurisdiction, particularly in cases where the Defendant is based in a State that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. Represented the tenant and guarantor in a commercial lease dispute with the corporate landlord. The defendants argued that the lease had been surrendered on the grounds of repudiatory breach. DATA PROTECTION AND INFORMATION Mariya has specific expertise working in the growing field of information law; she has particular experience in matters involving controversial subject access requests and more recently internet de-listing disputes. Examples of recent cases: Advising on a challenge against the Information Commissioner’s decision not to advise a large tech company to remove sensitive and potentially misleading search results linked to the Applicant. Advising on an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner to allow late reliance by a public body on the exemption under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act Advising on a request for removal/deletion of personal data of a minor in circumstances in which it is unclear whether the organisation in question still needs the data for the original reason was collected. ENERGY LAW Mariya has a keen interest in Energy Law and the interplay between local (national) pressures and international law. Her academic background as Research Fellow at Queen Mary University, working on energy law projects, enables her to advise clients on contractual and human rights matters arising in this growing sector. At QMUL, Mariya worked mainly on the WiseGrid project sponsored by the European Commission. This focused on the legal implications of the gradual ‘smartening’ of the energy market across various EU Member States. Also, exploring the various ways in which individual states can modernise their existing energy supply infrastructures to make way for a more sustainable, smarter and ‘greener’ energy supply infrastructure. The project was led by Professor Rafael Leal-Arcas, and the team’s research in the field has been published in Europe and various academic journals in the United States. Public and Regulatory Public law barrister Mariya Peykova has extensive experience in advising and acting on matters which raise complex human rights issues. Her background in international law, and her work both for the Government Legal Department and prior to pupillage, gives her a unique background which is far beyond her qualification. Notable cases Advising a large international company on the merits of defending a claim alleging a breach of article 8 ECHR. The case involved questions regarding the company’s potential status as a ‘public authority’ under s.6 (3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Advised a claimant on the merits of a potential judicial review claim arising out of his detention under s.135 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Assisted with the investigations, research and drafting of the International Bar Association’s report on the fairness of the Libyan regime trials, during which 37 Qaddafi-era officials, including Saif al-Islam Qaddafi and Abdullah al-Senussi, were tried on charges of war crimes and other offences by a Libyan court in Tripoli. Relying on data collected by UNSMIL, Mariya worked with a team of lawyers led by Dr Mark Ellis to assess the fairness of the trials held in Tripoli.
Mark Elliott is a family law specialist with particular experience in matrimonial finance and private children disputes. Mark is able to accept instructions from members of the public under the Direct Access scheme. Before being called to the Bar, Mark served as an Army Officer and an Operations Officer with the United Nations. These roles provided valuable experience in negotiating and mediating in high-profile, high-pressure environments. Mark regularly advises and represents clients in financial cases under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 as well as trusts of land cases, pre-nuptial agreements and other co-habitation disputes. Recently Mark has acted on a number of high net-worth cases involving material non-disclosure and assets outside of the jurisdiction. Mark has considerable experience of private children cases including those involving difficult or demanding clients and/or litigants-in-person, complex fact-finding hearings, the appointment of guardians, leave to remove and risk of abduction (both within and outside of the jurisdiction). Mark is happy to discuss aspects of a case prior to instruction. Family Mark is a family law specialist with particular experience in matrimonial finance and private children disputes. Mark is able to accept instructions from members of the public under the Direct Access scheme. Before being called to the Bar, Mark served as an Army Officer and an Operations Officer with the United Nations. These roles provided valuable experience in negotiating and mediating in high-profile, high-pressure environments. Mark regularly advises and represents clients in financial cases under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 as well as trusts of land cases, pre-nuptial agreements and other co-habitation disputes. Recently Mark has acted on a number of high net-worth cases involving material non-disclosure and assets outside of the jurisdiction. Mark has considerable experience of private children cases including those involving difficult or demanding clients and/or litigants-in-person, complex fact-finding hearings, the appointment of guardians, leave to remove and risk of abduction (both within and outside of the jurisdiction). Mark is happy to discuss aspects of a case prior to instruction. Private Remote FDR Hearings Mark is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here. Recent Notable Cases A v B [2017] EWFC B9 – Application to enforce and/or set aside a consent order made in financial remedy proceedings as well as a parallel application under Children Act 1989, Schedule 1 on behalf of the Intervenor (current husband of the Respondent Wife). The key legal issue was whether FPR 2010 Rule 4.1(6) and Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, section 31F(6), and now FPR 2010 Rule 9.9A had changed the test to be applied by the courts when considering whether to set aside. The approach urged on behalf of the Applicant Husband was rejected at final hearing and a costs order made in favour of the Respondent Wife and Intervenor. N v C [2017] Unreported – TOLATA proceedings before Master Davison (sitting as a Circuit Judge) on behalf of the Respondent. Dispute regarding rental property portfolio of the parties with a total value of just under £1m accumulated over the course of a 16-year cohabiting relationship. The crux of the Claimant’s case was that he was entitled to 50% of the rental income received by the Respondent from her solely-owned property over the previous 16 years and that the Respondent had no beneficial interest in two of the rental properties. Following a 4-day final hearing the Claimant’s case re rental income was rejected and the Respondent was found to have a 32% and 37% beneficial interest in the disputed properties. Re B [2017] Unreported – Change of living arrangements. Acting on behalf of the guardian in private children proceedings heard over 5 days. Allegations of sexual abuse against the father had been dismissed after a fact-finding hearing and findings made that the mother had coached the child to make allegations and would remain implacably hostile to the father/ frustrate contact if child remained living with her. Transfer of living arrangements ordered. Child to live with the father and have supervised contact with the mother. S v S [2017] Unreported – Financial remedy proceedings on behalf of retired doctor serving an 18-year prison sentence for historic sexual offences against patients that pre-dated the 35-year marriage. Key issue was the effect the Husband’s conduct should have on the division of the assets and whether his future housing needs on release should be addressed immediately. At the final hearing the parties agreed a 1/3rd to 2/3rd division of the capital assets. T v T [2016] Unreported - Application to set aside a consent order made in financial remedy proceedings in 2000 on behalf of the Husband. Evidence that the Wife had failed to disclose a property and savings at the time the consent order was made. Husband now living in Canada and the Wife was in the process of making a REMO application for alleged arrears of maintenance. Re T [2015] EWCA Civ 453 – Appeal on behalf of grandparents. Resulted in general guidance from the Court of Appeal re grounds for granting a stay pending appeal. In handing down judgment, Lord Justice McFarlane stated inter alia: “Mr Elliott has conspicuously and very effectively stood up for the interests of the paternal grandparents in these proceedings.” G v G [2015] (unreported) - Financial remedy proceedings for applicant wife. Multiple business assets owned by Husband. Prior to proceedings being issued annual turnover had been £12m. The final hearing involved cross-examination of a jointly instructed forensic accountant and the accountant who acted on behalf of two of the companies run by Husband. The court found that the Husband had failed to provide full disclosure, repeatedly breached orders, dissipated assets and deliberately run down the companies. Bulk of available assets awarded to the Wife and suspended order for sale made against the Husband’s home to ensure compliance. Costs order made against the Husband. E v E [2015] (unreported) – Financial remedy proceedings for applicant wife. Husband self- employed and living abroad. Following a final hearing, findings made that Husband had misled the court, manipulated his finances and that his non-compliance with court orders and maintenance payments was “disgraceful”. Husband’s home transferred outright to Wife (with a right to occupy) as security against future breaches by Husband. S v B [2015] (unreported) - Private law proceedings on behalf of the Mother. Disclosures made by child that the Father had sexual abused him. Not supported by any physical evidence. Father alleged Mother was the cause of the disclosures. Local Authority involvement was very ineffective. Guardian instructed. Matter resolved by consent at a final hearing. Re T [2015] EWCA Civ 606 – Representing the 3rd and 4th Respondent Guardians (9 children). General guidance given re delay and the need for updating information before handing down a delayed judgment. Re T [2015] EWCA Civ 453 – Appeal on behalf of grandparents. Resulted in general guidance from the Court of Appeal re grounds for granting a stay pending appeal. In handing down judgment, Lord Justice McFarlane stated inter alia: “Mr Elliott has conspicuously and very effectively stood up for the interests of the paternal grandparents in these proceedings.” G v G [2015] (unreported) - Financial remedy proceedings for applicant wife. Multiple business assets owned by Husband. Prior to proceedings being issued annual turnover had been £12m. The final hearing involved cross-examination of a jointly instructed forensic accountant and the accountant who acted on behalf of two of the companies run by Husband. The court found that the Husband had failed to provide full disclosure, repeatedly breached orders, dissipated assets and deliberately run down the companies. Bulk of available assets awarded to the Wife and suspended order for sale made against the Husband’s home to ensure compliance. Costs order made against the Husband. E v E [2015] (unreported) – Financial remedy proceedings for applicant wife. Husband self- employed and living abroad. Following a final hearing, findings made that Husband had misled the court, manipulated his finances and that his non-compliance with court orders and maintenance payments was “disgraceful”. Husband’s home transferred outright to Wife (with a right to occupy) as security against future breaches by Husband. S v B [2015] (unreported) - Private law proceedings on behalf of the Mother. Disclosures made by child that the Father had sexual abused him. Not supported by any physical evidence. Father alleged Mother was the cause of the disclosures. Local Authority involvement was very ineffective. Guardian instructed. Matter resolved by consent at a final hearing. Re T [2015] EWCA Civ 606 – Representing the 3rd and 4th Respondent Guardians (9 children). General guidance given re delay and the need for updating information before handing down a delayed judgment.
Mark Lyne has been a specialist family law barrister for over 25 years and has developed a particular expertise in areas of law that relate to the challenges that affect families and family relationships. Separately and additionally Mark has, over the last 20 years or so, developed an expertise in the field of civil actions against the police and other regulatory authorities. He generally represents claimants and has conducted many successful claims against a number of police forces, local authorities and the prison service. Family Mark Lyne is a senior family law barrister with exceptional expertise in: matrimonial finance cases applications under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 family provision cases cases involving bankruptcy and matrimonial finance public and private law cases under the Children Act 1989 child support cases The fact that Mark offers expertise in areas beyond those relating simply to marital breakdown allows him to offer more comprehensive assistance in financial remedy and related financial disputes such as matrimonial finance cases, applications under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, family provision cases, cases involving bankruptcy and matrimonial finance. Mark also has many years of experience in both public law and private law children cases. He has plenty of recent experience of cases involving maintenance and child support, international relocation and also of disputes involving the children of same sex relationships. He has a reputation as someone whom clients find approachable and sensible. Every new case that Mark deals with is a reminder of the uniqueness of each and every family dispute. The width of Mark’s experience has gained him a reputation for being able to deal effectively with the cases in which he is instructed. Mark’s most notable cases have included arguing that the White v White principles should not automatically apply to second marriage cases, dealing with one of the very first Presumption of Death Act 2013, acting for a father preventing relocation of a child to South Africa, applying the new provisions on enforcement against properties under the Child Support legislation, along with a wide variety of medium to high value financial remdy cases. Mark also has specialist profiles on the 3PB website for family finance disputes, Private Law children cases, Care and Adoption disputes and TOLATA cases (Property). Finance Mark is a specialist financial remedies barrister. His practice focuses and on complex matters where there are often high value assets, both on and off shore. He is known to have a cool head and sensible approach in often complex legal, and emotionally charged, situations. His expertise includes advising and representing clients in financial remedies cases against spouses in marriage, children following parents’ divorce and those seeking a civil partnership dissolution. He also advises and acts for third parties, interveners, who may have an interest which they seek to protect in divorce proceedings. Whether that be parents, siblings, companies or organisations or trustees. He has specific expertise in advising on matters where there are international assets involved and where there are allegations of undue influence. Mark also has substantial experience of Schedule 1 matters, and applications for financial remedies for children by unmarried parents. As well as TOLATA disputes with cohabitant couples. Notable cases: K v K - Matter involving secret assets in Pakistan. Encompassing consideration of land encroachment impact in Karachi P v P – Substantial assets in India. Had to take in to consideration the effect of wife’s charitable donations in India. M v S – Advising on which jurisdiction to commence divorce proceedings, in UK or in Spain, where the law on pre-existing capital assets is different. Re RH – Centring around a separation agreement. Husband argued that mental health considerations diluted the quality of the agreement even where the agreement negotiated through solicitors. K v K - Wife’s application to set aside a final Consent order on the grounds of undue influence and misrepresentation; considerations of the impact of delay (Norman v Norman, Wv H, Birkett v James) C v C – Regarding a short marriage with children. Consideration of the meaning of adjusting without undue financial hardship (C v C [1997]), and analysing the Court expectations for returning to work. L v L - A Lithuanian divorce. Both domicile in UK, with assets in Lithuania and UK. Application for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Financial Proceedings Act 1984. Private Law Mark has considerable experience of family disputes over maintenance, shared care disputes, children with special educational needs (SEN), international and national relocation of children, contests over private adoption and disputes involving children of same sex relationships. Mark’s most notable cases have included arguing that the White v White principles should not automatically apply to second marriage cases, dealing with one of the very first Presumption of Death Act 2013, acting for a father preventing relocation of a child to South Africa, applying the new provisions on enforcement against properties under the Child Support legislation, along with a wide variety of medium to high value financial remedy cases. Notable cases include: Re R - private adoption case and application to remove the child permanently to Canada; evidence as to child’s sense of identity after some years of no contact with father Re K - internal relocation case; proposed move from one London Borough to another; consideration of ‘de minimis’ observations per Black LJ in Re C; consideration of Re F factors Re M - shared care application; consideration of a change of status quo for a child on the autistic spectrum; difficulties with the portability of an Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP) Care and Adoption Mark also has many years of experience in public law care and adoption disputes including cases involving teenage children, sexual abuse, physical violence against children, adoption and fostering, and parental and extended family rights over children. Notable cases include: Re W - accepted allegations of physical disciplining of teenage children; sibling sexual abuse; management of voluntary accommodation over 16. Re B - consideration of the purpose of PAMS testing; reliability and evidential value in care proceedings. Re H - in the context of Re B consideration of whether adoption/long term fostering of six children with different carers was better than placement with a family member of some of the children, where the family member was a capable parent but did not accept the allegations against the parents. FLA application; consideration of the balance of harm test in the context of the test in G v G where no physical violence was alleged Property Mark has a long-established track record in handling TOLATA cases including the noteworthy cases of : D v L - consideration of the effect of a Notice of Severance served after litigation contemplated on arguments of common intention and/or constructive trust. P v A – consideration of what amounts to an express declaration of trust; analysis of s53(1) LOPA 1925 and Goodman v Gallant. Public and Regulatory Mark has, over the last 20 years or so, developed an expertise in the field of civil actions against the police and other regulatory authorities. He generally represents claimants and has conducted many successful claims against a number of police forces, local authorities and the prison service. Notable cases include : SC v West Midlands Police - Successful claim arising out of unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Aggravated and exemplary damages awarded as a result of findings of deceit and false evidence v police officers D v West Mercia Police - Claim for wrongful arrest/false imprisonment arising out police decision to arrest a claimant involved in a civil boundary dispute. PACE ‘necessity’ test in arrest at issue. Agreed settlement. B v West Midlands Police - Claim for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. Issues arising out of extent of police immunity against negligence claims and exceptions to Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. G v Department of Work and Pensions - Claim arising out of allegations of racial discrimination against DWP as department responsible for JobCentre Plus. Successful arguments relating to the meaning of course of conduct under s118(6)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and limitation. H v West Midlands Police - False imprisonment and assault claim arising out of police use of powers of entry and search under PACE and other legislatiounder PACE and other legislation. Agreed settlement. C v Ministry of Justice - Claim against MoJ as department responsible for HM Prison Service. Claim for assault in prison. Issues relating to extent of vicarious liability for acts of prison staff. Agreed settlement. C v Herefordshire District Council - Claim against local authority arising out of decisions taken by social services. Arguments concerning the use of human rights claims to defeat the immunity of social services against negligence claims relating to children in the care system. G v West Midlands Police - Successful claim arising out of a sequence of arrest, detentions and prosecutions. Full range of remedies pursued. Consideration of meaning of “terminated in his favour” where the prosecution was stayed on the grounds of abuse of process. S v West Mercia Constabulary - Successful claim against the police arising out of wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault. This case culminated in an agreed award of damages significantly higher than the guidelines figure to reflect (a) the seriousness of the assault causing head injuries and (b) the aggravated nature of the claim in the light of attempted fabrication of evidence by a police officer. F v West Mercia Constabulary - Malicious prosecution/false imprisonment claim arising out of alleged breaches of a harassment notice. Compromise at trial following rulings relating to the alternative nature of malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office claims. P v West Mercia Constabulary - Successful claim against the police arising out of the wrongful and unlawful use of CS gas to restrain a suspect in close proximity to third parties. Consideration by the court of the current police procedures for the use of CS gas. P v West Mercia Constabulary - Successful claim against the police for malicious prosecution/false imprisonment arising out of an arrest on child cruelty charges where the arrest was intended to keep the claimant away from a hearing in the Family proceedings Court. D v Worcestershire County Council - Successful claim against a local authority for breach of data protection laws in relation to confidential Children Act information. R v MPC - False imprisonment claim arising out of stop and search provisions, with concomitant assault allegations.
Martin Kenny is family specialist, called to the Bar in 1997. Since joining the Bar, Martin has specialised in Family Law accepting instructions in all aspects of this area of law, including complex Financial Remedy and TOLATA cases. He is regularly instructed in challenging Children Act and Care Proceedings matters. He undertakes extensive work with Local Authorities nationwide on cases involving all aspects of care proceedings, fact-finding hearings and Adoption Act matters. Prior to his career at the Bar, Martin was a management consultant and a qualified accountant and worked with various companies specialising in marketing, business and employee relations and crisis business-rescue operations.; culminating in taking on the role of salaried Managing Director of a group of diverse businesses. His experience in commerce, business and the law assists him greatly in providing a first class service for his clients. As well as his family law practice, Martin also advises and represents parties in the Court of Protection, especially in those cases involving Children and the overlap with the Court of Protection. Family Martin is family specialist, called to the Bar in 1997. Martin practiced at 3 Temple Gardens in London before joining 3PB in 2013. Since joining the Bar, Martin has specialised in Family Law accepting instructions in all aspects of this area of law, including complex Financial Remedy and TOLATA cases. He is regularly instructed in challenging Children Act and Care Proceedings matters. He undertakes extensive work with Local Authorities nationwide on cases involving all aspects of care proceedings, fact-finding hearings and Adoption Act matters. Prior to his career at the Bar, Martin was a management consultant and a qualified accountant and worked with various companies specialising in marketing, business and employee relations and crisis business-rescue operations.; culminating in taking on the role of salaried Managing Director of a group of diverse businesses. His experience in commerce, business and the law assists him greatly in providing a first class service for his clients. As well as his family law practice, Martin also advises and represents parties in the Court of Protection, especially in those cases involving Children and the overlap with the Court of Protection. His experience covers advising and acting on; Denial of liberty hearings, Emergency applications (including those to transfer capacity and the potential deprivation of liberty and Section 21A), Mental health capacity and where full time care vs care in the home is an issue, Cases effecting the Infirm, Aged and Children, Where Medical Treatment and on-going Treatment is an issue, Appointments for lasting powers of Attorney, and those cases where capacity re: affairs necessitated by a move to supported living or into long-term residential care.
Matthew Curtis has been recognised as a Leading Junior in the Legal 500 for the last 5 years. He has been described as “calm and effective” and acknowledged as showing “meticulous attention to detail”. He has been given particular praise for his “excellent commercial and communication skills”. Matthew has a wealth of experience in Employment law. He regularly appears in the Employment Tribunal and EAT on behalf of both employers and employees in a range of employment issues and has dealt with a number of complex multi-day cases, including: Currently instructed on an EAT case re: time limits following the Unison decision removing tribunal fees and the correct approach to the reasonable practicability of lodging claims when the fee regime was in place A 5-day disability discrimination and unfair dismissal case, acting for the Appellant on appeal to the EAT A 10-day whistleblowing case for a respondent which involved technical issues of aviation law A TUPE case which was listed for a 10-day remedy hearing and involving 14 claimants and 8 respondents representing a local authority. Matthew is instructed by numerous large national retailers, transport companies, airline industry providers and a multitude of SME’s as well as several local authorities across the Western Circuit. Matthew is authorised to accept instructions direct from members of the public. He is able to undertake work for a fixed fee where appropriate. He provides pro-bono assistance to unrepresented appellants in the EAT through the ELAAS scheme. Employment and Discrimination Matthew has an extensive Employment Law practice regularly advising and representing both Claimants and Respondents. He has been recognised as an employment barrister, noted as a Leading Junior in the Legal 500 for each of the last 5 years, described as "a rising star who punches well above his weight", an accolade which is demonstrated with his work on numerous complex multi-day cases across London and the Western Circuit. Matthew has appeared in Employment Tribunals on behalf of both employer and employee in unfair dismissal, TUPE, redundancy, disability discrimination, age discrimination, race discrimination and whistle-blowing cases. Matthew is particularly adept at getting to grips with the details in technically complex cases, demonstrated by a number of cases he has undertaken for airports and flight schools requiring detailed understanding of Aviation law, and also for regulated professions such as care homes and schools requiring an understanding of the CQC/Ofsted requirements. His recommendation in the Legal 500 notes him for his thorough preparation and meticulous attention to detail (2017). Matthew is frequently asked to advise on all aspects of an employment law dispute, from drafting merits and pleadings to appropriate quantum and terms of settlement. He is instructed by large national corporations and solicitors from across the country as well as individual claimants who require a dedicated, competent and technically able Barrister. Recent Cases include Wray v Jewish Care UKEAT/0193/18 Acted for Respondent resisting the Claimant’s appeal. C had failed to present his claim in time due to the fees regime; he argued that the fees meant it was “not reasonably practicable” to present his claim and sought an extension of time. The ET rejected C’s arguments and struck out the claims due to lack of jurisdiction. The EAT upheld the ET decision. Matthew appeared for the Respondent at the ET and EAT. H v E Borough Council (2018) (EAT) Representing the Respondent/Appellant at the EAT following a 5-day ET claim involving allegations of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. M v E CAB (EAT) Representing the Appellant at a rule 3(10) hearing under the ELAAS scheme, which provides pro bono assistance to unrepresented appellants. B & 13 ors v A Local Authority & 7 ors (2018) Junior being led on a multi-party TUPE service provision change claim relating to domiciliary care contracts. Currently listed for a 10-day remedy hearing (2018). M v B Trust (2017) Successfully representing the Respondent in a disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claim involving a teacher who was dismissed from her role shortly after commencing long-term sick leave with anorexia nervosa.
Matthew Cannings primarily practices in the property and commercial fields and, since 2013, he has also been developing his judicial review practice. Matthew has considerable experience of advocacy, drafting and advising on cases in the High Court, County Court and various Tribunals. He also advises and acts in cases at adjudications and mediations. Matthew’s property practice encompasses property litigation and landlord and tenant disputes and includes matters of easements, covenants, boundary disputes (including trespass and nuisance) and adverse possession as well as commercial and residential landlord and tenant issues including forfeiture and lease renewals. In the commercial field, Matthew has experience of insolvency matters (both personal and commercial) and contractual disputes. Matthew’s public law practice consists primarily of defendant judicial review work, although Matthew is also willing to act on claimant instructions. Between 2012 to 2018, Matthew regularly represented the Home Secretary in immigration judicial review claims and he was also instructed by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As well as judicial review work, Matthew also acted for the Department for Work and Pensions and a local authority in claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Matthew also has experience of obtaining injunctions for a local authority in relation to trespass on land forming a park and ride site and also a school. Matthew is also developing a practice in the field of sports law, building on his experience of public law and regulatory matters. In his rare spare time, Matthew is a keen sports fan; cycling, playing cricket and golf and watching football, cricket and pretty much everything else. He also enjoys music and theatre. Property and Estates Matthew is the Head of 3PB’s Property and Estate’s Group and his property practice encompasses real property and landlord and tenant disputes and includes matters of easements, covenants, boundary disputes (including trespass and nuisance) and adverse possession as well as commercial and residential landlord and tenant issues including forfeiture and lease renewals. Along with substantial trial experience, Matthew has experience of interim remedy applications, including those required at very short notice. His real property work includes all aspects of land disputes, including neighbour disputes and claims involving the Party Wall etc Act 1996, and Matthew works hard with his clients to utilise alternative dispute resolution options including, in particular, formal mediations, and to avoid litigation progressing to determination at trial wherever possible. Given the nature of this work, Matthew is experienced in acting in matters against litigants in person. Matthew’s landlord and tenant work includes representing landlords and tenants in commercial disputes and, primarily, landlords in residential disputes. Matthew has experience of acting for breweries in pub-based commercial landlord and tenant matters and acting for banks and building societies in claims involving defaulting mortgagors. Matthew also has experience of acting for utility companies in relation to warrants of entry in residential, commercial and agricultural land under the Electricity Act 1989 and the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1989. Whilst Matthew regularly appears in the High Court and County Court, he has also experience of appearing before the various specialist tribunals, including First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber and its predecessors the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry and Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. He regularly provides seminars and lectures to solicitors and business clients on the various aspects of property law. Notable cases J v R (2019, First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property)) – Representing a long leaseholder in a claim against the freeholder for the appointment of a manager under s. 24A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and an order under s. 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield – Representing the landlord respondent in the first appeal of a claim relating to the same issues as those raised in Caridon Property Ltd v Shooltz (as to which, see directly below). Caridon Property Ltd v Shooltz [2018] WLUK 712 – Representing the landlord appellant in an appeal relating to service of a gas safety certificate and possession proceedings under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. W v E (2018, County Court) – Representing a landowner in a claim relating to the Party Wall etc Act 1996; the dispute related to whether the information given by the neighbouring landowner to the party wall surveyors was accurate and how this affected the award which was subsequently made by the surveyors. Edgeworth v Manley (2018, County Court) – Representing homeowners in a dispute with their neighbour relating to the relocation of a boundary fence on the day of completion of the purchase of their home. A v B (2018) - Acting for a utility company to enter agricultural land in order to maintain electrical lines and poles situated on the land where the landowner was refusing to grant such access and also failing to maintain trees on his land which were interfering with the lines. A Local Authority v A (2017, County Court) – Representing a local authority, acting on behalf of a school, seeking to obtain an injunction against a parent of a child at the school, preventing them from entering the school premises or harassing members of staff. A Local Authority v Persons Unknown (2016, 2017, High Court) – Representing a local authority to obtain an injunction against Persons Unknown preventing them from occupying a park and ride site and then subsequently seeking to obtain an order for permission to issue a writ of sequestration on the basis of non-compliance with the injunction. Williams v Johnson and others [2016] All ER (D) 17 (Jan) – Representing land owners in a six-day trial involving issues of boundary identification, interpretation of restrictive covenants and allegations of flooding, harassment and breach of covenant. S v W (2016, County Court) – Representing the Defendant vendors in a claim of alleged fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation in relation to completion of a Sellers’ Property Information Form prior to the sale of residential property. B v I (2015, County Court) – Representing the Defendant in proceedings for an anti-social behaviour injunction under the Housing Act 1996. J v S (2015, County Court) – Representing a tenant company which had entered in to a CVA in a claim for relief from forfeiture. B v M (2015, County Court) – Representing freehold land owners in a dispute involving the enforceability of an alleged licence granted by a predecessor in title to a leaseholder. B v P (2015, County Court) – Representing residential landlord in a residential possession claim that progressed to a fully-contested trial on the basis that the occupiers had acquired rights to remain in the property despite, it was alleged, never having been granted a tenancy. T v S (2014, County Court) – Representing a landlord in a residential possession claim that progressed to a fully-contested trial on the basis of alleged protection arising from the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 afforded to the tenant’s father. B v M (2013, County Court) – Representing a landlord in a commercial landlord and tenant dispute relating to the possible granting of a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The tenant had entered the property prior to final agreement of the tenancy. The matter primarily concerned whether the tenant was in possession of the property under a tenancy at will or a protected business tenancy. D v E (2011 - 2013, Adjudicator to HM Land Registry and Chancery Division) – Representing respondents in their objection to first registration of unregistered land on the basis of adverse possession. The matter involved an appeal in the Chancery Division on the basis of new evidence and a partial re-trial before the Adjudicator. K v M & F (2012, County Court) – Representing a landlord of social housing in a matter involving an anti-social behaviour injunction under the Housing Act 1996 and contempt of court proceedings for breaches of the injunction. Taafe v Acanthus Golf Ltd (2012, Chancery Division) – Representing a golf club in an interim injunction application in relation to a nuisance claim. The Claimants alleged that a nuisance was being caused by golfers at the Golf Club striking golf balls on to their land. B v C (2011, Chancery Division) - (Initially, ex parte) application for an interim injunction against neighbouring land owner given alleged failure to comply with the provisions of the Party Wall etc Act 1996. Commercial Matthew’s practice in commercial law is primarily based in insolvency and contractual disputes. Matthew is regularly instructed in bankruptcy and insolvency matters, acting for both creditors and debtors, advising and appearing in the High Court and County Court and he has experience of setting aside statutory demands and restraining advertisement of winding-up petitions. Matthew also acts for companies or individuals in contract-related disputes. Before coming to the Bar, Matthew obtained a distinction in his commercial-based masters degree at the University of Durham where he studied, amongst other things, company law, corporate governance, obligations and international intellectual property law. Recent cases A v B (2016) – Advising upon the exercise and enforcement of a lien in relation to an insolvent company S v P (2016, County Court) – Representing siblings and executors in a claim against another sibling for alleged wrongful acquisition of their late-mother’s money, involving allegations of civil fraud and undue influence. ENERGY GROUP Matthew is an experienced advocate, regularly appearing in fast track and multi-track claims in the High Court and County Court. Matthew is experienced in matters relating to debt recovery and contractual disputes and has been instructed by two of the ‘big six’ energy companies (both when the claimant in proceedings and when the defendant), as such he is familiar with the deemed contract provisions. As well as this, Matthew is often instructed in matters which involve litigants in person. He is also a member of 3PB’s Property and Estates group and is therefore well-placed to act in cases which also involve elements of property and/or chancery law, such as insolvency. BUSINESS ENTITIES Matthew’s practice in commercial and business law is primarily based in insolvency and contractual disputes. Matthew is an experienced commercial practitioner, typically accepting instructions in cases involving partnerships and disputes involving sole traders. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY Matthew’s practice in commercial and business law is primarily based in insolvency and contractual disputes. He is regularly instructed in bankruptcy and insolvency matters, acting for both creditors and debtors, advising and appearing in the High Court and County Court and he has experience of setting aside statutory demands and restraining advertisement of winding-up petitions. Matthew is also a member of 3PB’s Property & Chancery group and is therefore well-placed to act in cases which also involve elements of property and/or chancery law, such as insolvency matters relating to commercial landlords and tenants. Recent cases A v B (2016) – Advising upon the exercise and enforcement of a lien in relation to an insolvent company C Ltd v D Ltd (2015) – Advising upon and acting in a claim involving an application for relief from forfeiture by a company that had entered in to a CVA although that was not the reason for the forfeiture. TRADING AND BUSINESS FINANCING Matthew’s practice in commercial and business law is primarily based in insolvency and contractual disputes. Matthew is an experienced commercial practitioner, typically accepting instructions in matters including civil fraud. Recent cases S v P (2016, County Court) – Representing siblings and executors in a claim against another sibling for alleged wrongful acquisition of their late-mother’s money, involving allegations of civil fraud and undue influence. Sports Matthew is developing a practice in sports law. He is an experienced advocate appearing regularly in the High Court, County Court and Tribunals, including the Upper Tribunal. Matthew has particular skill and experience in addressing regulatory disputes and analysis of rules and regulations made by public bodies. He is also experienced in disputes in the sporting context, having: Acted for an English sports association in respect of a High Court claim issued against the association by a former coach. Acted for a golf club in relation to a nuisance claim brought by a neighboring landowner based upon straying golf balls (Taafe v Acanthus Golf Ltd) Advised a national association upon issues relating to the effect of disability discrimination law on golf clubs, including the different considerations relevant to proprietary clubs and private members’ clubs. Matthew is both a follower and participant in a range of sports enjoying cycling and playing golf and cricket and watching most sports including, in particular, cricket, cycling and horse racing.
Michael Norman is a civil practitioner and he works within the disciplines covered by the Property and Estates Group and the Commercial Group. Over a long career at the Bar he has had even broader experience but tends now to specialise in these two fields. His property and chancery work includes advice and advocacy relating to public rights of way. He has an extensive advisory and drafting practice, appears regularly in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in addition to the County Court. He is an experienced and accomplished representative at Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures, particularly mediation. In his experience many cases settle at the stage of mediation. Once involved in a case, Michael takes care to work with his instructing solicitors to keep the clients involved and informed at every stage. He believes in the central importance of preparation and the careful production of effective skeleton arguments and background documents. If a dispute reaches Court, he protects the client’s interest unflinchingly and resolutely but with courtesy. Michael is an Accredited Mediation Advocate. COMMERCIAL Michael's practice within the scope of this Group relates to commercial contract disputes, fraud, sale of goods and minority shareholders actions and to professional negligence litigation in the above fields. He covers partnership and trust work as a member of the Property and Estates Group. Notable cases include: Barnstaple Boat Company Limited v Jones [2008] 1 All ER 1124 (a Court of Appeal decision addressing fraud in connection with limitation) Street v Coombes [2005] EWHC 2290 (Ch) (a case involving fraud, conspiracy and insolvency issues). Michael brings to bear on his commercial work his extensive and wide experience in the work of the 3PB Property and Estates Group (qv) and of the Construction and Engineering Group (qv). PROPERTY AND ESTATES Michael increasingly specialises in the real property and chancery areas of work undertaken by 3PB members. Real Property He has extensive and wide experience in land registration, conveyancing disputes, easements and restricted covenants. He also deals with intractable boundary disputes from the south coast to the northern borders. Notable cases: Anglocontinental Educational Group (GB) Limited v A S N Capital Investments Limited in the Chancery Division, on appeal to the Court of Appeal ([2009] EWCA Civ 218) and on remission to the Chancery Division [2010] EWHC 2649 (CH)), a complex conveyancing dispute. Lymington Marina Limited v Macnamara, a case in which he succeeded on every one of a number of rounds of litigation in the County Court, the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal ([2007] EWCA Civ 151) and against opposition from the best silks in the land! A complex dispute involving the interpretation and administration of a commercial berthing licence. Chancery His work in this field covers trusts of land, the administration of trusts, contentious probate, Court of Protection work, family provision and partnership disputes. Much of this work is advisory. Notable cases: Mason v Coleman [2007] EWHC 3070, a case involving the administration of trusts with allegations of fraud IN RE THE ESTATE OF ERIC ARTHUR BOYES, DECEASED [2013] EWHC 4027 (Ch) (Proudman J) Day v Day [2013] EWCA Civ 280, [2014] Ch 114 Ely v Simmons [2012] EWCA Civ 1674 Anglo-Continentinal v ASN [2010] EWHC 2649 (Ch) Anglo-Continental v Capital Homes [2009] EWCA Civ 218. He advises and appears in professional negligence actions involving solicitors, surveyors and architects linked to the fields of property and chancery work. Michael brings to bear on his property and chancery work his extensive and wide experience in the work of the 3PB Commercial Group (qv) and of the Construction and Engineering Group (qv).
Nick Robinson is a specialist criminal defence barrister who represents both individuals and organisations charged with the most serious criminal and regulatory offences. Nick is known for being an exceptional strategist and for his fearless and tenacious advocacy in particular his powerful closing speeches. He has successfully defended cases by identifying failures in police investigations and prosecution disclosure. He has a strong track record of successfully representing clients charged with serious sexual offences. Nick has been recommended in Chambers and Partners between 2019 and 2023 and in The Legal 500 between 2011 and 2023. Nick offers a complete defence service. He is accredited by the Bar Standards Board to accept instructions directly from members of the public and to conduct litigation. As an accredited litigator, he has the unique ability to instruct counsel, expert witnesses and private investigators including ex-police officers. His extensive experience in litigation and advocacy enables him to formulate the legal strategies most likely to secure the best outcome for his clients. Nick has achieved considerable success in providing clients, who are being investigated by the police, with specialist pre-charge advice and representation. He has good relationships with expert criminal defence solicitors. Nick has a wealth of experience in appellate advocacy having appeared in dozens of appeals before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against both conviction and sentence. Nick has acted on a pro bono basis in several death penalty cases in appeals against convictions from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica to the Privy Council. Nick is a member of the Criminal Bar Association, Western Circuit and the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights. Crime Notable Cases: Privy Council R v Peter Stewart [2011] UKPC 11 Appeal against conviction for murder from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica to the Privy Council. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) R v Thompson [2016] All ER (D) 56 (Dec) On the 9 December 2016 Nick Robinson appeared before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), namely Elias LJ, Sweeney J and Judge Dean QC in an appeal against conviction and a renewed application for leave to appeal sentence, leave having been granted and refused respectively by the Single Judge Sir Stephen Silber. In 2015 at the age of 64 the Appellant was charged with committing four Indecent Assaults in 1972 when he was aged 21 years. The alleged victims were two sisters then aged 6 and 14 who came forward over 42 years after the event. Following the Appellant’s arrest in 2015 the Police examined the Appellant’s laptop and found 23 indecent images of children. At the trial for the Indecent Assaults the Crown applied to adduce this evidence to prove that the Appellant had a sexual interest in children in 1972. The Judge admitted the evidence despite the defendant’s objections on the basis the evidence was not capable of proving a propensity to commit indecent assaults in 1972 and to say otherwise would be to speculate; alternatively, if it did, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse and prejudicial effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not be admitted. The Appellant was found not guilty of the two Indecent Assaults alleged by the younger sister but guilty by a majority of 10 to 2 of the offences alleged by the elder sister. The Judge sentenced him to 12 months’ immediate imprisonment (6 months consecutive per offence). He appealed against the conviction and sentence. On appeal the defendant submitted that the trial Judge had erred in admitting the evidence because the possession of indecent images of children did not establish a propensity to commit offences of indecent assault some 40 years earlier. Alternatively, if the evidence had been admissible, it had had such an adverse and prejudicial effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the Judge should have excluded it under s 101(3) of the 2003 Act. The Court ruled that the issue for the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was whether the decision of the Judge to admit the evidence had been a rational one, not whether the Court itself would have allowed the evidence to go before the jury. Applying the authorities, the Court held: the Judge had been entitled to rule that the material had been capable of establishing a propensity; given the lapse in time, some Judges might not have adduced the evidence; however, the jury had been told to take that gap into consideration when coming to their conclusion; notwithstanding the gap in time, it had been open to the Judge to admit the material; the evidence had not been of such potential prejudice that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial; there had been no error by the trial Judge for adducing the evidence. Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. In respect of sentence Nick successfully persuaded the Full Court to grant leave to appeal, following refusal of the same by the Single Judge, and subsequently the Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the sentence of 12 months’ immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. The Appellant received two consecutive sentences of 6 months for two indecent assaults against the same complainant some 42 years earlier when aged 21. The Court held that the terms of 6 months' imprisonment each, on counts 1 and 2, should in the circumstances of the case, have been imposed concurrent to one another. Accordingly, the Appellant's total sentence was reduced to one of 6 months' imprisonment thereby effecting his immediate release from custody. R v H [2014] EWCA Crim 168 Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against sentence. The Crown Court Judge had imposed a sentence of 4 years, reached a finding of "dangerousness" and passed an extended license period of 6 years. The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentence was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. The sentence was quashed and substituted with a term of 2 years and 8 months. As the sentence was less than 4 years the finding of dangerousness and the extended license were also quashed. R v Mark Lee H [2014] EWCA Crim 855 Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against conviction and sentence. The Appellant had been tried and convicted by a jury in respect of serious sexual offences. He appealed against his conviction on the basis of information that came to light after the trial, which indicated that the Prosecution had failed to disclose relevant evidence. The Prosecution's investigation resulted in an admission by them that there had been a material non-disclosure. The Court of Appeal held that whilst this caused them "considerable concern" the convictions were not unsafe. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 3 years and substituted it with a term of 2 years. R v Mansell [2014] Nick represented the Applicant in her appeal against conviction for murder at Winchester Crown Court: BBC News R v Melling [2014] EWCA Crim 742 Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against conviction for murder at Liverpool Crown Court having pleaded guilty to the murder of his son: BBC News R v Smyth [2013] EWCA Crim 385 Nick appeared on behalf of the Appellant who successfully appealed his sentence of 18 months. The hearing took place over two days and the Court (Lord Chief Justice, Mackay J and Sweeney J) unanimously allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence of imprisonment and substituted it with a 2-year community order with a mental health treatment requirement. R v Morris [2013] EWCA Crim 350 Nick represented the Applicant in his application for leave to appeal against his sentence of 16 months, which had been imposed by HHJ Harrow at Bournemouth Crown Court in November 2012. The sentence had been passed for 6 offences of breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order ("SOPO"). Nick argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive in terms of its length; that it should have been less than 12 months imprisonment. The second ground of appeal was that the sentence should have been suspended and a programme requirement attached, namely a Sex Offender's Treatment Programme. Whilst the Court rejected the second ground, they allowed the application for leave in respect of the first. Their Lordships held that the sentence of 16 months was manifestly excessive. This was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 10 months. R v Knight [2013] EWCA Crim 2486 Nick defended the Appellant in his appeal against a conviction for rape on the principle ground that the trial Judge erred in refusing to admit the evidence of the complainant’s previous false complaint of rape. The Court dismissed the appeal although it clarified the law in relation to the grounds for admitting such evidence, namely there must be a ‘proper evidential basis’ for concluding that there was a previous false complaint. Fulford J held (at para.50) that Nick’s submissions were “detailed and able”. R v Windle [2012] EWCA Crim 2379 Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against sentence. Mr Windle successfully appealed against a sentence passed upon him at Oxford Crown Court. The learned sentencing Judge had wrongly imposed a sentence pursuant to section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The Court of Appeal held that this was unlawful because section 116 was not in force at the time having been repealed in April 2005. Nick was instructed as fresh Counsel following the Crown Court proceedings on the basis of his experience of Appellate advocacy: R v Sherriff [2012] EWCA Crim 2381 Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against a sentence of 9 years for an offence of wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In the judgment (at paragraph 8) Lord Justice Aikens held: "Mr Robinson has presented the arguments very concisely, clearly and persuasively". R v McDonald [2012] EWCA Crim 1757 Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against sentence from the Crown Court at Bournemouth. He had been sentenced to 32 months for an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The appeal was successful and Moses, LJ; Field, J and Keith, J reduced the sentence to 18 months. R v Dillon [2011] EWCA Crim 1454 Nick represented the Appellant in an appeal against three convictions for sexual and indecent assaults on children. Owing to material misdirections in the Judge's summing up, Nick successfully argued that the convictions were unsafe and accordingly the convictions were quashed. R v Ahmed [2011] EWCA Crim 775 Successful appeal against sentence for a sexual offence. The Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of six months' imprisonment with a community order. R v Lewis [2011] EWCA Crim 1510 The Court reduced a sentence of 16 weeks to 10 weeks in respect of an offence of possessing a bladed article in a public place. R v Woodcock [2011] EWCA Crim 1347 The Appellant received a sentence of 7 years and 6 months for six offences of dwelling burglary and a single offence of aggravated vehicle taking. The Recorder’s starting point for the burglaries was 9 years. Blair J held (at para.11): “It is submitted by Mr Robinson, who has argued this case well for the applicant, that this is excessive”. The Court agreed and quashed the sentence and substituted it with one of 6 years and 4 months. R v Moss [2010] EWCA Crim 2896 and [2011] EWCA Crim 252; [2011] Crim.L.R. 560, C.A. Appeal against conviction revolving around (i) the admissibility of recognition evidence of police officers, (ii) Turnbull, (iii) Code D of PACE 1984, (iv) the jury being invited to look at a still image (from CCTV footage) of a person that is alleged to be the accused, and (without the benefit of any body mapping evidence) contrasting this with the defendant in the dock. R v Jacobs [2010] EWCA Crim 3074 A contested confiscation hearing where the Crown sought to confiscate over £200,000 resulted in an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The Court acknowledged (at para.15) the “draconian” nature of the POCA regime. R v Kluver [2010] EWCA Crim 3237 Successful appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal reduced a compensation order of £23,000 to £2,880. Moses LJ held (at para.4): "There is ample authority for the proposition that counsel for the defence has so skilfully identified both in his written grounds and in his oral submissions and we are indebted to Mr Robinson for them". For reporting of the original case: Daily Echo R v Bennett [2010] EWCA Crim 1032 A sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment for an offence of making a threat to kill was reduced to 15 months on the basis that the Crown Court Judge afforded insufficient weight to the cogent mitigation in the case (good character, young family, provocation caused by partner’s infidelity, full admissions, guilty plea and ill-health). Davis J held (at para.10): “Mr Robinson, on behalf of the Appellant, has put the case very well”. High Court R v Fitch Successful appeal against a conviction for failing to provide information, contrary to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, on the basis that the requirement “to give” information does not include an obligation to ensure its safe receipt (this was an appeal by way of “case stated” to the High Court). Crown Court R v LD LD was alleged to have committed a sexual assault upon a lone female walking home from work along an underpass. The agreed evidence was that he came from behind and placed his hand inside her bra onto her right breast. The defendant’s case was that he had attempted to rob her of her handbag, which she had been cradling in her right arm, and when he went for the bag he inadvertently touched her breast in what was a non-sexual assault. This inadvertence and inability to execute the robbery came about through intoxication and an inability to see and judge the size of her breasts from behind. The defendant was found not guilty of sexual assault when the jury were discharged having been unable to reach a verdict and the Crown decided, in light of the evidence at trial in particular the cross-examination of the complainant, to accept a plea to attempt robbery. The defendant, who also fell to be sentenced for two thefts committed either side of the robbery, received a deferred sentence. R v JJ Nick defended JJ who was cleared of attacking a six-year-old girl whose bedroom he was found in after a night out drinking. JJ was accused of sexually assaulting the child after entering the house in Weymouth, Dorset, in the early hours of 18 October 2016. JJ had denied sexual assault of a child under the age of 13 and a second count of trespassing with intent to commit a sexual offence. He was cleared at Bournemouth Crown Court following a three-day trial. The prosecution told jurors the girl had been asleep in her bed when JJ entered the room and removed her "onesie" pyjamas. Jurors were told the girl later went into her parents' room and told them there was a man in her bedroom who had touched her. Prosecutors said her stepfather found JJ asleep in the child's bunk bed, naked from the waist down. JJ, of no fixed address, told the court he had no recollection of how he ended up in the house. He said he had a female friend who lived nearby and must have entered the wrong house by mistake after a night out drinking. Jurors, who returned a not guilty verdict, heard that none of his DNA was found on the girl's body and he had not previously committed any sexual offences. The case was reported in BBC News Bulletin (video), in BBC News and in The Sun. R v KC Led by Nigel Lickley QC Nick defended KC who was unanimously acquitted at Winchester Crown Court of attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. KC was alleged to have knocked on the door of the complainant’s home and then fired a revolver twice at point blank range in an attempt to assassinate him: Bournemouth Echo. The issue in the case was mistaken identification. The complainant had instantly telephoned police and named the defendant who was known to him. The evidence included gunshot residue evidence, bad character evidence relating to the defendant’s purported involvement in an organized criminal network, cell site and ANPR evidence and over 100 hours of CCTV footage. A novel point of law arose relating to the admissibility of the hearsay evidence of three eyewitnesses who refused to attend court and whose comments to police at the scene in the aftermath of the shooting suggested that someone other than the defendant was the assassin: Daily Echo. R v KI Nick defended Mr Islam at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court in a trial on an indictment containing nine counts of alleged sexual assault made by three females who worked for the defendant at his restaurant. After a weeklong trial and just three minutes in retirement the jury returned an unanimous not guilty verdict on all counts. Further, the defendant managed to recover the majority of his privately funded legal fees after Nick made a successful application to the National Taxing Team for costs on the grounds this was an exceptional case. R v AM Nick defended Mr McBride who pleaded guilty to and fell to be sentenced for an offence of causing death by careless driving whilst unfit through drink. The defendant was sentenced to 4 years and 4 months imprisonment: BBC News R v JD Mr Robinson represented as junior alone the defendant who was charged on an indictment containing an offence of Attempted Murder. Mr Darby suffered a psychotic episode and stabbed the victim multiple times to the skull, head and face. The issue was whether the defendant’s mental ill health was genuine, if so to what extent, and whether the victim triggered violence by sexually assaulted. The defendant was found not guilty of attempted murder owing to psychiatric evidence obtained on his behalf the Crown accepted a plea to an offence of GBH with intent contrary to section 18: Daily Express R v SB Nick defended Mr Bailey at his trial for an offence of inflicting GBH with intent contrary to section 18 OPA 1861. The complainant refused to leave the defendant’s home and threw the first punch. The defendant responded by using physical force and caused serious injuries in removing him from his home. The defendant successfully argued self-defence following a one-week trial. R v SB Successful defence at trial of a young defendant charged with a sexual activity with a child. The case involved a child complainant, child witnesses and a defendant who had the benefit of an Registered Intermediary throughout the trial. The defendant did not give evidence. R v PB Conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Two defendants. Cutthroat defences. Defendant did not give evidence. Unanimous not guilty verdict. Co-defendant convicted. R v NP Led by Nigel Lickley QC Mr Robinson represented Mr Price at his trial lasting 3-weeks in respect of an indictment counts of murder and attempted murder. The defendant argued that he lost his self-control and acted in self-defence as a result of the complainants attempted rape and assault of his partner whose home the complainants were using as a base from which to sell drugs. Case involved gangland violence, firearms, Class A drugs, “cuckooing", bad character of defendant and non-defendants: BBC News and BBC News R v HS Nick defended the principal defendant in a four handed section 18 trial that lasted a week. The jury unanimously acquitted all defendants. R v JB Successful defence of a defendant charged with causing a danger to road users by interfering with a road vehicle contrary to section 23 RTA 1988. The defendant was alleged to caused the motor vehicle he was a rear passenger to crash. The three witnesses in the car including the driver all said he grabbed and yanked the steering wheel when the vehicle was travelling at about 70mph thus causing the vehicle to flip multiple times thereby occasioning serious injuries to those involved. The defendant denied doing so. The jury unanimously acquitted the defendant. R v CBC Nick represented the defendant in a two-handed weeklong section 18 trial. After a submission of no case to answer the defendant was acquitted by the jury upon the direction of the trial Judge. The issue was whether on the Crown’s own evidence taken at its highest the defendant was part of a joint enterprise wherein the co-accused stabbed the victim in the back. R v JG Nick defended Miss Gaffikin in a four-week trial involving three defendants al charged with conspiracy to inflict GBH with intent. Nick’s client was the principal defendant charged with masterminding and orchestrating a planned attack by a hit man hired from London who proceeded to assault the victim in the case thereby fracturing his spine following sustained attack that included stamping on the victim’s neck. The trial involved a frightened witness giving evidence over the live-link from Los Angeles California. The circumstances of the case included a background of organised crime (drug dealing), police informants and expert evidence: Daily Echo R v ZA Nick successfully defended Mr Akhtar in his appeal against a conviction for two offences, namely assault by beating and resisting arrest. The defendant was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court then appealed to the Crown Court and successfully advanced, with medical (psychiatric) evidence, the defence of non-insane automatism. Specifically, the case for the defence was that the defendant lacked capacity to understand his actions, which were without voluntary control as a result of the combination of his clinical depression, prescribed medication, and the alcohol he had consumed. He was unable to form mens rea due to suffering from involuntary intoxication and was suffering from a non-insane automatism brought about by the combination of his depressive illness, trauma and the effect of prescribed medication. R v AP Nick represented a defendant in a high-profile multi-million pound fraud at Winchester Crown Court that involved 5 defendants, 41 counts and over 20,000 pages. The issues in the case included the effect of police misconduct upon the fairness of the investigation and the integrity of the evidence in the case. The defendant was found not guilty: Daily Echo R v NR Nick represented NR who was tried for the murder of his father at Winchester Crown Court. The Crown’s case was that the victim was murdered for his money. The Defence case was that the defendant was mentally unwell as a result of childhood trauma and he denied murder on the grounds of diminished responsibility and loss of control. Accordingly there was a significant amount of competing psychiatric evidence and a long and complex history of mental ill health. The novel issue in the case involved whether the jury were entitled, in the absence of direct evidence, to infer a loss of self-control. Nick was led by Michael Vere-Hodge QC: BBC News R v JW Nick represented the defendant who faced an indictment containing two counts of indecent and sexual assault. The allegations were historic and related to the defendant’s granddaughter. The defendant denied the offences and contended that they were the product of malice and/or fantasy. The evidence in the case involved extensive unused material including third party material from social services and the complainant’s school. The defendant was acquitted of both counts. R v TS The defendant killed one of her two children and severely injured the second following an attempt to commit suicide by fire. This was a highly sensitive and high profile case involving complex psychiatric evidence and periods of assessment under section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Crown accepted pleas to manslaughter and arson instead of murder and attempted murder owing to compelling expert evidence that supported the defence of diminished responsibility. The sentence hearing was not straightforward as it involved the victim impact evidence of the children’s father in open court. Moreover, Dingemans J had to resolve the discrete issue of whether to pass a sentence of imprisonment or a hospital order. He passed the latter and careful submissions were advanced in support of an order without restrictions, which was the ultimate sentence of the Court: BBC News R v LM Nick represented the defendant who was charged with Exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Two 16-year-old girls alleged that the defendant exposed his penis in the communal showers at a family leisure centre. The defence was that the complainants were mistaken. The defendant was acquitted after a trial at Bournemouth Crown Court. R v RH Nick defended an 83 year-old defendant at his trial in respect of an indictment alleging historic familial sex offences. The defendant was found not guilty of three of the four counts. R v KS Border Force Officers at Heathrow Airport intercepted a package sent from Istanbul that was destined for the defendant at his business premises in the UK. The package contained seemingly innocuous items including a chessboard. However, this was hollowed out and secreted in a hidden compartment was 2kg of pure Opium. The defendant was charged with importation of a prohibited item, namely a controlled drug. The issue in the case was whether the defendant was responsible for the package and its contents. The case was investigated by the National Crime Agency and prosecuted by the Crown. Reliance was placed upon the fact that a similar chessboard was discovered at the defendant’s home and postal and flight records proved that he had strong links to Istanbul and Turkey. The defendant was acquitted after a trial at Bournemouth Crown Court. R v SM The defendant was charged with handling stolen goods, namely the goods stolen in an elaborate fraud by insiders against a multi-national company. Her employer had interviewed her about the alleged offences. Following applications for disclosure it came to light that there was evidence that the investigator had coerced, pressured and intimidated the defendant, who was a young lady of good character, into confessing to the crimes alleged (and had done likewise to other staff). The defendant had been promised that there would be no police involvement should she admit the offences. The employer seemingly broke this promise and the Crown prosecuted her and others. The preliminary legal issue in the case, which was the subject of an application to stay proceedings as an abuse of process, was whether it was fair for the defendant to be prosecuted in such circumstances. Following the resolution of issues of fact, as the investigator denied making such promises, Nick’s argument was successful and resulted in the Crown offering no evidence against his client. R v CS Nick represented the defendant who faced a five-count indictment alleging serious sexual offences against a child, namely his stepdaughter, when she was aged 7 years. The case involved issues of disclosure and admissibility of third party material relating to the school, social services and medical records of the complainant. The defendant was acquitted after a weeklong trial at Bournemouth Crown Court. R v HK Nick represented the defendant who was found not guilty of sexual assaulting a young girl following a week long trial. R v SM Nick represented the defendant who faced an indictment alleging an offence of inflicting GBH with intent. Four doormen alleged that the defendant in an unprovoked attack kicked one of their number thereby fracturing the complainant’s leg and kneecap. The defendant averred that any injury was an accident and the consequence of their excessive force towards him. The case involved issues of bad character, CCTV and the analysis of medical evidence. The defendant was acquitted after a trial at Bournemouth Crown Court. R v TA Nick successfully defended TA who was charged with Possession with Intent to Supply a Class A drug. The defendant was tried by a jury at Dorchester Crown Court. He was searched as he entered a nightclub to celebrate New Year's Eve. A small bag containing 40 Ecstasy tablets was found tied to the drawstring of his trousers seemingly concealed between his legs. His defence at trial was that they were nothing to do with him and in a rush he had put on trousers belonging to someone else and he was unaware that the drugs were concealed within the clothing. R v RB Nick’s client was charged with inflicting GBH with intent following a stabbing at a shopping centre in Poole. The defendant pleaded guilty and following submissions and expert evidence was made the subject of a Hospital Order: Daily Echo R v IF Nick represented the defendant who was charged with exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The defendant had entered a family tennis club, took his clothes off and proceeded to masturbate. When interviewed under caution the defendant stated that his drink had been spiked and he did not, and could not, intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Nick persuaded the Court to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process because the police had failed to obtain a sample of blood or urine from the defendant whilst in police custody. The failure to do so deprived the defendant of a defence, namely automatism, which he raised in his police interview and which the interviewing police officers seemingly ignored. R v DL Nick represented the defendant in respect of an indictment alleging conspiracy to supply 10kg of heroin and transferring criminal property. Following legal argument the Crown accepted pleas to lesser offences and the defendant received a community order. R v GC Nick represented the defendant at his trial in respect of an allegation of inflicting GBH with intent. The defendant was alleged to have bitten the victim's nose off during an altercation. The defendant denied being responsible and averred that another male also involved in the incident was to blame. The case involved expert forensic Odontologists who contrasted the suspects' teeth with the bite mark inflicted upon the victim. After 9.5 hours in retirement the jury returned a unanimous not guilty verdict. R v KB Nick defended KB at his trial at Dorchester Crown Court. Charged with two others, KB was alleged to have been the leader of a gang in prison who perpetrated a revenge attack against a fellow inmate. The defendant denied being involved in the assault and was found not guilty by the jury (unanimous verdict). R v NN Nick represented the defendant at his trial where he was found not guilty (unanimous verdict) of possession with intent to supply a controlled substance of class A. The Crown alleged that the defendant threw away 71 wraps of heroin and cocaine when he was approached by two police officers for a stop and search. The defendant denied this and said that the drugs were nothing to do with him and he had been “set up” by the police. R v LR Nick represented the defendant at his trial where he was found not guilty (unanimous verdict) of inflicting GBH with intent. The Crown alleged that the defendant ‘bottled’ the complainant before kicking the unconscious victim to the head seven times. The defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser offence and whilst he accepted using a bottle he contended that he used it in the heat of the moment to protect his friend. He accepted going over the top in defending his friend and he denied kicking the complainant or intending to cause him GBH. R v JH Nick represented the defendant at his trial in respect of a multi million pound mortgage fraud involving over 11 defendants. JH had been charged with 3 counts of mortgage fraud relating to properties he purchased between 2004 and 2006. JH was found not guilty of 2 of the 3 counts and received a suspended sentence for the charge that he was found guilty of: Daily Echo R v LW Nick represented the defendant at his sentence hearing at Bournemouth Crown Court before HHJ Wiggs. LW committed an armed robbery using a hand gun at a HSBC bank in Broadstone, Dorset after drug dealers he owed money threatened to kill his son if he didn't pay up: BBC News and Daily Echo R v LD Nick represented the defendant at his trial with respect to an allegation of wounding contrary to s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The jury found him not guilty (unanimous verdict) of the offence. It had been alleged that the defendant had stabbed the complainant with a kitchen knife during an altercation at his home address. The defendant argued that the injury was an accident that was caused whilst he was defending himself from the complainant who was at the time suffering from a psychotic episode. R v SH Nick represented the defendant at his trial in relation to an allegation of inflicting GBH with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and in the alternative, an allegation contrary to section 20 of the same Act. The jury returned unanimous verdicts of not guilty in respect of both counts. SH's defence was that he was acting in self-defence when he himself was assaulted during a homophobic attack in Boscombe, Bournemouth in December 2011. R v DF Nick represented the defendant at his trial in Dorchester Crown Court. DF was charged with having an offensive weapon, namely a knuckleduster; assault occasioning actual bodily harm and battery. The allegations arose after an altercation on Trinity Street in Weymouth. The jury found Mr Ford not guilty of all counts: Dorset Echo R v BH Nick's client was found not guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm (majority verdict) following a 3-day trial at Bournemouth Crown Court. It was alleged that he punched and broke the jaw of the complainant in an "off the ball" incident during a 5-aside football match in Dorset. The jury concluded that he had been acting in self-defence. R v KP Nick's client was found not guilty (unanimous verdict) of being the owner of a dog that was dangerously out of control in a public place. The allegation related to an incident that occurred at Whitecliff Park in Poole, Dorset in the summer of 2011 and the case was reported in the national press. The jury found that the dog was not "dangerously out of control" as is required by section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Daily Mail R v GD Nick represented a defendant charged with rape. The alleged offence was said to have occurred in the 1990s when the complainant and defendant worked as a waitress and DJ respectively at a well-known hotel in Hampshire. The jury returned an unanimous verdict of not guilty after a week long trial at Bournemouth Crown Court. R v RD Nick represented one of five defendants in a high profile case arising out of an armed robbery at a farm in Bloxworth, Dorset and an elderly victim. The first four defendants were charged with robbery and Nick’s client with handling stolen goods, namely 5 shotguns. After a 5-week trial before HHJ Harvey Clark QC and a jury at Bournemouth Crown Court, RD was unanimously acquitted: BBC News R v BP Nick mitigated on behalf of a defendant who pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual activity with a girl under 16 and arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sexual offence. He was found not guilty of a sexual grooming offence. R v LC Nick mitigated on behalf of a defendant convicted of being involved in a conspiracy to supply cocaine, worth £25 million wholesale and £125 million on the street: Daily Echo R v PH After a four-day trial at Southampton Crown Court, Nick's client, a National Express Coach driver, was found not guilty of two counts of dangerous and careless driving. PH had lost control of his coach in the New Forest in the late evening, drifting onto the hard shoulder, up an embankment and into foliage before crossing three lanes of the motorway and coming to a stop on the hard shoulder. The 49 passengers on a journey from London Victoria to Poole were said to have been “shocked” and “frantic”. This case involved extensive expert evidence of a Neurologist and a “Sleep Expert”. Nick successfully argued that his client had not fallen asleep as alleged, but had suffered from an episode of automatism/unexplained loss of consciousness and the jury unanimously agreed. His further argument, that the driver's decision to proceed on to Ringwood soon after the initial incident did not constitute either dangerous or careless driving, was also successful: Daily Echo and Daily Echo R v AT Led Junior in a six-handed conspiracy to import Cocaine. The case involved a sophisticated international drug-smuggling operation utilising car fuel tanks. Multi-jurisdictional disclosure issues arose and the case reportedly involved the first ever extradition of a co-defendant from Brazil: BBC News R v DC Nick’s client was found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, following a trial at Portsmouth Crown Court. The Judge held that there was no case to answer owing to unreliable and unsafe identification evidence. R v MH Nick defended an accomplished and renowned mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter, was found not guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm following a trial lasting one-week at Bournemouth Crown Court. Youth Court R v JF Successful defence of a youth charged with two offences, namely an offence of killing a deer contrary to the Deer Act 1991, and in the alternative cruelty to a deer contrary to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996: Daily Mail Magistrates’ Court (Road Traffic) R v MH Client was found not guilty of failing to provide a specimen of urine despite the absence of medical evidence; this followed legal argument as to what constitutes a “failure to provide”. R v AP Police arrested the defendant who was driving his Ferrari whilst under the influence of excess alcohol. The Court was persuaded to find “special reasons” not to disqualify the defendant on the basis that the defendant’s two friends laced his drinks without his knowledge or consent. The defendant was absolutely discharged. Asset and Tax Recovery Nick has represented clients in cases involving civil aspects of Asset Forfeiture and the Proceeds of Crime. He has undertaken Confiscation hearings under the CJA and POCA at the Crown Court where the alleged benefit has exceeded £1 million. Nick has appeared in and advised on cash detention and forfeiture hearings under POCA involving the proceeds of criminal conduct, for instance from the employment of illegal immigrants, the sale of illegal drugs and the importation of counterfeit goods. Nick has appeared in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in an appeal against a confiscation order: R v Jacobs [2010] EWCA Crim 3074.
Nicola Frost is a specialist family law barrister. Her practice encompasses finance and private law matters. She is committed to achieving the best results for her clients and uses her strong negotiation skills to facilitate settlement, wherever possible. Nicola’s clients appreciate her sensitive, amiable and pragmatic approach to issues, alongside her meticulous preparation and tenacity at court. Nicola is the author of "A Practical Guide to Pre-Nuptial and Post-Nuptial Agreements," published in November 2021. Nicola is married with two young children. She enjoys running, swimming and singing. She is the appointed safeguarding governor and Vice Chair of Governors at a primary school. Family Finance/Property Nicola is highly experienced in matters involving financial remedies upon divorce under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, cohabitation disputes under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) and applications involving provision for children under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. Nicola also has specialist expertise in the area of prenuptial agreements and advises upon and prepares both prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. Click here to listen to Nicola's latest podcast on "pre-nuptial agreements: are they worth it?", recorded with Get Legally Speaking. Nicola has particular experience of: Prenuptial agreements / postnuptial agreements Consent orders (enforceability, challenge, Barder events) Cohabitation agreements TOLATA claims Transfers of overseas property, ensuring the enforceability of orders Conduct, including dissipation of assets Maintenance pending suit / spousal maintenance Farming cases Third party interests Insolvency, including transaction avoidance, non disclosure, uncovering concealed assets Schedule 1 to the Children Act Enforcement applications Cohabitation and conversion / delivery up Annulment proceedings Business assets Pensions (including Forces pensions) Disabled adult ‘child’ dependants Freezing injunctions Private Remote FDR Hearings Nicola is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here. Private Law Nicola has an extensive private law practice and covers the spectrum of child law matters. She is particularly experienced in relationship breakdowns involving intractable contact disputes. Nicola has a special interest in surrogacy cases and has acted and advised in this niche area of private law. Nicola has acted in cases involving allegations of domestic and sexual abuse, psychiatric disorders and issues of alcoholism and drug misuse; she deals with complex medical evidence and has conducted lengthy fact finding hearings. In addition to general private law practice (child arrangements, specific issue and prohibited steps orders), Nicola has acted in the following types of private law cases: Surrogacy Private adoption Removal from the jurisdiction (including Hague Convention) Internal relocation cases Declarations of parentage Non-molestation / occupation proceedings DNA cases Court of Protection Nicola is fully qualified to undertake Court of Protection cases and has been instructed on behalf of the Official Solicitor. Public Interest Immunity / Disclosure Nicola reviews and advises upon all aspects of PII, including compliance with the Disclosure Protocol, interaction with other agencies and balancing competing public interests. Nicola has experience of dealing with complex medical evidence and, in addition to social services’ records, is willing to review health departments’ records. Mediation Nicola is an Accredited Mediator – Civil & Commercial Mediation (Bristol ADR Group).
Oliver Thorne is an experienced Barrister who specialises in private law children matters, matrimonial finances and cohabitation disputes. Oliver regularly appears at all levels of the Family Court including before Magistrates, District Judges, Circuit Judges and High Court Judges. Oliver is known for his friendly and professional approach as well as his robust advocacy and detailed cross-examination. Oliver has been described by both Solicitors and lay clients as being able to identify and focus on the heart of the issue or issues in dispute. Outside of work Oliver enjoys spending time with his young children and when time permits he enjoys skiing and sailing. For many years Oliver was the chair of the board of trustees of a self-advocacy charity for people with learning difficulties. Oliver is characterised by clients as patient and understanding, he approaches cases with sensitivity. Family Financial Remedy Oliver has conducted a wide range of cases from medium to high net worth matters including the instruction of forensic accountants to value companies and family businesses and matters involving a party’s potential entitlement under discretionary/family trusts. Oliver has acted in enforcement cases and cases where non-disclosure has been alleged, as well as cases involving discrete and complex legal issues. Oliver frequently appears in multiday high value financial remedy hearings. Private Remote FDR Hearings Oliver is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here. Cohabitation and TOLATA Disputes Prior to specialising in family law, Oliver also undertook a considerable amount of civil litigation, he now puts these skills to use in respect of TOLATA matters. Oliver regularly advises in conference, drafts particulars of claim and defences and attends mediation and hearings in respect of all types of Cohabitation disputes. Private Law Disputes Oliver regularly acts for parents as well as grandparents and guardians in respect of matters involving child arrangements and specific issue orders. Oliver has undertaken lengthy fact-finding hearings in respect of both domestic violence and sexual abuse. Oliver has experience of parental alienation cases and has been successful in obtaining orders for both suspended and immediate changes of living arrangements. Oliver also has considerable experience of both domestic and international relocation including cases where one party has sought to remove the children to Ireland, Denmark, South Africa and Columbia. Examples of recent cases: K v H [2017] Oliver was successful in arguing that the court should not vary a consent order on the basis of a change of circumstances. The issue in the case was the relationship between the ability to vary a Consent Order under rule 4.1(6) and the jurisdiction of the Court under a ‘Barder event’. L v L (2017) Oliver represented a Husband and was successful in arguing that the false allegations made by the Wife in Children Act proceedings amounted to conduct and had significantly impacted on the Husband’s earning capacity. Re: C and G (children) (2017) In a private law dispute Oliver obtained a change of living arrangements order on the grounds that there had been significant parental alienation. Re: K (a child) (2015) Oliver acted for a father in care proceedings concerning whether or not there had been non-accidental injuries and if so who the perpetrator of those injuries was. Although it was found that the father had caused the injuries it was found the injuries had been caused without any intention.
Omar Malik is a family practitioner and specialises in all aspects of public and private children law acting for parents, guardians, extended family members and intervenors. He has appeared at all levels of the Family Court, in the High Court, and in the Court of Appeal. Public Law Omar has great experience of dealing with Care cases, primarily for parents but has also represented various Local Authorities and represented the Child Guardian. His cases have ranged from the neglect type case to those involving non-accidental injuries and physical/sexual abuse of children. Private Law Omar also undertakes private law children cases involving the whole range of such applications that can be brought before the court. Hague Convention Omar also has a real interest in Hague Convention cases and the development of this fascinating area of family law. Family Children - Public law Omar represents clients at all stages of care proceedings. He regularly acts for parents, guardians, extended family members and intervenors. Omar has great experience in dealing with cases involving neglect and sexual abuse but has a particular interest in NAI cases and has appeared in cases involving brain and skull injury, rib fractures, limb fractures, and extensive bruising. Omar is experienced in representing parties in care cases involving: Non accidental injury / death of a child Expert / medico-legal issues Chronic neglect, drug and alcohol addiction (including cases in the FDAC / PSCM) Domestic violence and sexual abuse Serious mental health problems Adoption / Special Guardianship / Wardship Parents or children with special needs / cognitive impairment and capacity issues Revocation of placement orders / discharge of care orders Reported cases: A Local Authority v G (Parent with Learning Disability) [2017] EWFC B94 (18 December 2017) Acted for the father in care proceedings involving chronic neglect of children and where the mother was learning disabled and partially deaf. SGO and 12-month supervision order made in respect of the eldest child, and care and placement orders in respect of the other 2 children. Re LC ( A Child) ( Habitual Residence ) sub nom Poole Borough Council v (1) EC (2) MC (3) LC ( By his Childrens Guardian ) [2016] EWFC 31 Acted for the Guardian in proceedings as to whether the child was habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland or England for the purposes as to which country’s court had jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over the child. Recent cases: Led in a Fact Find Hearing before the High Court where we acted for the mother of a dead baby that had suffered multiple fractures. Pool finding made re the rib fractures with the Local Authority no longer seeking findings as to who caused the death. Acted for a 17-year-old intervenor in a Fact Find Hearing where he was in the pool of perpetrators who may have caused severe bruising to a young girl. He was successfully removed from the pool at the end of the hearing. Acted for a Father in a Fact Find Hearing involving a skull fracture to a baby. Findings made against another father. Acted for a father in a Fact Find hearing where the mother made a late attempt to blame him for the extensive bruising to the child. Court declined to do so and made a pool finding. Acted for grandparents at a final hearing where the Local Authority and Guardian recommended the child should be placed for adoption. The court made an order placing the child with his grandparents. Acted for a father in a long running case where a number of children had made various serious allegations against both parents of sexual abuse to them including rape and forcing the children to abuse each other. Children - Private law Omar Malik represents clients at all stages of private law children disputes. He regularly represents parents and rule 16.4 guardians in disputes about the living arrangements for children, disputes about contact arrangements, and disputes about the exercise of parental responsibility. Omar has acted in cases in cases involving: Entrenched / intractable disputes Parental alienation Split hearings / finding of fact hearings Domestic violence and abuse including serious sexual abuse / offending Mental health problems and substance abuse issues impacting on child arrangements Removal from the jurisdiction Wardship Abduction and international issues.`
Paul Newman originally studied modern and medieval languages (French and Spanish) at Clare College, Cambridge. He then completed the Diploma in Law at City University, London and ‘Bar Finals’ at the Inns of Court School of Law, being called to the Bar of England & Wales in 1982. He was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2022, becoming a BL of the Honorable Society of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland. He is an accredited construction industry adjudicator (RIBA), an ADR Group accredited mediator, a CMC registered mediator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He was previously highly commended in the prestigious Hudson Prize for construction law for his paper on construction industry insolvency. In March 2017 he was appointed to the All-Wales Legal Services Panel (Chancery & Civil Law, Other) Paul is a panel member of UK Adjudicators which offers adjudicator services to UK construction industry clients. Paul specialises principally in construction law, including professional negligence claims against construction professionals, disputes concerning party walls and non-contentious construction work. He undertakes some boundary disputes/rights of way, personal injury and credit hire litigation. His practice as a mediator is focused on construction, general contractual and property disputes. Paul undertakes public access work. He is an arbitrator under the Chartered Institute of Arbitrator’s BAS (Business Arbitration Scheme) and a TecBar approved adjudicator, mediator and arbitrator. Paul is also a door tenant at Pendragon Chambers, Swansea. Paul has again been rated by his peers as one of "The Best Lawyers in the UK", whose 10th edition was published in June 2021. Construction and Engineering Apart from private practice at the Bar, Paul spent a number of years as an employed barrister in solicitors’ practice. He has worked for two major regional firms, where he featured in both Legal 500 and Chambers UK as a leading construction lawyer, and for a major firm of construction claims’ consultants. He was highly commended in the prestigious Hudson prizes for construction law for his paper on construction industry insolvency. Paul advises across a broad range of construction disputes. His workload includes delay and disruption claims, building defect claims (including ones under The Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Building Regulations), party wall disputes, claims against construction professionals and property misrepresentation claims. He has a particular interest in construction bonds and guarantees and is the author of a book on the subject. Drawing on his experience with solicitors’ firms, Paul is happy to accept Instructions to undertake non-contentious drafting, prepare contract amendments, collateral warranties and appointment documents. Paul appears in Court and arbitration hearings and also represents clients in adjudication (including enforcement proceedings) and mediation. He acts as an adjudicator, arbitrator and mediator. He is an RIBA accredited adjudicator (1998), a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (1999) and an ADR Group accredited mediator (2001). Paul is a TecBar listed adjudicator, mediator and arbitrator and an arbitrator under the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ Business Arbitration Scheme (BAS). Public Access In appropriate cases Paul, who has been a licensed public access practitioner since 2007, will represent members of the public without the intervention of a solicitor. Recent experience: A proposed professional negligence claim against an Approved Building Inspector Adjudication proceedings in the High Court concerning (a) the reservation of the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge and (b) the enforceability of the adjudication provision in JCT Minor Works Contract in the particular circumstances of the case Preparation of consultancy and sub-contract documentation in the rail industry A proposed professional negligence claim against an architect for negligent contract administration Advice on a number of construction industry Bonds Advice on a framework agreement for the factoring of construction contract debts A TCC case concerning an adjudicator’s right to recover his fees and expenses, following his resignation. Notable cases: Baldwin and another v. Pickstock Ltd [2017] EWHC 2456 (TCC) Frederick Dennis Baldwin & Another v JR Pickstock Ltd [2017] EWHC 2456 (TCC) Boardwell v K3D Partnership Property (2006) ADJ CS 04/21 David & Teresa Bothma (T/A DAB Builders) v Mayhaven Healthcare Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ. 527 Lovell Projects v Legg & Carver BLR 452 (2003) Melhuish & Saunders Ltd v Hurden & Hurden [2012] EWHC 3119 (TCC) Rankilor (1) / Perco Civil Engineering Ltd (2) v M Igoe Ltd (2006) ADJ LR 01/27 Wycombe Demolition Ltd v Topevent Ltd [2015] EWHC 2692 (TCC) McClellan v Pudsey [2016], Lawtel 21/9/2016. Property and Estates Having spent a number of years in solicitors’ practice as an employed barrister Paul Newman is happy to assist clients with both contentious and non-contentious property work, including landlord & tenant. Equally comfortable in the area of construction law he regularly undertakes work at the interface of the construction and property sectors, including nuisance actions and the preparation of collateral warranties, building licences / agreements and property related bonds and guarantees. He has a particular interest in the law and practice of the party wall legislation. Paul is authorised to accept instructions direct from members of the public in appropriate cases under the Bar’s public access scheme. His court work is predominantly in the County Court but as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators he is well suited to handle matters proceeding in arbitration. Paul is both a long-standing mediation advocate and an accredited mediator. As mediator he has recently had conduct of two disputes concerning rent charges, a boundary dispute, a TOLATA and a property misrepresentation claim. He is an experienced CPD trainer. For a number of years he presented an introductory CPD course entitled ‘Boundary Disputes’ at a number of venues in England and Wales for a commercial seminar provider. He has lectured to various professional bodies, including the Law Society and the RICS on topics as diverse as The Law of Parking and De minimis Trespass. Mediation Building on his principal practice areas of construction and property law, Paul became an ADR Group accredited mediator in 2001. He is also a TecBar listed mediator and is involved with both the Association of South West Mediators and the Association of Wales & Border Counties Mediators. Paul, who has also written extensively on mediation, including several published books, has been involved in a considerable number of mediations, acting either as mediator or as an advocate. Though his mediation practice is substantially based on construction and property disputes he has also mediated disputes in other sectors - general commercial (e.g. franchising, sale of goods and partnership), personal injury, probate, TOLATA and libel. Paul aims to balance the therapeutic benefit of allowing the parties to get things off their chests with firm but non-confrontational reality testing. As a lawyer with long litigation experience he knows the financial risk and emotional stress litigation brings to most clients. Interested in the psychological drivers underlying disputes Paul actively works to encourage parties to identify where their true interests may lie and to achieve a negotiated outcome. His recent mediation experience includes two cases relating to the non-payment of rent charges, two employment cases, a boundary dispute, a TOLATA claim and a property misrepresentation claim. Training and Writing Paul has lectured and conducted workshops on mediation in the UK, Belgium and Sweden. He is the author of numerous articles as well as being the author of or a contributor to several books on ADR. On request he provides tailored training. Appointment If you wish to discuss appointing Paul as a mediator please telephone our Bristol office to discuss fee rates or for a copy of Paul's standard mediation agreement and information to parties. Personal Injury Paul continues to be involved in a range of personal injury cases for both claimants and defendants. He advises on PSLA awards (including infant quantum) and has conduct of Trials, principally in the following areas: Road traffic accidents, including ones where LVI and fundamental dishonesty arise Slipping and tripping Product liability Employer’s liability Occupier’s liability. Paul also has extensive experience of credit hire claims for both claimants and defendants. He is instructed to prepare pleadings and CPR part 18 requests / replies as well as having conduct of Trials. Reported cases (Personal Injury) McClellan v Pudsey [2016], Lawtel 21/9/2016
Richard Tyson has regularly appeared in the leading directories in each of his principal areas of work; which are: All aspects of family work, including Inheritance Act, but in particular complex financial remedies work Professional discipline in healthcare Fitness to Practice Panels Personal Injury Professional Negligence with a clinical or matrimonial basis. He is a past contributor to Sweet & Maxwell's Encyclopedia of Financial Provision in Family Matters. PUBLIC AND REGULATORY Richard has extensive experience in healthcare regulatory work. He principally acts for the General Medical Council in its fitness to practice panels. He also defends in cases before the disciplinary panels of the General Dental Council, the Health Professions Council and the General Osteopathic Council. He has experience of Legal Assessing with the Nursing & Midwifery Council panels. In addition to his healthcare work Richard has acted for registered providers (such as care homes, care home managers and nurseries) in Care Standards Tribunal cases. In his GMC work Richard has acted in a number of high profile cases, including the prosecution of medical experts engaged in child protection cases, such as Professor Southall (in one case over his involvement in the Sally Clark murder case after watching a television programme, and in another over his behaviour towards certain parents and his keeping of “secret” files on a number of his child patients), and Dr Paterson (whose “specialism” was in temporary brittle bone disease). He has prosecuted doctors of many disciplines with wide ranging allegations of misconduct - from a consultant psychiatrist’s treatment of transsexuals to a consultant gynaecologist’s treatment of, and fraudulent behaviour towards, her fertility patients. Richard’s healthcare regulatory work is both advisory and in front of panels. This involves a thorough grasp of the law and practice in this developing area. Notable cases Dr David Southall v The General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1155 (Admin) in the Administrative Court Dr David Southall v The General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 409 in the Court of Appeal FAMILY Richard Tyson has long been recommended for his family work in the leading directories. Richard’s family work covers the full range of issues, with particular emphasis on complex financial remedy cases. With an understanding of accounts and a mastery of detail he represents clients where the source of wealth (sometimes hidden overseas) comes for self-made millionaires, household name PLC directors, premiership footballers or from farming individuals (a particular specialty). Richard enjoys working as a team with clients, as well as instructing solicitors and experts from a number of disciplines. In addition Richard does a considerable amount of private family law, including relocation, and acts for local authorities in public law matters. He has recently successfully completed a 19 day High Court fact finding hearing. Richard’s understanding of family matters is constantly being expanded when he sits as a Recorder with a private family law ticket. His long experience of family law is also increasingly being used in solicitor’s negligence actions in this field. Notable recent family cases: B Children. 2015. Family Division Acting for a local authority in a 19 day fact finding into step father’s rape of step daughter and mother’s invented account of how his body fluids were found on the child's underwear. W v K 2012 – 2014 Long, intractable contact saga, where children defied orders and ran away. S v H 2012 – 2015 Long, running contact and Schedule One Children Act case, where mother often in person and created obstacles in both sets of proceedings. Notable reported family cases: M (children) [2010] EWCA Civ 69 [public family law] Sandford v Sandford [1986] 1 FLR 412 (Ct Appl) [ancillary relief] Seaton v Seaton [1986] 2 FLR 398 (Ct Appl) [ancillary relief] Publications Past contributor to Sweet & Maxwell’s Encyclopaedia of Financial Provision in Family Matters. CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE Acting principally for Claimants, Richard Tyson’s clinical negligence practice has long complemented his principal practice in healthcare regulation. His current cases: One against London’s leading children’s hospital where a child developed a stroke, leading to significant disability, in the course of an operation to correct the shape of her head. Negligence is alleged against the consultant paediatric neurosurgeon who conducted the operation using a novel approach. Another against a major London teaching hospital where, following a Serious Untoward Incident Investigation report, liability is not in issue, but the assessment of damages is a real challenge in light of the client’s other medical conditions and financial circumstances. The negligence is alleged against a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist and his team. In a third current case Richard is acting for a consultant radiologist who is accused by his Trust of over claiming for the interpretation of scans out of his contracted hours. Having in the recent past prosecuted a fraud case involving a consultant for the GMC at a Fitness to Practice Panel, Richard’s familiarity with NHS consultant’s Job Plans and the workings of the NHS Counter Fraud Service have proved of great value. Richard is also acting for a Defendant NHS Walk In Centre where failure to diagnose a condition is alleged against a community practice nurse. Richard’s expertise in handling cases, including brain damage cases, with a plethora of experts is a particular specialty – both within and without the Rehabilitation Code. Notable cases: Kenth v Heimdale Hotel Investments Ltd [2001] TLR 3 July 2001 CA - (on acceleration of pre-existing back condition) Staples v West Dorset District Council [1995] 93 LGR 536 CA - (on liability for an injured visitor to a public open space - the Cobb at Lyme Regis) Richard is a Recorder with a “civil ticket”, which involves trying multi-track personal injury actions. He has also lectured to solicitors and other professional bodies on personal injury and healthcare.
Richard is a Chancery, Commercial and Professional Risk barrister. Prior to transferring to the Bar, Richard was a Solicitor-Advocate and Head of the Commercial Dispute Resolution team at a large Bristol-based law firm. Richard specialised in commercial disputes and professional negligence claims. He is an experienced litigator, negotiator and advocate. Richard has particular expertise in: Commercial disputes Professional risk (including claims against solicitors, accountants and surveyors) Insurance disputes Misrepresentation claims Partnership disputes Property law. Richard always provides thorough, user-friendly and commercial advice. Commercial Richard has an extensive commercial practice that covers all types of business and commercial disputes, with a particular emphasis on contract, misrepresentation, partnership and director disputes. He regularly advises and represents businesses in both the County Court and High Court. From his time working as a Solicitor-Advocate, Richard has significant experience of alternative dispute resolution and, in particular, representing clients at mediations. Commercial Disputes Richard has experience of a wide range of commercial disputes, including claims relating to: Agency Consumer credit agreements Construction of contracts Debt recovery Economic torts Estoppel Guarantees and indemnities Misrepresentation and mistake Restitution Restrictive covenants and breaches of fiduciary duties Sale of goods and supply of services Trusts. Notable and Recent Cases High Court claim involving diversion of business opportunities and breach of fiduciary duties arising from a team move to a competing business Many cases involving breaches of post-termination restrictive covenants, misuse of confidential information, breaches of confidence claims and economic torts, giving rise to claims for injunctions (including springboard relief), delivery up and claims for accounts of profits Multi-day High Court trials in relation to complex commercial contract disputes A misrepresentation and breach of contract claim relating to a £100,000 Rolls Royce A multi million dollar Director’s bonus dispute Claims involving conveyancing transactions, specific performance and rectification A trial in relation to discharge of a contract by frustration Property misrepresentation claims involving representations made on property information forms and to enquiries by solicitors Breach of contract and debt claims arising from commercial contracts, including those relating to recruitment agencies involving substantial transfer fees Claims in relation to the design, manufacture and supply of commercial machinery and equipment Misrepresentation and breach of contract claims in relation to Share Purchase Agreements Disputes relating to exemption clauses and unfair contract terms Claims in relation to advertising agreements and commission Construction disputes in relation to insulation and cladding Commercial arbitrations. Professional Risk Richard has particular expertise in relation to professional negligence cases. He has extensive experience of dealing with claims against all professionals including; barristers, solicitors, accountants, brokers, insurers, architects, surveyors and other construction specialists. Lawyers Richard’s experience as a Solicitor-Advocate is invaluable to professional negligence claims against lawyers, having been instructed on claims relating to employment, commercial litigation, property disputes, family and personal injury claims. He has dealt with: Lost and/or mishandled litigation claims, including under-settlement claims, missed limitation and failure to advise about funding and costs Claims involving errors with leasehold transactions, including negligence relating to lease extensions Claims regarding the failure to advise about commercial and residential landlord and tenant matters Claims in relation to incorrect advice about undue influence and trusts Claims regarding incorrect advice and drafting in relation to overage agreements Claims by disappointed beneficiaries as a result of failures in drafting wills and claims arising from mishandled probate disputes, which often involve limitation issues Claims by and against buyers arising from conveyancing transactions concerning freehold and leasehold property, particularly concerning failure to advise on searches, rights of way and restrictive covenants Mishandled family divorce and financial proceedings Claims arising from mishandled business sales. Accountants Richard has handled a variety of claims, including: Claims involving the negligent preparation of management accounts and cashflow forecasts Acting for a company against accountants, in relation to incorrect VAT advice Acting for an individual against accountants, arising from incorrect tax advice and issues involving Entrepreneurs’ Relief. Surveyors, Valuers and Architects Richard has acted in: Claims by purchasers of residential and commercial properties against surveyors arising from pre-sale surveys Claims involving the negligent valuation of premiums required for the extension of leases and incorrect advice about the apportionment of premiums A claim against an expert witness arising from a planning dispute Claims against architects regarding incorrect design drawings and advice in relation to both domestic and commercial projects. Insurance Brokers and Insurers Richard has advised, and acted for and against, brokers and insurers in claims for failure to implement the correct insurance cover, and for a broker in a claim regarding the failure to advise on the financial status of an insurer. Property and Estates Richard has advised and represented clients on a wide range of property disputes, including boundary disputes and nuisance claims. Richard is regularly instructed to make and oppose applications for injunctions relating to property. Property Adverse possession Boundary and party wall disputes Breach of covenant disputes Conveyancing Easements Landlord and tenant disputes Mortgages Nuisance Trespass Trusts and proprietary estoppel. Notable and recent cases Acted in possession and Dilapidation claims Acted in boundary dispute trials Instructed in Multi-day High Court trials in relation to trespass and nuisance disputes, involving breaches of “Leakey” duties, which require evidence from many experts of different disciplines Acted in breach of covenant claims relating to unlawful subletting of properties through Airbnb Successfully obtained an order for an injunction and damages in a private nuisance by encroachment claim Successfully defended trespass claims Acted in nuisance claims relating to the escape of water and oil Acted in an interference with a right of way, breach of covenant and trespass dispute, which included a claim for aggravated damages and an injunction Advised in relation to claims involving proprietary estoppel Acted in claims in relation to the creation and construction of easements. Mediation Richard is regularly involved in mediations, acting either as a mediator or an advocate. Richard qualified as an ADR Group accredited Civil and Commercial mediator in 2018. Whilst most mediations that Richard conducts relate to his primary areas of practice of commercial, property and professional negligence litigation, he also mediates in relation to a wide range of other matters including construction and probate disputes. His recent experience includes mediations in relation to domestic building claims, boundary disputes, landlord and tenant disputes, a misrepresentation claim in relation to the sale of a business, a banking dispute, a professional negligence claim against solicitors, commercial disputes in relation to agricultural machinery and sale of goods disputes in relation to vehicles. As a result of conducting a large number of telephone mediations, Richard is happy to mediate remotely using video conferencing or other means. Richard has provided, and regularly attends, mediation training.
Robert Grey specialises in criminal law with an emphasis on very serious sex, drugs and fraud cases. He both prosecutes and defends. His defence practice in particular has taken him all over the country, where he has appeared in many high profile cases, some of which have gone on to become established Court of Appeal authorities. Robert is also a specialist in confiscation and proceeds of crime, and is a member of the Proceeds of Crime Group in Chambers. He lectures in criminal law for CPD purposes, and is chairman of the 3PB Bournemouth criminal law group. When not appearing in the criminal courts, Robert has a particular interest in contract/sale of goods/limitation actions. In respect of the latter, he conducted the case for the claimant at all levels in the seminal leading House of Lords authority of Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498.Robert Grey specialises in criminal law with an emphasis on very serious sex, drugs and fraud cases. He both prosecutes and defends. His defence practice in particular has taken him all over the country, where he has appeared in many high profile cases, some of which have gone on to become established Court of Appeal authorities. Crime Robert is also a specialist in confiscation and proceeds of crime, and is a member of the Proceeds of Crime Group in Chambers. He lectures in criminal law for CPD purposes, and is chairman of the 3PB Bournemouth criminal law group. When not appearing in the criminal courts, Robert has a particular interest in contract/sale of goods/limitation actions. In respect of the latter, he conducted the case for the claimant at all levels in the seminal leading House of Lords authority of Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498. Robert specialises in crime with an emphasis on very serious sex, drugs and fraud cases. He both prosecutes and defends. He is also a specialist in confiscation and proceeds of crime matters. He also undertakes working involving contract/sale of goods/limitation actions. Notable recent cases: R v Hill (2014), complex multi-handed cocaine trial; R v Dibbs (2014), complex murder case; R v Aljerrari (2014), perverting the course of justice and a case involving a bomb hoax; R v Cantor (2013), historic sexual abuse spanning several decades with different victims; R v Zacyck (2013), very complicated mortgage fraud case.
Predominantly a property practitioner, Robert Weatherley’s areas of work focus on land disputes, commercial property and residential landlord/tenant law. Recent work has included instructions to advise and represent in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the County Court and the High Court. Outside of Chambers, Robert has taught at the University of Warwick since 2011 and is the co-author (with William Webster, also of 3PB) of the textbook “Restrictions on the Use of Land” - a 700 page textbook focusing on the day to day problems faced by developers, land lawyers and other professionals involved in the development of land. The text includes a foreword from the former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger: "A book which analyses this complex law in an authoritative, up-to-date, practical and clear way is to be warmly welcomed. William Webster and Robert Weatherley deserve warm thanks for having produced such a timely book". Property and Estates Residential Property Robert accepts instruction on behalf of both landlords and tenants and is able to assist in all matters that relate to residential leases. Recent work has included disputes relating to: the payment of service charges; enfranchisement and lease extensions; forfeiture actions; rent repayment orders and possession (eviction) claims. Recent work Instructions to advise and represent 42 tenants of a residential block of flats in a dispute concerning the payment of £3.2m in service charges for the replacement of defective cladding Instructions to advise and represent a groups of tenants in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in a dispute about the reasonableness of service charges Instructions to advise and represent a landlord seeking to appeal a decision of the Local Authority to revoke his HMO Licence (First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Instructions to advise and represent the Respondent in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in resisting a Rent Repayment Order Fast and multi-track possession claims, including those involving technical defences under the Equality Act 2010 and claims of disability discrimination Instructions to advise in relation to implied easements in the context of a poorly drafted sub-lease, where the landowner (the Crown, the land being escheat) was refusing to become involved in the management of the block of flats Instructions to advise a landlord in respect of various acts of encroachment by a tenant who was claiming adverse possession Instructions to advise and represent in Judicial Review proceedings, including those in relation to homelessness and local authorities’ duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 Advising the Housing Ombudsmen in relation to complaints made to them pursuant to the Housing Ombudsmen Scheme Reviews in the County Court pursuant to S.204 of the Housing Act 1996 where the applicant is seeking to appeal the decision of the local authority. Land and Real Property Robert’s practice has developed a heavy bias towards land disputes. In 2016 he published (with William Webster) a textbook on the “Restrictions on the use of land” (Wildy, Simmonds and Hill). The book focuses on: public rights of way, easements, restrictive covenants, applications to list buildings as assets of community value and village greens applications. Robert has expertise in all of these areas as well as adverse possession, boundary disputes and planning enforcement. Recent cases 4 days in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) representing 7 applicants in their application for prescriptive easements 2 days in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) representing a developer in their objection to the registration of a prescriptive right of way over land with planning permission Instructions to advise and represent in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in relation to a claim for adverse possession of registered land under Pre-Land Registration Act 2002 rules 7 days at a non-statutory inquiry acting for the objector (as junior to William Webster) at a public inquiry relating to a large-scale development in Exeter (Village Green Application) Instructions to advise and represent in relation to the discharge of covenants which impede reasonable user, by way of s.84 application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) 4 days in the County Court in relation to a case revolving around boundary disputes, adverse possession and the flooding of agricultural land Advice in relation to the enforceability of restrictive covenants including those relating to building schemes Advice and representation in relation to interferences with easements Advice and representation in relation to disputes as to beneficial ownership of residential property in the absence of express trust declarations. Commercial property Robert advises on all matters relating to commercial leases from simple s.25 notices and forfeiture to dilapidation claims in the High Court. He is able to provide advice on the interpretation and enforcement of leasehold covenants and rent reviews. Robert’s land and residential landlord/tenant practice compliments his knowledge of commercial property. Recent work Instructions to advise and represent a commercial landlord in their action for forfeiture where a third party was seeking to prevent possession by way of a counterclaim for proprietary estoppel Multi-track dilapidation claims, including those involving technical defences on the basis of s.18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 Advice and representation in relation to applications to the Court for a grant of a new tenancy following service of a s.25 notice Service charge disputes. Agricultural Property Robert has experience of advising on: Farm Business Tenancies; Agricultural Holdings; and (in a residential/agricultural context) Assured Agricultural Occupancies. Recent cases: Advising and representing the tenant of a farm who was seeking to argue that he had a tenancy protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984. The landlord averred that such protection had been lost and that the facts gave rise to an implied surrender and re-grant of the tenancy post 1995, by operation of law. Instructions to advise and represent a landlord who sought to evict a former employee on the basis that he lacked security of tenure, not being an Assured Agricultural Occupant within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988.
Samantha brings a wealth of experience to the Bar having practised as a solicitor in family law for 19 years, including within a specialist family law firm in London, before returning to the South Coast of England in January 2011. Samantha specialises in all areas of family law including divorce proceedings, dissolution of civil partnerships, resolving disputes over children. She is particularly renowned for her considerable expertise in financial disputes after separation and divorce. Samantha has dealt with all aspects of family law over the years from initial client meetings to final hearings. This lends her family practice at the Bar a real advantage and understanding of the needs of the lay client and solicitor. Family Finance Sam's specific interest and expertise is in financial work. Her background forms her pragmatic approach and she brings a wealth of experience in areas of family finance, particularly in high conflict cases involving every range of assets from needs based to High Net Worth (HNW) individuals. Sam offers exceptional client care skills and guidance. Her cases regularly involve issues such as: TOLATA Foreign assets Trusts Complex company arrangements. Private Remote FDR Hearings Sam is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here. Private Law Children, Injunction and Domestic Abuse Sam has considerable experience dealing with matters involving issues such as: Specific Issue hearings Implacable Hostility Schedule 1
Sarah specialises in a wide range of family work and regularly appears in the High Court and Single Family Court before District Judges and Lay Judges. Sarah acts in private and public law proceedings concerning children as well as injunction proceedings. Family Public Law Children, including cases involving: Non-accidental injuries to children Factitious illness syndrome (Münchausen syndrome) Addictions (drug and alcohol) Mental illness Learning disabilities both parents and children Sexual abuse of parents and children Domestic violence Chronic neglect Adolescent children who are separately represented from the Guardian Special Guardianship Third party interveners Contact with a child in care Contact with a child under a placement order Official Solicitor. Private Law Children - All s8 Children Act matters including: Child Arrangement Orders Applications for a Prohibited Steps Order Applications for a Specific Issue Order Enforcement Applications Guardians Expert evidence Local Authority involvement The Local Authority acting as an intervener Allegations of domestic violence Allegations of child abuse Cases involving a foreign element (i.e. removal from the jurisdiction). Non-Molestation and Occupation Orders under Family Law Act 1996 Sarah is also qualified to accept work on a direct access basis. Sarah prides herself on her thorough preparation, excellent client-care, approachability and persuasive advocacy style. Recent cases: RE B (A Child) (Post-Adoption Contact) [2019] EWCA Civ 29 Acted in care proceedings where a parent admitted to causing injury to a child to gain attention from medical professionals. This case involved the extensive analysis of medical and psychological evidence. Acted in proceedings where at the time of final hearing the Mother was engaging with alcohol addiction services after a twenty year history of alcohol abuse. This case considered whether this engagement was significant enough to indicate that the Mother could care for her child in the long-term. Case involving a child who disclosed sexual abuse to a social worker as well as allegations that family members had been aware of these incidents. During the course of proceeding s it became apparent that Mother, Grandmother and other family members had themselves been victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by various family members. Acted in care proceedings where the 5 children ranged from 6-months to 16-years old. It became clear that Mother was capable of caring for some of the children but not others. Eldest two children were separately represented. Acted in a case where a grandmother was applying for a Special Guardianship Order where daughter had severe learning disabilities and could not cope alone. Acted for a mother in an application for contact with her children who were subject to care and placement orders made 18-months previously. Matters were also raised about Mother’s capacity to make this application. Acted in a final hearing for the Official Solicitor who was representing a mother with severe learning difficulties. This case involved several children, also with learning difficulties, and numerous expert assessments of mother’s ability to parent. Acted in a final hearing for a Mother who wished to relocate from the Bristol area to Devon for work. This was strongly opposed by the Father who claimed that this was purely to frustrate contact. This case involved significant evidence relating to the Mother’s need to relocate for work and the job applications she had made in the Bristol area and elsewhere. Appeared in the County Court as an applicant in proceedings where children were placed with extended family on advice from the Local Authority. Local Authority appeared as interveners in this case. Acted in enforcement application where a Mother had refused contact for 4-months without making an application to vary or suspend the contact order. Represented a Father in a contact application with significant Local Authority Involvement and several Section 7 reports on the issue. Represented a Mother in proceedings where the bench concluded that her allegations of domestic abuse amounted to significant concerns for the children’s safety and ordered a Section 37 report from the Local Authority. Acted in Family Law Act 1996 proceedings involving allegations that partner was drugging his girlfriend with cocaine until she became addicted. Represented the mother in her application for a non-molestation order where father’s capacity was in question. Articles: Following the high profile case of toddler Ethan Williams, 3, who disappeared with his mother, tipstaff orders have been in the national press. Sarah Jennings has written a helpful and practical guide to anyone seeing the assistance of the tipstaff (enforcement officer for all orders made in the High Court) http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed146613 Sarah Jennings, Esther Lieu and DJ Exton provide an overview of the Family Drug and Alcohol Courts from a practitioner’s and Judge’s perspective. http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed136182
Sarah Clarke is an experienced advocate, specialising in Employment and Commercial law. Typical areas in which she receives instructions include: Employment All forms of discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 TUPE Whistleblowing Unlawful deduction from wages Unfair dismissal Commercial Restraint of trade, including claims involving issues arising out confidentiality, non-solicit and non-compete clauses Bonus payments Breach of contract Misrepresentation Interim injunctions Employment and Discrimination Sarah is an employment law specialist. She appears for both claimants and respondents in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. She has experience of the following types of claims: Unfair and wrongful dismissal Sex discrimination Race discrimination Disability discrimination including failure to make reasonable adjustments claims, discrimination arising from disability and direct discrimination Sexual orientation discrimination Maternity discrimination 'Whistleblowing' claims Unlawful deduction from wages/ holiday pay claims Claims under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 Illegal contracts of employment TUPE Equal pay Recent cases: Chowdhury v Marsh Farm Future UKEAT/0205/DA. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e9d7c8086650c031715996a/Mr_N_A_Chowdhury_v_Marsh_Farm_Futures_UKEAT_0205_19_DA.pdf Tykocki v Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust UKEAT/0081/16/JOJ. Sarah successfully appealed a decision that a dismissal was fair. It was argued that the decision was perverse as the judge failed to take into account relevant factors Anderson and ots v First Wessex UKEAT /0132/17/RN. Sarah acts for the Respondent in this matter. She succeeded at first instance, and the matter is currently listed for a preliminary hearing in the EAT. Over 100 claims were brought for detriment on the grounds of trade union membership Elliott v Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust UKEATPA/0826/14/LA. Sarah appeared for the Appellant in relation to a claim for discrimination arising from disability Lynch v Stockley Academy UKEATPA/0097/17/BA. Sarah successfully represented the Respondent at first instance in a 10-day trial in a claim for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing. The matter is currently listed for a preliminary hearing in the EAT Fathers v Pets at Home Ltd UKEAT/0424/13/DM. An appeal under the Equality Act 2010, Sarah successfully argued that the tribunal had erred because they had not addressed the ‘deduced effects’ and ‘likelihood of recurrence’ provisions in determining whether or not the Claimant was disabled Acting for the Claimant in a claim against a well-known airline in respect of a claim that the overtime policy constitutes indirect sex discrimination and less favourable treatment on the ground of part-time worker status Sarah secured an extremely favourable settlement for the claimant (on day 1 of a 4-day trial) in a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against a premier league football club Sarah acted for the 2nd Respondent in the Remploy litigation. Claims were brought by over 1,000 employees arising out of the closure of several Remploy factories across the country as a result of a decision by the DWP to reduce funding Sarah successfully acted for the claimant in a 9-day trial against a major finance house in a claim for disability discrimination Successfully acted for the Respondent, an employment advice centre, in a 5-day unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation claim (involving applications to the EAT) Acted for the Claimant, a midwife, in a 4-day trial in a claim for unfair dismissal arising out of allegations of gross negligence in respect of two births Acted for the Respondent in a 4-day trial in a claim for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Claimant, a registered nurse in a care home for the elderly, was dismissed on the basis of gross negligence and putting residents at risk Acted for the Claimant in an application for a restricted reporting order in a claim against an Academy and the Principal regarding allegations of sexual harassment. Unusually it was the Respondent who sought the order, and this was successfully opposed by the Claimant. The matter was widely reported in the press. Sarah also has substantial experience in relation to interim injunction applications in the High Court to enforce restrictive covenants. For more information on this area please see her Business and Commercial Profile. Sarah has been appointed to the barrister panel of ELAAS (the Employment Lawyers Appeals Advice Scheme). ELAAS is a service offering pro bono employment law advice to appellant and respondents where there is a preliminary hearing in the EAT with no previous legal representation on record. She therefore has vast experience of rule 3(10) permission hearings. Commercial Sarah’s commercial practice includes advising, drafting and representing clients in a range of general contractual and commercial matters. She represents clients in the County Court and High Court. As well as conducting trials Sarah has extensive experience representing clients in the following matters: Applications for relief from sanction Interim injunctions Strike out applications Summary judgment applications Applications for pre-action disclosure Costs and case management hearings Whilst Sarah has a general commercial practice, she has specific experience in the following areas: Contractual disputes Misrepresentation Credit hire contracts and subrogated claims on behalf of insurers (acting for claimants and defendants) Restrictive covenants Sale of goods and consumer credit (with a niche practice in package holiday regulations) Bonus payments Sarah also has an extensive employment practice, giving her an invaluable insight and skill set when dealing with cases involving employer/employee disputes. In particular, Sarah has gained considerable experience in matters involving restraint of trade, and thus regularly advises on the enforceability of restrictive covenants and whether or not an interim injunction should be sought. Typical recent and on-going cases include: Advising an accountancy partnership in relation to breach of contract and interim injunction proceedings against a former partner for breach of a non-solicitation clause. Acting for a hairdressing salon in relation to breach of non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Advising a dental practice in relation to a breach of agreement claim regarding non-poaching of employees and repudiatory breach of contract. One of the issues was whether or not the covenants were too wide. Advising a company in a claim against a former director for breach of confidentiality, breach of fiduciary duties and losses flowing therefrom. Involved evaluation as to whether consideration was provided given that the covenants were entered into some time after employment commenced. Acting for the defendant former employee in a pre-action disclosure application, in which allegations of breaches of confidentiality, non-solicit and non-compete clauses were made. Involved allegations against the employee’s new company of procuring a breach of contract. Acting for a former employee of a high-end dating site in a matter involving alleged breach of confidentiality, raising issues of the public interest defence and whistleblowing. Acted for a community council in an interim injunction application involving allegations of breaches of the Equality Act. Acted for the claimant in a claim for sums due under a personal guarantee, involving issues of consideration, misrepresentation and non est factum. Acted for the defendant employee and his new employer in an interim injunction application in the High Court. Sarah has recently lectured on restrictive covenants and the various remedies available and is more than happy to provide a lecture on an appropriate topic.
Simon Tibbitts is an employment law specialist. He provides advice and representation to a diverse array of clients, from individual employees through to national companies such as Wincanton and HSBC and government organisations such as the MOD and NHS. He regularly appears in employment tribunals and courts nationwide as well as having appeared several times in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Simon was reappointed to the Attorney General’s Regional Panel B of Counsel in March 2023 and has been sitting as a Panel Member on Independent Police Misconduct Hearings since November 2015. Pursuant to a clear desire to utilise his experience and expertise in innovative ways, Simon undertakes mediations, accepts direct access instructions and has conducted internal whistleblowing investigations as well as disciplinary hearings. Simon regularly provides training and always seeks to use interactive methods, such as panel session debates, breakfast forums or group workshops. Employment and Discrimination Simon specialises solely in employment law and has practised in this field for nearly 10 years. He is a calm, clear and precise advocate whose questions are carefully constructed to get the best possible evidence from any witness. He can receive instructions on a direct access basis and in addition to the more classic functions of a barrister in providing advocacy and advisory services he has been involved with mediations, chaired internal investigations and disciplinary hearings and is able to provide advice on internal policies and procedures and the conduct of grievance and disciplinary hearings from the early stages of a potential claim so as to ensure that the risk of a claim being brought is minimised from the outset. Simon is a keen public speaker and is always looking for fresh and innovative ideas and ways in which to provide training to clients. He regularly provides training on all areas of employment law to in-house legal departments, HR professionals and law firms. If so desired a more specialist and bespoke training package can be provided which is tailored to the pertinent issues appropriate to each individual client and the sector within which they operate. His knowledge and experience spans the entire spectrum of employment law disputes but he has particular interest and experience within the following areas: All aspects of unfair dismissal including constructive unfair dismissal Redundancy Wrongful dismissal All other contractual claims (unlawful deduction of wages etc.) Holiday pay All areas of discrimination Protected disclosures (whistleblowing) Seminars in recent years have included: The Equality Act 2010 Schedules of loss where more complex issues are involved such as career long losses and ‘grossing up’ for tax purposes 2013 ET rules reform and introduction of fees Conducting disciplinary and grievance hearings Zero-Hours contracts Tips and tactics for recovering costs and tribunal fees Collective Redundancies ACAS Early Conciliation Age Discrimination – from birth to death Bonus Payments and Maternity Leave Recent EAT cases Luvualu & Ors v. Zenith Contractors Ltd UKEAT/0154/14/DM Holman v Devon County Council UKEAT/0127/15/BA Recent Work Instructed for a Respondent employer in a 4-week trial involving 5 claimants involving multiple strands of discrimination, whistleblowing and unfair dismissal claims [Favourable settlement achieved following 2 day Judicial Mediation] Acted for a large national Respondent employer in a 2-week trial involving numerous unspecified complaints by the claimant of disability and race discrimination, victimisation, harassment, whistleblowing and unfair dismissal. [All claims dismissed] Acted for the MOD in a complex 5 day disability discrimination claim. [All claims dismissed] Acted for a Claimant nurse in a 5-day hearing involving claims of disability discrimination, constructive unfair dismissal and victimisation. The Respondent’s main witness was critically ill and on a permanent oxygen supply which clearly necessitated careful cross-examination but we were successful in achieving an overall award in the region of £60,000.
Simon was called to the Bar in 1981. He lectured in commercial law in Nicosia, Cyprus from 1981 to 1984 and sat his Masters degree at University College London in shipping and Company law in 1985. From 1985 to 1992 he lectured at Bournemouth University in partnership, company and common law. At Bournemouth University he was Director of Studies of the Business Studies Degree and then the Business Law Degree. He lectured regularly on advocacy skills at the University of Greenwich and undertook extensive research into the law of maritime piracy at the University of Southampton from 1989 to 1992. He started in private practice at the Bar in London Chambers in 1987 initially in civil, company and commercial law but has specialised in family law since 1998. Family Simon is mentioned as having a strong ancillary relief practice in the Legal 500. In addition to his practice at the Bar in family law Simon also is a qualified family law mediator, registered with the Bar Council as such and will conduct mediations in chambers or at a location to suit clients. He also is a qualified family law arbitrator and a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and will act as Arbitrator in qualifying family proceedings. Money on Divorce or Separation Although Simon's practice spans most areas of family law, his principal area of work is money on divorce or ancillary relief as it was formerly known or financial order/remedy applications as it is now known. He is regularly instructed in large asset or otherwise complex and difficult cases. His academic background and experience of company and commercial work make him ideally suited for dealing with those unusually complex issues which involve businesses, farms, trusts, foreign interests/assets and insolvency. Private Remote FDR Hearings Simon is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here. Cohabitation and TOLATA Simon will also accept instructions in the areas of TLATA and cohabitation disputes. He has a great deal of experience of dealing with the many different applications that can be made surrounding these complex areas of law. His expertise in this field ranges from property disputes and undue influence claims, Schedule 1 children Act 1989 applications and occupation order applications through to the more intricate applications for financial relief after a foreign divorce and Inheritance Act claims. Reported cases Rowland v Blades [2021] EWHC 426 (Ch) - Claim for declaration of beneficial interests where TR1 incorrectly completed by the conveyancing solicitors. A v B [2017] EWFC B9 - Hess J3 February 2017 - Application to set aside financial remedy order long after perfection on change of circumstances. Waudby v Aldhouse (Financial Remedies: Delay in Application) [2016] EWFC B63 (31 May 2016) - Claim for financial remedies after long separation exceeding 20 years Thayalnayagam v Redlich [2010] - Financial relief after a foreign divorce Shaw v Finnimore and another [2009] All ER (D) 41 (Mar) [2009] EWHC 367 (Ch) - Undue influence, deceit and misrepresentation. Chancery Division: The claimant succeeded in his claim for the repayment of, inter alia, £643,000 where, on the evidence, it was clear that between the parties there was no contract under which he was obliged to pay the sum to the defendant. *R (on the application of Mitchell and another) v Horsham District Council [2003] All ER (D) 195 (Feb) - - Town and country planning – Enforcement notice – Non-compliance – Direct action – Applicability of Convention rights to decision to take direct action – Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 178 – European Convention on Human Rights, arts 6, 8. - Human rights – Fair trial – Civil right – Determination of civil right – Applicability of Convention right to decision to take direct action to enforce planning enforcement notice – Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 178 – European Convention on Human Rights, art 6. - Human rights – Right to private and family life – Gypsies – Caravans – Planning controls – Use of direct action to enforce enforcement notices – Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 178 – European Convention on Human Rights, art 8. Couzens v Couzens [2001] EWCA Civ 992 - Contempt of court – Committal – Breach of injunction – Suspended sentence – County court failing to serve suspended sentence order in required form – Judge activating suspended sentence when dealing with subsequent breaches of injunction – Whether judge in error – Whether sentence manifestly excessive Cousins v Cousins [ 2001] 2FLR 701 (CA) - Sentencing for breach of non-molestation injunction The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v Jones and another [1992] - Application for permission to appeal in mortgage possession action Cases of note R v B – dispute between unmarried couple regarding ownership of a substantial property where the conveyancing solicitors incorrectly completed the TR1 – widely reported in the national press. A -v- A – financial remedy case involving valuable property in UK held offshore, disputed assets overseas in the millions and overseas property in the names of the parties’ children. N -v- N – financial remedy case involving numerous EIS investments and complex arguments as to post-separation accrual. D -v- D – financial remedies case involving disputes regarding a family company buying back the wife’s shares and whether minority discounts should be applied to share values. B -v- B – property dispute between 2 brothers and their mother over the timing for disposal of a property in the UK co-owned by the 3 parties and occupied by 2 of them the other being overseas.
Steven Howard is a family practitioner and specialises in all aspects of public and private children law acting for parents, local authorities, guardians, extended family members, intervenors, and the Official Solicitor. He has appeared at all levels of the Family Court, in the High Court, and in the Court of Appeal. Steven also represents parties in family injunctions. He is known for thorough preparation, being a pragmatic and practical advocate, and for his client care skills when dealing with vulnerable, demanding, and difficult clients. In January 2022, Steven was appointed as a Recorder hearing family cases on the Western Circuit. Family Children - Public law Steven represents clients at all stages of care proceedings. He regularly acts for parents, local authorities, guardians, extended family members (such as grandparents), intervenors, and the Official Solicitor. Steven has a particular interest in NAI cases, and has appeared in cases involving brain and skull injury, rib fractures, limb fractures, and extensive bruising. Steven has also been led in cases involving child deaths A growing area in which Steven has experience is that of cross-jurisdictional care cases. He has advised in cases involving family members abroad, and cases where the children are foreign nationals living in this jurisdiction. Steven is experienced in representing parties in care cases involving: Jurisdictional issues Non accidental injury / death of a child Expert / medico-legal issues Chronic neglect, drug and alcohol addiction (including cases in the FDAC / PSCM) Domestic violence and sexual abuse / offending Serious mental health problems Adoption / Special Guardianship / Wardship Parents or children with special needs / cognitive impairment and capacity issues Revocation of placement orders / discharge of care orders Reported cases: Re S (A Child) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) (Note) [2015] 1 WLR 925, sub nom Re S (Parenting Assessment) [2014] 2 FLR 575 Acted for the guardian before the President of the Family Division in a matter which set out the circumstances in which the 26 week time limit in care proceedings may be extended. Recent cases: Re J (children) (reopening findings of fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 465 Led by Claire Wills-Goldingham KC acted for a respondent local authority in an appeal concerning the correct legal test to apply when re-opening findings in children’s proceedings. Appeal dismissed. Oxfordshire County Council v JN & Anor [2022] EWHC 2794 (Fam) As leading junior acted for a local authority in an application for a declaration of age with a novel methodology that did not rely on a Merton assessment but instead relied on MRI imaging. Declaration made and methodology accepted. Re H [2021] (unreported) Acted for a local authority in a case involving a child born of incest. The grandmother’s proposal to care for the child against the mother’s wishes was rejected, and a care and placement order was granted. Re DA [2021] (unreported) Led by Vanessa Meachin QC, acted for a father accused of having caused extensive bruising and multiple fractures to one of his children. The mother was found to have caused the injuries that the court found proved, and the child was rehabilitated to the father’s care. A programme of work was agreed by the court to see whether the mother could progress sufficiently to re-join the family in due course. Re B [2021] (unreported) Acted for a local authority in a case where the mother and her partner had been assessed in private law proceedings to have alienated the children against their father. The children were removed under interim care orders for further assessment of the family, and a plan for rehabilitation to the father’s care approved by the court. Re B [2021] (unreported) Acted for a local authority in a finding of fact hearing where it was found that the father who suffered from a number of mental health difficulties caused bruising to his child’s thighs and groin. Re H [2020] (unreported) Acted for a guardian in a case concerning neglect, domestic abuse, substance misuse, and physical injury to one of a sibling group. The mother and grandmother were found to have lied about an incident they said caused the ear injury. The court found the injury to be caused by the parents. At the final hearing, the placement order for 2 of the children was dismissed as a preliminary issue due to the local authority not having a valid ADM decision, and care orders were made for those children. Care and placement orders were granted for the younger children. Re L [2020] (unreported) Acted for a guardian at a fact finding hearing at which the father was found to have fractured the arm and caused bruising to the buttocks of his child. Findings were made about parental substance misuse, and the mother’s failure to protect the child. Re R [2020] (unreported) Acted for a father accused of breaking his child’s leg at a finding of fact hearing. The mother was found to have fractured the leg, and no findings were made against the father. Re H [2020] (unreported) Acted for a mother found to have caused her child to make untrue allegations of sexual abuse. The child was rehabilitated into the father’s care. Re S [2020] (unreported) Acted for a local authority in a case where the mother accepted she could not care for the children, and the father was alleged to have accessed a large amount of child pornography and sexually abused his children. The father suffered from serious mental health problems which impeded his ability to engage in the proceedings. Care orders were granted. Re B [2020] (unreported) Acted for a father with mental health difficulties alleged to have neglected and assaulted his child. After psychological assessment of the father and child, the father accepted he could not meet the child’s needs in the child’s timescales and a care order was granted. Re K [2020] (unreported) Acted for a mother with a learning disability, whose partner also had learning difficulties, with a large number of children. A variety of care orders and placement orders were granted. Re W [2020] (unreported) Acted for a local authority in a fact finding hearing in a case involving a mother and her boyfriend accused of creating and distributing illicit images of one of her children. Findings were made against the mother and her boyfriend. The children stayed in their father’s care. Dorset Council v M & Others [2019] EWFC B63 Acted for a father in a fact finding hearing where it was alleged he had fractured the skull of his 12 day old baby. No findings were made and the child returned to his care after the local authority application was dismissed. AB (Contested Adoption) [2019] EWFC B68 Acted for prospective adopters in a contested adoption which was opposed by the birth parents who had managed to make significant changes in their lives. The birth parents were successfully parenting another of their children as a result of those changes. The adoption orders were granted. Re W [2019] (unreported) Acted for children in a fact finding hearing where it was alleged by one of the children that an adult family member with profound learning difficulties had sexually abused them. The child and learning disabled adult gave oral evidence during the hearing. Re K [2019] (unreported) As leading junior acted for a mother at a fact finding hearing in which it was alleged she had sexually abused her young daughter causing anal scarring. The father was found to have caused the child’s injuries. Re D [2019] (unreported) Led by Vanessa Meachin QC, acted for a mother accused of having murdered one of her children who died of catastrophic head injuries. Her former boyfriend was found to have caused the death, and some of the children were rehabilitated to the mother’s care. Re T [2019] (unreported) Acted for a father in a fact finding hearing where it was found that he had shaken his baby. The child was rehabilitated to the joint care of the father and the mother. Re D [2019] (unreported) Acted in care proceedings for a mother who had been subject to domestic abuse and controlling behaviour from the father. The father was found to be dishonest, and to have manipulated the children against the mother. The children were reunited with the mother. As a result of the father’s significantly harmful behaviour his parental responsibility was removed. Re M [2018] (unreported) Acted for a prospective adopter accused of causing extensive bruising to one of the children placed with her for adoption. Findings were made against her husband, and the children were eventually adopted by the prospective adopter. A Local Authority v G (Parent with Learning Disability) [2017] EWFC B94 (18 December 2017) Acted for the local authority in care proceedings involving chronic neglect of children, a learning disabled, partially deaf mother, and her non-impaired husband. SGO and 12 month supervision order made in respect of eldest child, and care and placement orders in respect of the other 2 children. Bournemouth Borough Council v A Mother & Ors [2017] EWFC 18 Led by Paul Storey QC, acted for a father in a fact finding hearing where it was found he had murdered one of his children and caused physical harm to his other children. The surviving children were rehabilitated to the mother’s care. Children - Private law Steven Howard represents clients at all stages of private law children disputes. He regularly represents parents and rule 16.4 guardians in disputes about the living arrangements for children, disputes about contact arrangements, and disputes about the exercise of parental responsibility. Steven is experienced in representing parties in cases involving: Entrenched / intractable disputes Parental alienation Split hearings / finding of fact hearings Domestic violence and abuse including serious sexual abuse / offending Mental health problems and substance abuse issues impacting on child arrangements Removal from the jurisdiction Wardship Abduction and international issues Reported cases: Re L (Costs of Children Proceedings) [2014] EWCA Civ 1437, [2015] 1 FCR 477 Acted for the father on an appeal brought by the mother in respect of the trust funds and a costs order. The mother’s appeal was allowed. Recent cases: Re C [2021] (unreported) Acted for a mother in 2 linked cases where the father and his partner were alleged to have been seriously domestically violent to the mother, to have assaulted the children, and to have caused the mother and children psychological harm. The case involved issues of how a non-subject competent child should give evidence. Re K [2021] (unreported) Acted for a father opposing an appeal from a decision of the lay justices to move his children to live with him. Appeal allowed. Re N [2019] Acted for a father absolved of serious sexual and physical abuse in previous proceedings who had been rejected by one of his children. Re H [2019] Acted for a father against whom the mother made a series of allegations of sexual abuse during a series of proceedings. No findings were made against the father, and contact was ordered. Injunction Team A frequent feature of Steven’s cases is domestic violence, often associated with other issues such as substance abuse or mental health problems. Steven is experienced in advising in respect of non-molestation orders and occupation orders, and has appeared for applicants and respondents throughout these applications, from ex-parte application to final hearing. He has also appeared in applications to enforce those orders.
Thomas (Tom) Evans has developed a successful common law practice in crime and personal injury. His criminal practice encompasses regulatory, disciplinary and licensing matters (for further information on these, please refer to his ‘expertise’ tabs below). Tom is recognised as an eloquent, subtle and persuasive advocate: Mr Justice Goss, sitting in the Court of Appeal, described his submissions as “cogent and economical”. As a student, Tom demonstrated his potential by winning both the 2010 College of Law BVC Mooting Competition and the 2010 Inter-Varsity Mooting Competition. Prior to coming to the Bar, Tom worked in the Judge’s Chambers of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘UNICTR’) assisting with deliberations and the drafting of judgments. He also benefits from 18 months experience working as a full-time paralegal in two firms of London solicitors; gaining an understanding of the practicalities of case management and solicitors’ expectations of counsel. He is direct access qualified. Legal Publications ‘Will physical proximity suffice in the commission of violent disorder?’ Criminal Law and Justice Weekly Vol. 174 July 24 2010 ‘The Holy Grail’ Criminal Law and Justice Weekly (online edition). Crime Tom is a criminal barrister ranked as a leading individual in the legal directories: “calm, measured and conspicuously good for his year of call.” (Legal 500, 2021); “a forceful, hard-working, tactically astute advocate.” (Legal 500, 2022); “his eloquence in court captivates the jury” (Chambers UK, 2023). Tom is recognised as a skilled advocate and talented tactician representing clients charged with offences of the upmost seriousness and complexity. His practice encompasses the fields of general and regulatory crime. He also prosecutes for the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies. Prior to coming to the Bar, Tom worked as full-time paralegal in two firms of London solicitors where he ran his own caseload. He was the case manager in R v Thakrar [2012]; which resulted in the Defendant being acquitted of two counts of attempted murder, and one count of GBH, following his wounding of three prison officers at HMP Frankland. Tom also worked in the Judge’s Chambers of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘UNITCR’) based in Arusha, Tanzania. Recent Cases: Appeals R v Birol [2022] (defending): The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) concluded that the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment had been manifestly excessive and substituted a sentence of 3 years and 2 months' imprisonment for Tom's client who had entered a guilty plea to falsely imprisoning his daughter on the second day of his trial. R v Digby [2020] (defending): The Court of Appeal significantly reduced the compensation order that had been imposed on Tom’s client. The Court found fault with the Judge’s handling of proceedings but did not overturn the Defendant’s conviction. At the conclusion of Tom’s submissions, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith stated, “whatever the outcome, your client should know that he has been well-served in this appeal and at his trial." R v Thomson [2018] (defending): Tom successfully appealed Mr Thomson's 18-month sentence for possession of a Samurai sword in a public place. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed had been "manifestly excessive" and substituted a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. Mr Justice Goss described Tom’s submissions as "cogent and economical”. Fraud / Dishonesty Operation Uptown [2019]: Conspiracy to rob: Tom was led by Tim Bradbury in this successful prosecution of a conspiracy to rob a high-end jewellery store in Bournemouth. The Defendants received a total of 98 years’ imprisonment https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-50585149 - warning this link contains graphic footage of the violent armed robbery. Operation Barren: Cheating the public revenue [2018/2019] (prosecuting): The Defendants were alleged to have engaged in numerous ‘phoenix frauds’ over a period of some 10 years defrauding the public revenue of more than £3.2 million. Tom acted for the prosecution in a trial lasting 7 weeks (led by Tim Bradbury). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-47092844 Drugs R v Woods & Ors [2021-2023] (defending): 17 Defendants were convicted of involvement conspiracies to supply cocaine and cannabis (£500,000 of cannabis was seized in the investigation). Tom’s client had entered a plea on a basis at an early stage in proceedings. The Prosecution invited the Court to conclude that the starting point for his sentence was 8 years imprisonment, he received 18 months. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23279269.pair-jailed-part-southampton-drugs-empire/ Operation Keyhole [2021/2022] (defending): An Encrochat case where the intercepted evidence revealed a highly structured organised crime group dealing in substantial quantities of cocaine (in excess of 70kg during the period of the conspiracy). The messages also provided insight into ‘turf wars’ with rival gangs as well as the accumulation and use of firearms. Tom’s client acted as the driver for the OCG and was arrested while driving a van within which was a hidden compartment containing 3kg of cocaine. He received the lowest sentence of all the conspirators. https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23150896.gang-jailed-combined-75-years-supplying-49m-year/ Operation Map [2021] (prosecuting): Prosecution of an organised crime group. A surveillance operation lasting some 6 months identified members of the group being involved in supply of cocaine in wholesale quantities from London to Dorset. In a coordinated sting operation, the police intercepted a drug exchange in process with 1kg of cocaine being exchanged for £41,000. Tom was instructed as junior for the Crown (led by Robin Leach), 7 Defendants were charged and tried in split trials. https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19921351.police-caught-dorsets-first-albanian-organised-crime-group/ Operation Kodak [2019] (defending): Tom’s client was alleged to have been the courier of Class A drugs on at least 7 occasions between Liverpool and Bournemouth (led by Robin Leech). Out of 9 alleged co-conspirators, their client was the only one found to have been not guilty. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-51048996 Operation Daraga [2018] (defending): The Defendant was alleged to have been involved in a significant conspiracy supply class A drugs. An undercover operation had identified numerous suspects and recovered over a kilogram of heroin. Tom acted for the Defendant in a trial lasting 2 weeks (led by Nick Robinson). Operation Energy [2017] (prosecuting): An undercover operation in the Weymouth area targeting Class A drug supply networks. Tom acted for the Prosecution. Violence Operation Arches [2022-2023] (prosecuting): Tom was instructed as junior counsel for the Crown in this murder trial (led by James Newton-Price KC). The Defendant was alleged to have killed his drug dealer after she fought back when he tried to rob her in the early hours of the morning. The Defendant denied presence. But was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years’ imprisonment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-61763982 Operation Powerboat [2021] (defending, leading Thomas Acworth): This prosecution related to an alleged murder and attempted murder by a then 16 year-old drug dealer in June 2020. Tom’s client was said to have assisted the murderer by helping him to escape from Dorset and by hiding various items of clothing linked to the murder. He was unanimously acquitted by the jury. R v Rose [2020] (prosecuting): Tom successfully prosecuted this vicious aggravated burglary and s.18 GBH. The Defendant attended the victims’ home in the early hours of the morning armed with two empty bottles of wine. He kicked down the door, woke the occupants and caused GBH-level injuries to two of the occupants. R v Hoppe: kidnap, aggravated burglary, attempted robbery [2019] (prosecuting): Tom successfully prosecuted the Defendant who was found to have engaged in a spree of offending including kidnap, two aggravated burglaries and an attempted robbery. In total, the Defendant was convicted by a jury at the Crown Court in Bournemouth of 13 offences including historical allegations of violence. HHJ Climie determined that the Defendant was a ‘dangerous’ offender and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment with an extended licence period of 5 years. BBC Report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-50045229 R -v- O’S: s.18 GBH [2018] (defending): The Defendant engaged in a sustained attack on his 14-year-old son during which he used a skateboard and a baseball bat. His son suffered a fracture to his kneecap as a result of being hit with the baseball bat. At an early hearing the Defendant entered a guilty plea to an offence contrary to s.20 OAPA 1861 but maintained that he did not intend to cause his son grievous bodily harm. Following a 4-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous not guilty verdict to the indictment. R -v- D: s.18 Wounding [2018] (defending): The Defendant and his wife were involved in a neighbour dispute. One evening there was an argument over their playing the bongos at an excessive volume. The Defendant and his wife their neighbour’s property armed with a kitchen knife (his wife armed with a golf-umbrella). The Defendant stabbed his neighbour in his abdomen whilst allegedly shouting “I’m going to fucking kill you”; his wife repeatedly struck the neighbour to the head with the umbrella. Following a 6-day trial the jury returned unanimous not guilty verdicts to the indictment. Both the Defendant and his wife were found guilty of the alternative offence under s.20 OAPA 1861. At an earlier hearing the Defendant had offered to plead guilty to such an offence and following mitigation he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment. Sexual Offences R v A [2022] (defending): This was a retrial in respect of two alleged incidents of rape during a relationship. The Defendant had already been tried when represented by alternative Counsel and had been convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour, but the jury had been unable to reach verdicts on the sexual allegations. The Defendant was acquitted of both rape allegations. R v C [2022] (defending): Tom was instructed to represent a convicted paedophile following further allegations of sexual impropriety while acting as a scout leader. The Defendant was acquitted of this more recent historical allegation. R v G [2022] (defending): Historical allegations of sexual abuse by the Defendant against his then neighbour. The Defendant was acquitted. R v R [2020] (defending): An allegation of sexual touching of a child under 13, the Defendant was said to have entered the bedroom of his partner’s daughter and touched her inappropriately. The Defendant was unanimously acquitted after trial. R v R [2019/20] (defending): A historical allegation of sexual touching of the Defendant’s step-granddaughter. Following a contested trial, the jury were unable to return verdicts. At the Complainant’s request the Crown did not pursue a retrial and no evidence was offered against Tom’s client. R v B: Buggery [2018] (defending): A historical allegation of anal rape on two separate occasions made against the Defendant by his step-brother. Following the Defendant’s conviction, the Judge found that in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ of the case the Defendant should receive a suspended sentence of imprisonment. R v C: Sexual activity with a child [2016] (defending): The Defendant was alleged to have touched his step-sister indecently on a number of separate occasions. Following a 7-day trial the Defendant was unanimously acquitted. Sexual Offences A Crown Court advocate, Tom represents Defendants in cases of serious sexual offences. He will appear in the Magistrates’ Court on a direct access or private basis. Acting alone he has conducted cases of sexual assault (including historical accusations). Tom is ranked as a leading individual in the Legal 500: described as “calm, measured and conspicuously good for his year of call.” He is recognised as a skilled advocate and talented tactician representing clients charged with offences of the upmost seriousness and complexity. His practice encompasses the fields of general and regulatory crime. He also prosecutes for the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies. Cases of note are:- R v R [2020] An allegation of sexual touching of a child under 13, the Defendant was said to have entered the bedroom of his partner’s daughter and touched her inappropriately. The Defendant was unanimously acquitted after trial. R v R [2019/20] A historical allegation of sexual touching of the Defendant’s step-granddaughter. Following a contested trial, the jury were unable to return verdicts. At the Complainant’s request the Crown did not pursue a retrial and no evidence was offered against Tom’s client. R v B: Buggery [2018] A historical allegation of anal rape on two separate occasions made against the Defendant by his step-brother. Following the Defendant’s conviction, the Judge found that in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ of the case the Defendant should receive a suspended sentence of imprisonment. R v C: Sexual activity with a child [2016] The Defendant was alleged to have touched his step-sister indecently on a number of separate occasions. Following a 7-day trial the Defendant was unanimously acquitted. R v L [2014] Indecent Assault: Client acquitted unanimously of historical allegation. R v T [2014] Sexual Assault: charges dropped by the prosecution following a review of the evidence on the morning of trial. R v J [2014] Sexual activity with a child: Client faced accusations in relation to two separate girls. He entered guilty pleas on a basis to five out of six counts and was dealt with as a dangerous offender owing to his previous conviction for the same offence. Motoring Offences Tom has significant experience of cases concerning the following driving offences: Causing serious injury by dangerous driving Dangerous driving Careless driving Drink driving (including failing to provide a specimen) Speeding Driving without insurance Failing to stop (report an accident) Using a mobile phone whilst driving Failing to provide information Many of Tom's clients have avoided disqualification as a result of him successfully arguing special reasons or exceptional hardship. Recent cases V -v- R [2020] - Tom successfully represented his client in her appeal against a 6-month disqualification from driving and a requirement that she complete a re-test before having her licence removed. She had entered a guilty plea to an offence of careless driving which had regrettably resulted in two pedestrians suffering serious personal injury. The Court allowed her appeal finding that an endorsement of her licence was the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances of the case. R -v- K [2020] - Tom's client was charged with speeding and alternatively failing to provide information of a driver's identity. Following a contested trial the Court found that he had not been the driver and that due to the chaotic nature of his life at the relevant time he had provided the information as soon as reasonably practicable. Re. Offences under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 [2020] - Tom represented the leasing arm of a well-known vehicle manufacturer in respect of numerous offences of failing to tax and insure vehicles. Although each case amounted to a separate prosecution, the Court were persuaded to take into consideration the Totality Sentencing Guidelines when assessing the appropriate financial penalty. Personal Injury During pupillage at 3PB, Tom received comprehensive training in clinical negligence and personal injury under the guidance of Hamish Dunlop. He now enjoys an ever-growing practice in both PI and clinical negligence. Tom has a particular strength in advocacy and is instructed in a range of court hearings including county court trials, civil application hearings and case management. He acts for claimants and defendants across the spectrum of personal injury litigation. Tom has a particular specialism in claims involving allegations of fraud. In the criminal jurisdiction he has had conduct of complex cases including the prosecution of a multi-handed allegation of cheating the public revenue where it was alleged the defendants had committed a £3.2 million fraud over 10 years. Tom is able to apply the rigorous scrutiny required in such cases to allegations of fraud within the civil jurisdiction. Tom is regularly instructed to advise on liability and quantum and to settle pleadings where necessary. Where appropriate, he will accept instructions under a CFA agreement. In addition to his own developing practice, Tom has worked closely with one of the largest ATE insurers in the UK, assessing the merits of a multitude of cases concerning areas such as clinical negligence, breach of confidence, asbestosis, occupiers’ liability and accidents at work. Recent cases: RTA and Credit Hire M v S and Others: multi-party dispute consisting of substantial credit hire claim. Claim in excess of £25k. W v H: Claimant suffered a fractured right leg which on balance would lead to post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Claim in excess of £25k. H v R: Physical and psychological injuries prevented the Claimant from continuing a promising swimming career. Claim in excess of £15k. Z v P: Chronic pain associated with accident related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Claim in excess of £50k. W v D: Claim involving allegation of LVI. Claimant found to have been dishonest but not fundamentally dishonest and therefore QOCS protection was retained. K v K & Another: Allegations of fraudulent inception of insurance policy. Case linked to multiple separate claims. Significant credit hire element. Employer’s Liability D v R A W Ltd: Claimant suffered significant injuries after falling through an obscured skylight. F v ACS: Claimant injured while installing solar panelling. B v A: Claimant sustained a compound fracture to his little finger when a 21kg pump fell onto his right hand. B v Capita PLC & Another: Claimant injured when slipping on black ice. Occupier’s Liability M v TPI: Claim against a public house which had left a trap door open resulting in a member of the public falling. F v TBC: Claimant suffered a fractured wrist after falling on an overly polished dance floor. Package Holidays K v L: Claimant suffered a significant back injury after slipping in a pool of water positioned at the top of a set of stairs while on holiday in Morocco. Animals Act E v K: Claimant injured after being kicked by the Defendant’s horse. Public and Regulatory Tom’s familiarity with both civil and criminal jurisdictions makes him uniquely placed to traverse the rigours of Regulatory Law. He regularly accepts instructions across the spectrum of regulatory and quasi-criminal matters: trading standards, licensing, fire regulation, environmental law, Health & Safety, planning enforcement and maritime. Tom has particular expertise dealing with breaches of tree preservation orders and works undertaken in conservation areas. He was a member of TSOL’s ‘Junior Junior’ panel and has extensive experience of the judicial review process. Tom is ranked as a leading individual in the legal directories: “calm, measured and conspicuously good for his year of call.” (Legal 500, 2021); “a forceful, hard-working, tactically astute advocate.” (Legal 500, 2022); “his eloquence in court captivates the jury” (Chambers UK, 2023). Recent cases BCP v A: Trading standards prosecution relating to the possession of counterfeit cigarettes valued in excess of £200,000. BCP v A, A & A: A prosecution concerning alleged breaches of an enforcement notice. Hampshire Constabulary v X : Representing a high-street gentleman’s club in their hearing before the licensing sub-committee following the suspension of their SEVL licence. By adopting a collaborative approach the venue was able to reopen shortly after the hearing. London Borough of Ealing v X Ltd: Tom was instructed to represent a successful tree surgery company for destroying a protected tree. The company had previously been represented by Tier 1 firm of solicitors who had advised them to plead to the charges and pay damages in excess of £30,000. The company came to Tom for a second opinion and thereafter instructed him on a direct access basis following his advice that the prosecution had made a significant error in their charging decision. After representations were made to the Prosecution, all charges were dropped against Tom’s client. Poole Borough Council v Wilson: Breach of a tree preservation order. This case is believed to be the first contested confiscation hearing in England and Wales where the issue was the extent of the Defendant’s ‘benefit’ resulting from the increase in light to his property occasioned by the Defendant’s wilful damage of a tree. Tom acted for the prosecution. The Case received national media attention including this in the Daily Telegraph and The Times. R v B: Trading Standards prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. R v L: Prosecution for failing to comply with a restriction imposed by a Prohibition Notice under Article 31 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Regulatory crime Tom’s familiarity with both civil and criminal jurisdictions makes him uniquely placed to traverse the rigours of Regulatory Law. He regularly accepts instructions across the spectrum of regulatory and quasi-criminal matters. His particular interests are in trading standards, fire regulation, environmental law, Health & Safety, planning enforcement and maritime. Tom was a member of TSOL’s ‘Junior Junior’ and has extensive experience of the judicial review process. Recent cases Poole Borough Council v Wilson Breach of a tree preservation order. This case is believed to be the first contested confiscation hearing in England and Wales where the issue was the extent of the Defendant’s ‘benefit’ resulting from the increase in light to his property occasioned by the Defendant’s wilful damage of a tree. Tom acted for the prosecution. The Case received national media attention, including in The Telegraph and in The Times. R v B Trading Standards prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. R v L Prosecution for failing to comply with a restriction imposed by a Prohibition Notice under Article 31 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Timothy (Tim) Bradbury defends and prosecutes in all areas of serious crime. Formerly Standing Counsel to HM Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office (Western Circuit), Tim now regularly prosecutes HMRC cases and other serious crime for the CPS and other government prosecuting agencies. He is a Category 4 prosecutor. In this capacity he regularly conducts confiscation proceedings and advises in relation to the same. He has extensive expertise in prosecuting and defending fraud including Cheating the Revenue, Evasion of VAT & Excise fraud, importation of drugs, arms trafficking and serious sexual and violent offences. He also regularly prosecutes and defends in the field of regulatory crime and the proceeds of crime. Tim undertakes regulatory and disciplinary law and is regularly instructed in fisheries, animal and firearms cases. Despite practising principally in crime he also accepts instructions in relation to civil claims against the police, in particular, actions for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Practising principally on the Western Circuit, he also travels nationwide. Tim sits as a Legally Qualified Chair for the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. Public and Regulatory Tim has experience in defending and prosecuting within a wide range of regulatory crime and is frequently instructed to prosecute on behalf of local authorities. By way of illustration he recently prosecuted a national solar thermal heating company in a widely publicised case concerning false claims made in respect to solar thermal heating systems. He has also successfully defended a company director alleged to have been involved in the supply of millions of pounds worth of counterfeit Microsoft software. His particular areas of experience are in: Trade Descriptions Trade Marks and Copyright Food Safety Animals; Animal Cruelty, Cattle Database Regulations and related legislation Medicines Act and related regulations. Timothy Bradbury is also regularly instructed to advise in relation to, and appear in, Police Disciplinary hearings. Notable Cases Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation v Carlin Boat Charter Limited [2012] EWHC 1359 Admin - Successful challenge, following Case Stated to Divisional Court, as to validity of fisheries bye-law made pursuant to Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1996 on grounds of ultra vires/ irrationality/ illegality Dorset County Council v David Yeates House [2010] EWCA Crim 2270 - Cattle Database and Cattle Identification Regulations 1998/ Proper construction of regulation enforcing EC obligations/ Effect of repeal of EC Regulation on domestic regulations. Asset and Tax Recovery Timothy Bradbury is instructed in cash forfeiture proceedings and to act on behalf of local authorities in relation to confiscation proceedings in the field of regulatory crime. He also regularly prosecutes and defends in the field of serious crime. In particular he is frequently instructed on behalf of HM Revenue & Customs in relation to drug importations, tax and duty evasion offences. In this capacity he regularly conducts and advises in relation to confiscation proceedings invariably multi-handed cases with very substantial benefit/assets. He has also been instructed to appear on behalf of the AFU. Crime Tim prosecutes and defends in all areas of serious crime. Formerly Standing Counsel to HM Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office (Western Circuit), he now regularly prosecutes HMRC cases for the CPS and other government prosecuting agencies. He is a Category 4 prosecutor. Tim also regularly conducts confiscation proceedings and advises in relation to the same. He has extensive expertise in fraud including cheating the Revenue, Evasion of VAT & Excise fraud, importation of drugs, arms trafficking and serious violent and sexual offences. He also regularly prosecutes and defends in the field of regulatory crime and the proceeds of crime. Although practising principally in crime he is also instructed in relation to civil claims against the police, in particular, actions for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution for both Claimants and Defendants. Tim undertakes regulatory and disciplinary law and is regularly instructed in fisheries, animal and firearms cases. Notable cases: Operation Barren (2019) - Successfully prosecuted 5 handed ‘phoenix’ fraud committed over some 10 years and defrauding HMRC of in excess of £3.2 million. Leading Tom Evans. Operation Uptown (2019) - Successfully prosecuted jewellery thieves following an armed raid at J Franses Jewellers in Bournemouth. Over £600,000 worth of jewellery and watches was stolen. At trial at Southampton Crown Court, three defendants were found guilty for their role in the conspiracy. Four others had already entered guilty pleas. Leading Tom Evans. R v Pacurar (2016)(19)SJ.37, CLW/16/19/3, [2016] EWCA Crim 569 - the Court of Appeal, definitively settled the issue as whether an offence under Section 63 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Trespass with Intent to Commit a Sexual Offence) required the prosecution to prove a specific sexual offence (See Archbold 2016 20-201 and e-update 24th May 2016)’ R v Hannam [2015] unreported CACD – Appeal conviction inconsistent verdicts historic sexual offences committed by former Justice of the Peace. R v Adesaogun & Others [2014] Southwark Crown Court leading junior in prosecution of Organised Crime Group (OCG) in relation to ‘cyber fraud’ which involved the largest ever attack, at that time, on HMRC computer VAT/income tax systems. R v Lawal & Others [2014] Chelmsford Crown Court leading junior in prosecution of OCG involved in vat and income tax ‘cyber fraud’ on HMRC internet computer systems. R v D [2014] EWCA Crim 1683 Abuse of Process/Bad Character successful prosecution appeal against terminatory ruling; It is not an abuse of process to allege indecent assault as alternative to rape where rape could not be charged with historic offences committed by defendant, when 10 to 14 years old, at time when irrebuttable presumption that a child under the age of 14 was incapable of performing intercourse applied; also, prosecution not precluded from adducing evidence of bad character relating to acts committed by defendant before he had reached age of criminal responsibility. R v Chiswell & Others [2013] Bournemouth Crown Court defended mortgage broker who was lead defendant in multi-handed, multimillion pound mortgage fraud. Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation v Carlin Boat Charter Limited [2012] EWHC 1359 Admin. Successful challenge, following Case Stated to Divisional Court, as to validity of fisheries bye-law made pursuant to Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1996 on grounds of ultra vires/ irrationality/ illegality R v Michael Ranger [2012] Southwark Crown Court Successful prosecution of arms dealer brokering export of multi-million pound shipment of arms including ground to air missile systems from North Korea to Azerbaijan, contrary to Export Control Order 2008. R v Dhillon [2011] EWCA Crim 1455 Historic and familial sexual abuse of children over 25 year period misdirection/mis-transcription of video evidence/ safety of conviction. R v B [2010] Prosecuting contravention of UN Embargo on trade in goods to Iran contrary to sanctions imposed to combat the Iranian nuclear proliferation program and the production of WMD, contrary to the Export Control (Iran) Order 2007. Dorset County Council v David Yeates House [2010] EWCA Crim 2270 Cattle Database and Cattle Identification Regulations 1998/ Proper construction of regulation enforcing EC obligations/ Effect of repeal of EC Regulation on domestic regulations. R v Martin Donald Gumbrell [2009] EWCA Crim 550 Bad Character/ Propensity/ Single incident not subject of conviction/ Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception/ Confiscation. R v Roger George Doncaster [2008] EWCA Crim. 5, Crim. LR [2008] 709 Bad Character/Cheating the Revenue/Admissibility of Evidence Obtained in Tax Enquiry in Criminal Proceedings/Applicability PACE Codes of Practice to Local Tax Inspectors/ Section 76 and 78 PACE R v SR and W [2006] All ER (D) 214, [2006] EWCA Crim 1404 Expert Evidence/Admissibility/Childhood Amnesia/ Historic Sexual Abuse Allegations R v Beardall & Lord [2006] EWCA Crim 577 Abuse of Process/Fresh Evidence/ Disclosure/Diversion Fraud.
Tom Horder is a Criminal and Regulatory law barrister. Ranked by Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 as a leading junior, Tom is known for both his attention to detail and down to earth approach. Often instructed in complex and difficult cases, Tom works with a wide range of defence solicitors, local authorities, government agencies (including the HSE and Maritime and Coastguard Agency), companies and private individuals. Tom’s criminal practice has seen him instructed in multi-handed murder trials, high value frauds, complex drug importations and cases involving modern slavery, trafficking and allegations of serious and historic sexual abuse. Tom is a Grade 4 CPS prosecutor. Tom’s regulatory law practice includes inquests, cases involving fatal accidents (on both land and at sea) and prosecutions for environmental, health and safety, trading standards, food hygiene, planning and aviation law offences. Tom sits as a fee paid (part-time) judge of both the Employment and Mental Health Tribunals. Outside court Tom supports Wimbledon AFC and flies aeroplanes. Crime Tom’s criminal practice sees him instructed in an array of both heavy weight and complex criminal cases. He is particularly noted for his experience in prosecuting and defending regulatory offences. Often praised for his hard-work and attention to detail he is recommended in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners Guides. Outside of court Tom supports Wimbledon AFC and flies aeroplanes. Serious and Organised Crime Operation Cowling Instructed by the CPS Complex Casework Unit. Prosecution of an Organised Criminal Group following the seizure of 42 kilos of pure cocaine and nearly 1 million ecstasy tablets valued at approximately £12 million. Operations Gharial and Saffron. Southwark Crown Court Instructed by the Specialist Fraud division in linked cases prosecuting an international group responsible for the largest attack on HMRC’s online VAT and ITSA systems. Operation Afterburn II Multi-handed large scale drug conspiracy involving an Organised Criminal Group operating in Manchester and Portsmouth. Operation Accord Conspiracy to kidnap and supply of Class A drugs. Nationwide drugs supply network selling heroin and cocaine via ‘deal lines’. R v N and others Successful defence of gang member alleged to have kidnapped, imprisoned, robbed and tortured a university student. Case received widespread media coverage. Other serious Crime R v CA Defending a CCTV operative who unlawfully accessed the footage of an autopsy featuring a footballer who tragically died in a well-publicised plane crash. R v KB Leading defence counsel for care home manger in respect of allegations of dishonesty and neglect arising from the death of an elderly dementia patient. The patient tragically died as a result of pressure sores that had not received proper care or treatment. R v K Defending mother who poisoned son to intentionally prolong stay in hospital. Case involved arguments as to extent of mitigation available where diagnosis is “factitious disorder”. R v C Successful defence of a carer for vulnerable adults accused of a campaign of abuse and humiliation against a number of residents. R v AL Led by Nigel Lickley QC. Non-accidental brain injuries sustained by a 6 month old child. R v Spry Defence junior in infamous case of extreme cruelty by mother against children over many years. Homicide (Murder and Manslaughter) R v Shane Mays Defence junior (to Andrew Langdon QC) in a trial arising from the disappearance and murder of 15-year-old Louise Smith in Leigh Park, Portsmouth. A prosecution appeal against the 25 year minimum term on the grounds it was “unduly lenient” failed. R v RT Defence junior for 17-year-old who strangled and then stabbed to death his mother. R v Vicky Arthur Defence junior (to Nigel Lickley QC) in case involving a disabled Defendant who stabbed to death another woman . R v Bosha and Others Prosecution junior (to Nigel Lickley QC) in multi-handed murder trial. A drugs gang organised a pre-arranged ambush in retaliation for a previous robbery. R v Boyle Defendant who randomly attacked a student in broad daylight, cutting their throat. R v Hemming Attempted murder involving a hammer attack against a vulnerable sex worker. Fraud, Business and Financial Crime R v KR Leading defence counsel for director of a pre-school and nursery alleged to have defrauded the local authority in respect of 15 and 30 hour free child care payments. R v F+ F Successful defence of the Director of a private ambulance company, alleged to have defrauded the NHS and stolen high value medical equipment. The case involved arguments about the legality of searches, the integrity of NHS stock keeping records and allegations of evidence having been deliberately planted. R v Powis Successful defence of conveyancing executive alleged to have been at centre of £3.5m mortgage fraud. R v Gibson Instructed by Specialist Fraud division. Widely publicised prosecution of watch dealer who had claimed to have exported £1.9m of Rolex watches. R v Arif Successful appeal against immediate custodial sentence in case of pharmacist convicted of defrauding NHS. Court of Appeal found ‘wholly exceptional circumstances’ to substitute a lengthy custodial term for suspended sentence. Sexual Offences R v Badawi Rape. Successful appeal against a sentence of 8 years plus 5 years extended licence in respect of one count of rape. The Court of Appeal agreed with Tom’s submission that the sentencing judge should have disregarded a previous acquittal for rape, reducing the sentence to one of 6 ½ years. R v KW Defence of man accused of a stranger rape in a busy shopping centre. R v F Defending the 16-year-old son of a “high net worth” individual alleged to have sexually abused a younger cousin. Case successfully stayed as an abuse of process on the grounds of delay and breach of prosecution policy. R v MS Successful defence (following trial then re-trial) of a music teacher facing allegations of sexual touching spanning his whole career made by 12 separate complainants. Motoring Offences Tom Horder has considerable experience in defending the full range of driving and motoring offences. He is regularly instructed in cases involving serious injury and complex expert evidence (including tachographs, accident reconstruction, mechanical and medical defect) as well as those in which a period of disqualification would result in exceptional hardship. He receives instructions from both private individuals and insurers and can be instructed on a direct access basis. Recent cases R v Davison Defence of recovery truck driver whose vehicle mounted a curb, hitting a family on an outing to a pantomime. Victims included a 12 year old girl who sustained life changing injuries. R v ZK Defending a lorry driver who tragically ran over an 89-year-old man who was crossing the road using his Zimmer frame. The Prosecution offered no evidence following Tom’s cross-examination of their tachograph expert. R v A Successful exceptional hardship argument on behalf of a consultant surgeon. R v R Defending a former premier league footballer in respect of a failure to respond to a s.172 notice. R v T Successful defence of Company director said to have ridden his motorbike at 121mph. The court withdrew the case at half-time on the basis of the Prosecution not being able to exclude mistaken identity. Military/ Courts martial Tom has a broad range of experience in Court Martial work and has represented personnel from all 3 branches of the military. Cases of note the successful defence of a serving Special Forces soldier charged with aggravated burglary in what was an unusual and sensitive case a senior Army NCO charged with allegations of racially aggravated assault a successful appeal on behalf of a young soldier facing custody as a result of alleged involvement in an initiation ceremony that made the front pages of a national newspaper defending a Guardsman charged with fraud in another case that made the front pages of national newspapers. Tom help to ensure that a custodial sentence was avoided. Tom is well versed in all aspects of service law. He learnt to fly via an RAF flying scholarship and then as an Officer Cadet on Northumbria University Air Squadron. He continues to fly and is well versed in all aspects of military aviation. He is also a pupil supervisor and has had a number of pupils who were serving Royal Naval officers. Regulatory Crime Maritime MCA v Tarmac Marine Ltd Instructed by the MCA in Prosecution arising from the discovery of asbestos containing material on board the City of Westminster. The Defendant Company were fined £120,000. Health and Safety (and Inquests) HSE v LHSC Ltd Defence of Health and Safety Consultant in an unusual prosecution arising from the drafting of inadequate risk assessments and advice to a furniture manufacturer. The Prosecution arose following two serious accidents involving cutting equipment. HSE v GC Defence of agricultural college in respect of serious injuries caused to students observing tree-felling. HSE v PG Ltd Prosecution involving serious chemical burns caused by the incorrect use of an Intermediate Bulk Carrier as a reaction vessel to dispose of spent cleaning chemicals. HSE v UF Ltd De-gloving injury caused during the cleaning of an industrial dough maker. HSE v BB Ltd Collapse of basement excavation leading to prosecution of developer. HSE v Apex Defending a scaffolding gang leader following a collapse of scaffolding resulting in fatality. HSE v G Defence of contractor instructed to decommission a petrol station. The resulting explosion caused serious injury and extensive damage to neighbouring properties. HSE v R.S Ltd Proceedings relating to the alleged unsafe removal of asbestos. Recent inquest work Re FB Acting for the owners of a care home following the fall from height of an elderly dementia patient. Re ML Representing Police Force following case involving heart failure following arrest using CS spray and subsequent restraint in Police custody. Re RS Acting for family of deceased who died following NHS failure to diagnose a pulmonary embolism. Food Safety and Standards R v BB Defence of director of food business prosecuted for Fraudulent Trading. Case involved allegations of the misselling of bacon as UK produced and free-range. R v RB Defence of the manager of an abattoir alleged to have been selling lamb as goat meat. SBC v K Defence of food wholesaler in respect of multiple allegations of food hygiene offences in respect of the storage and transportation of refrigerated products. Cherwell DC v Premier Foods Prosecution of UK’s largest food producer (turnover £3bn) in respect of food hygiene offences resulting in a mouse being found sliced within a loaf of bread sold by a leading supermarket. Trading Standards/Trade Marks DCC v WE Ltd Complex prosecution of building firm in respect of high value residential building contracts. Company prosecuted under Consumer Protection Regulations, Fraud Act and Insolvency Act. OCC v M Prosecution of rouge builder routinely targeting vulnerable and elderly victims and undertaking expensive but unnecessary roofing repairs. PBC v NH Prosecution for fraudulent trading of an individual who miss-sold advertising in a range of publications that never materialised. A1 Distribution Limited Successful prosecution of company supplying electronic goods under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The case involved consideration of the measures an importer of goods from China should take in order to establish a defence of ‘due diligence’. WDDC v S Novel but successful prosecution of owner of residential caravan park under s.9 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development At 1960. X Ltd Advising manufacturer of Moses baskets in respect of prosecution under both the General Product Safety and Toy (Safety) Regulations. DCC v W Defending individual who ran profitable business importing counterfeit handbags. Acted in subsequent confiscation proceedings. GB Ltd Acting for a well-known building firm facing civil proceedings (and subsequent committal application) under the Enterprise Act. SBC v Roshni Prosecuting wholesale supplier of counterfeit alcohol. DCC v K+S Counterfeiting designer clothes, confiscation and restraint dealt with in POCA proceedings. Direct Access/Aviation Tom welcomes instructions on a direct access basis. He particularly welcomes direct access instructions relating to aviation offences and Pilots facing the prospect of CAA prosecution. Tom has previously prosecuted, defended and advised in a range of aviation related matters including; an allegation of low flying by a CPL(H) holder during a filming assignment, airspace infringement in Class A airspace, licensing and type certificate infringements by a microlight pilot and an allegation of log book fraud against a senior airline pilot. Tom has a PPL having learnt to fly during an RAF Flying Scholarship and as a member of his University Air Squadron. He flies his Rollason Condor from Thruxton and has been lucky enough to fly a wide range of aircraft ranging from Bulldogs to an SF260. Public and Regulatory Tom’s regulatory law practice includes all matters of professional discipline, including proceedings against health care professionals, proceedings brought by sporting regulatory bodies and police disciplinary hearings. Tom also gained particular experience of fitness to practice hearings whilst on secondment to the Nursing and Midwifery Council as a case presenter. Maritime MCA v Tarmac Marine Ltd Instructed by the MCA in Prosecution arising from the discovery of asbestos containing material on board the City of Westminster. The Defendant Company were fined £120,000. Recent inquest work Re FB Acting for the owners of a care home following the fall from height of an elderly dementia patient Re ML Representing Police Force following case involving heart failure following arrest using CS spray and subsequent restraint in Police custody Re RS Acting for family of deceased who died following NHS failure to diagnose a pulmonary embolism Food Safety and Standards CBC v Greene King Ltd Prosecution of one of the UK’s largest pub chains in respect of a failure to provide up to date allergen information. As a result, a young child sustained a serious anaphylactic shock. R v BB Defence of director of food business prosecuted for Fraudulent Trading. Case involved allegations of the mis-selling of bacon as UK produced and free-range. R v RB Defence of the manager of an abattoir alleged to have been selling lamb as goat meat. SBC v K Defence of food wholesaler in respect of multiple allegations of food hygiene offences in respect of the storage and transportation of refrigerated products. Cherwell DC v Premier Foods Prosecution of UK’s largest food producer (turnover £3bn) in respect of food hygiene offences resulting in a mouse being found sliced within a loaf of bread sold by a leading supermarket. Direct Access/Aviation Tom welcomes instructions on a direct access basis . He particularly welcomes direct access instructions relating to aviation offences and Pilots facing the prospect of CAA prosecution. Tom has previously prosecuted, defended and advised in a range of aviation related matters including; an allegation of low flying by a CPL(H) holder during a filming assignment, airspace infringement in Class A airspace, licensing and type certificate infringements by a microlight pilot and an allegation of log book fraud against a senior airline pilot. Tom has a PPL having learnt to fly during an RAF Flying Scholarship and as a member of his University Air Squadron. He flies his Rollason Condor from Thruxton and has been lucky enough to fly a wide range of aircraft ranging from Bulldogs to an SF260. Regulatory - Other Licensing Tom has substantial experience in the field of taxi licencing, acting for both Local Authorities, Operators and individual drivers. Notable cases include: Cherwell DC v Anwar 2011] EWHC 2943 (Admin) Acting for the successful Local Authority on appeal in important decision on what are relevant and irrelevant considerations in respect of the fit and proper person test. Re PRC Acting for largest operator in Local Authority area in proceedings before Licensing Committee. The Local Authority failed in an attempt to revoke or suspend an Operator’s Licence following repeated allegations of drivers being unlicensed. SBC v X Appeal following revocation of license following safeguarding concerns in circumstances were Police investigation did not result in prosecution. Tom has additionally acted for both Local Authorities and Companies in respect of alcohol licensing and the licencing of both sex shops and pet shops. Health and Safety law Tom has significant experience representing clients in Health and Safety and Inquest cases. His work has included: WDDC v G Successful Health and Safety prosecution relating to an inflatable slide that came free from its tethers at the Swanage Regatta causing injury to a number of children. CBC v Centre Parcs (Woburn) Ltd Prosecution of Centre Parc involving an 8-year-old girl who fell from height during a tree climbing activity at Luton Crown Court. The case ended with the Defendant company being fined £250,000. SBC v N+B Defending a company with a multi-million-pound turnover in respect of alleged Health and Safety breaches involving lighting levels and the operation of fork-lift trucks. WDDC v And So To Bed Ltd Successful prosecution arising from a fall from height involving an unsafe elevated mobile working platform. Fine imposed of £110,000. HSE v LHSC Ltd Defence of Health and Safety Consultant in an unusual prosecution arising from the drafting of inadequate risk assessments and advice to a furniture manufacturer. The Prosecution arose following two serious accidents involving cutting equipment. HSE v GC Defence of agricultural college in respect of serious injuries caused to students observing tree-felling. HSE v PG Ltd Prosecution involving serious chemical burns caused by the incorrect use of an Intermediate Bulk Carrier as a reaction vessel to dispose of spent cleaning chemicals. HSE v UF Ltd De-gloving injury caused during the cleaning of an industrial dough maker. HSE v BB Ltd Collapse of basement excavation leading to prosecution of developer. HSE v Apex Defending a scaffolding gang leader following a collapse of scaffolding resulting in fatality. HSE v G Defence of contractor instructed to decommission a petrol station. The resulting explosion caused serious injury and extensive damage to neighbouring properties. HSE v R.S Ltd Proceedings relating to the alleged unsafe removal of asbestos. Tom is appointed to the Specialist Regulatory Advocates in H&S and Environmental Law List. Trading Standards Tom Horder's Trading Standards and Trade Marks cases have included: Operation Swordfish Successful defence of a former director of a timeshare company on charges of fraudulent trading and money laundering. DCC v WE Ltd Complex prosecution of building firm in respect of high value residential building contracts. Company prosecuted under Consumer Protection Regulations, Fraud Act and Insolvency Act. OCC v M Prosecution of rouge builder routinely targeting vulnerable and elderly victims and undertaking expensive but unnecessary roofing repairs. PBC v NH Prosecution for fraudulent trading of an individual who miss-sold advertising in a range of publications that never materialised. A1 Distribution Limited Successful prosecution of company supplying electronic goods under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The case involved consideration of the measures an importer of goods from China should take in order to establish a defence of ‘due diligence’. WDDC v S Novel but successful prosecution of owner of residential caravan park under s.9 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development At 1960. X Ltd Advising manufacturer of Moses baskets in respect of prosecution under both the General Product Safety and Toy (Safety) Regulations. DCC v W Defending individual who ran profitable business importing counterfeit handbags. Acted in subsequent confiscation proceedings. GB Ltd Acting for a well-known building firm facing civil proceedings (and subsequent committal application) under the Enterprise Act. SBC v Roshni Prosecuting wholesale supplier of counterfeit alcohol. DCC v K+S Counterfeiting designer clothes, confiscation and restraint dealt with in POCA proceedings. Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law Professional Discipline Tom’s regulatory law practice includes all matters of professional discipline, including proceedings against health care professionals, proceedings brought by Sporting Regulatory bodies and Police Disciplinary hearings. Tom also gained particular experience of fitness to practice hearings whilst on secondment to the Nursing and Midwifery Council as a case presenter. He has subsequently represented Registrants in a wide variety of cases. Example cases include Lee v World Snooker Poole and Billiard Association Junior counsel for former World no.4 snooker player in appeal against match fixing ban. Nursing and Midwifery Council v A Misuse of social media by nursing staff. Case attracted national media attention and comment. Nursing and Midwifery Council v X Failure to detect signs of non-accidental injury by health visitor. High profile case that also received nationwide media coverage. General Chiropractic Council v X Instructed by GCC in fitness to practice proceedings relating to inappropriate Chiropractor / patient relationship. Chief Constable of Dorset v L Instructed by the Chief Constable in respect of disciplinary proceedings against serving officer convicted of assault. DCC v V Representing county councilor in internal disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged misuse of Council computers. Inquests Tom Horder is regularly instructed in cases involving fatalities. He has represented the HSE, MCA, Local Authorities, families, private individuals and commercial organisations in inquests nationwide. His experience of defending and prosecuting high profile criminal prosecutions completements his inquest work. He is often called on to advise at the very earliest stage of cases where there is a prospect of a later prosecution. Tom has experience of Article 2 and jury inquests as well as those involving military personnel and national security concerns. He holds current SC clearance. Examples of recent inquests Tom has been involved in include: Representing a Chief Constable following the death of a vulnerable person who died following restraint and the use of CS gas. Article 2 jury inquest that focused on police techniques and guidelines, the adequacy of officer training and systems for monitoring and assessing the health of those detained. Advising Local Authority and Harbour Master in case involving a missing person search and drowning. The Inquest considered the division of responsibility for Harbour walls/infrastructure between the local authority, highways agency and private owners. Also in issue was the conduct of missing person searches. Tom successfully argued that there were no grounds for a Rule 43 report directed at the Local Authority. Acting for the family in a case involving a Hospital’s failure to diagnose a pulmonary embolism. The case involved conflicting expert evidence, and the consideration of NICE guidelines. There were also arguments as to causation as the deceased had originally attended hospital with serious injuries following an RTA. Advising the family of a patient detained under the MHA who, due to multiple failures by the detaining authority, went on to attack and kill a fellow patient whilst floridly psychotic within 2 hours of admission. Representing Care Home owner following the fall from height of an elderly dementia patient. Consideration of guidelines/regulations relating to window-locks. Representing a Nursing Home Manager in case involving a patient falling during transfer from bed to chair. Arguments as to scope/whether Article 2 was engaged as the patient subject to DOLS. Marine and Fisheries Law Tom Horder has substantial experience in a wide range of complex regulatory prosecutions including maritime and fisheries cases. Cases of note MCA v Tarmac Marine Ltd Prosecution of ship owners in respect of failures in respect of asbestos on board the City of Westminster resulting in £120,000 fine. Re X Representing at inquest a Harbour Master following an incident involving a tragic drowning. The case involved argument as to the extent and responsibility of differing agencies, detailed examination of harbour byelaws and the provision of safety equipment. Re X Sailing Club Instructed by a Local Authority to advise in respect of a high profile potential prosecution for health and safety offences and gross-negligence manslaughter following the collapse of a prop resulting in a yacht tragically crushing a maintenance worker to death. Tom has also acted and advised in regulatory prosecutions brought by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCA) and Local Authorities in cases involving: alleged breaches of harbour bylaws the retaining of undersized fish obstruction of officers breach of license conditions alleged inaccurate landing declarations money laundering mis-selling of shellfish. Tom also has particular expertise in confiscation proceedings and often lectures and provides training on the practical aspects of the Proceeds of Crime Act. His expertise as an advocate is recognised by his inclusion in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners Guide to the bar. He is available to provide short notice and urgent advice and is often asked to advise in the very early stages of cases.